low anaerobic power: trainable or not?

kevin69

Hi,

My best efforts (as estimated by trainerroad i.e. very approximately) are
5s: 7.2W/kg
60s: 5.1W/kg
5min: 4.4W/kg
FTP: 3.8W/kg

That is, i can't sprint.
Am i likely to be able to double my 5s power via training? i.e. do lots of short intense efforts?
Or should i just accept that i'm a steady state rider and train to my relative strengths of sustained efforts?

napoleond

It is almost impossible to do max power on the turbo. My best 5s on the turbo was ~1000w, on the road ~ 1300.

kevin69

@napd: ah, thats a bit reassuring.

i was looking at the sample numbers from this article:
http://home.trainingpeaks.com/articles/ ... iling.aspx
and seeing a ratio of roughly 4:1 for 5s:ftp, compared with my ratio of <2:1.
I'm probably reading too much into inaccurate numbers.

ric/rstsport

do you mean your neuromuscular (sprint) power or anaerobic work capacity? your sprint power is likely higher than 7.2 W/kg as is your 60-secs power.

Lots of people report low powers on the turbo

I have no idea if Trainer Road is anywhere near accurate (the power that was reported by my Tacx that i ran alongside my Power Tap or SRM was incredibly wrong, and especially more so at short efforts).

Most things are trainable

kevin69

Ric/RSTSport wrote:

do you mean your neuromuscular (sprint) power or anaerobic work capacity? your sprint power is likely higher than 7.2 W/kg as is your 60-secs power.

I *think* i mean neuromuscular power.
I mean that if i make a maximal effort, starting from a little below ftp, then i don't think that i increase my power
by very much (less than doubling) and that it doesn't happen very quickly (perhaps peaking after 10-15s rather than 5s).

If i understand correctly, AWC is more about how long i could keep going at twice ftp,
neurological power is about how much over ftp i could acheive.

Ric/RSTSport wrote:

Lots of people report low powers on the turbo

I have no idea if Trainer Road is anywhere near accurate (the power that was reported by my Tacx that i ran alongside my Power Tap or SRM was incredibly wrong, and especially more so at short efforts).

I doubt its accurate, but it feels fairly consistent on 5-15min efforts.
The comment about short efforts being less accurate is interesting in this context though, i hadn't considered that.

Ric/RSTSport wrote:

Most things are trainable

True, but surely some things are more easily trainable than others and should offer more results for the same efforts,
especially for the relatively untrained.

ric/rstsport

quick reply as i'm off out

neuromuscular power is essentially your 5-sec power or your sprint in a RR at the end. for some people it's very trainable, others moderately, and for others virtually not at all. just like anything else. you won't know if you don't try!!!

for me, personally speaking, it isn't very trainable - at my best i can manage 842 W at ~68 kg. i like to joke that dead people can sprint faster than me! however, i have won a 'bunch' sprint (2nd place overall) but that was up a 1 mile climb (i crossed the line in hysterics as no one could come past me). no matter how much sprint training i do it doesn't seem to get better. But i do feel more comfortable doing it, and sometimes can hold it for a longer period

ric

bahzob

NapoleonD wrote:

It is almost impossible to do max power on the turbo. My best 5s on the turbo was ~1000w, on the road ~ 1300.

NapoleonD wrote:

It is almost impossible to do max power on the turbo. My best 5s on the turbo was ~1000w, on the road ~ 1300.

I'd echo this. I am similar to OP and very much biased towards longer power.

I struggled to get over 800W on a turbo. Trying some sessions on the road added anther 170W.

I know I keep banging on about the importance of getting technique right if you want to put out your best power numbers but I think this is an example. When you are at the maximum then only small errors in terms of how and when you apply power to the pedals and how co-ordinated/balanced your overall riding may well have a disproportionate effect on performance. My best numbers have all come when I focus on getting things right not when I blindly just thrash the pedals and I'm pretty sure I could improve more, though its not a high priority.

I would be willing to bet that a video analysis of most folks doing an all out sprint would show up some things that could be changed for the better.

Given history I guess there will be some troll posts this is heresy.

So I will risk making them even more upset by pointing out this practice is standard elsewhere e.g. Michael Johnson talks about this in his book "Gold Rush" where amongst other things he says "Athletes always have to deal with the balance between technique and athleticism. In many sports trying harder using strength and power alone may actually cause an athlete to perform worse." He then gives examples of details in his sprinting technique that had a significant impact for the better when changed.

Seems only sensible that if this holds true for something as natural as running and that someone who was already the best runner the world had ever seen can get better, this it will be as applicable or even more so to cycling and folk who are not exactly world beaters.

Tom Dean

Sprinting is very different to endurance efforts, I am open to the idea that technique plays an important part in sprint performance, I have not looked into it.

But, guess what bahzob, saying 'look for errors in your technique' provides NOTHING of any use.

Some of your advice may be good, some may be garbage. The trouble is, you cannot tell the difference. Partly because you cannot tell the difference between sports scientific research and watching the tour on itv, or reading crappy ghostwritten biographies.

Backing up your content-free advice here with reference to a runners autobiography makes you look like a fucking idiot.

jgsi

I'd only be interested if it was fairly certain than AC intervals or neuromusculars cascaded down into improvements at threshold or just overs.
But I daresay 50% will yea and 50% will be nay.

I'll hand back to your argument...

imposter2.0

bahzob wrote:

Given history I guess there will be some troll posts this is heresy.

good move - get the pre-emptive insults in before anyone actually asks you to back up your waffle with facts..

Alex_Simmons/RST

The physics of trainers dictates it's nearly impossible to generate peak power numbers on them.

Hence to attain a true indicator of your current power profile, you really need peak power from efforts out on the road or track.

Most trainers simply do not provide the type of resistance load required to enable one to apply the forces and pedal speeds one can do out on the road or track (can be one or a combination of things, such as insufficient inertial load, tyre slip, fixed nature of bike). You also need to be cognisant about the way in which such data was gathered, as not all power measurement devices are necessarily reliable for very short duration numbers.

As far as neuromuscular and anaerobic capacity goes, yes most definitely trainable, although the degree of train-ability varies. If sprints are a weak point, there are still plenty of ways to improve performance, even without generating a lot more power.

kevin69

Thanks for the comments so far, particularly on the reliability or otherwise of assessments based on turbo sprints.

@jgsi: i'd be interested in an answer to this question of ac efforts effecting threshold efforts too.

On technique vs. power, i definitely noticed an improvement in my trainer technique during the first month or so
of using it, but this seems a pretty quick adaption. Otherwise, i'm willing to believe that small deficiencies in technique may be unimportant at low levels of effort and then become very significant in maximal efforts.
However, without accurate power data or high speed video footage i'm not sure what i can about this.

bahzob

The above is a polar view of the pedal stroke of a top track sprinter, capable of producing a huge amount more of the power discussed here.

One reason he is capable of doing this is that he produces significant power for the entire duration of the stroke. Basic maths translates this into more power. This is not easy to do especially at the high levels of force and cadence he will be generating.

I'd suggest the OP looks nothing like this at max effort. One way to find out is for him to find a nearby Wattbike and see what it shows.

(Due to its pedigree the Wattbike is an exception to Alex's rule above and can be used for extreme power training as this link shows
http://wattbike.com/uk/blog/post/us_track_sprinter_jimmy_watkins_hits_2372w)

imposter2.0

An illegible spirograph pic is not evidence of anything - and yet again, no attempt has been made to explain the mechanics of how this is done. Some attempt at explaining the pic might be useful...

bahzob

Imposter wrote:

An illegible spirograph pic is not evidence of anything - and yet again, no attempt has been made to explain the mechanics of how this is done. Some attempt at explaining the pic might be useful...

Happy to do so again. Have done so before though.

The picture shows force through a single revolution of a pedal. Multiple revs are shown by the overlaid images.

Power is directly proportional to the surface area within each rev, the larger the total surface area the more power that will be generated.

One indicator of it being good is that the ratio of peak force:minimum force is low.

Compare the picture above with those below which will be far more typical of the riders posting here and I would guess the OP.





Both show a more irregular force pattern which in turn means lower total power.

Part of the reason for this is the naive advice, often posted here, that to get more power you simply have to "push harder".

This is, simply, rubbish. It equates maximum power with the peak force you can apply during a revolution rather than, as is correct, the total force.

This leads to high peak force:minimum force ratio.

Further achieving even this limited aim gets progressively more and more difficult as power and/or cadence increases.

This leads to all sorts of issues, just one being that you end up producing less power for a given effort.

As I have said many times before I find it very hard to understand why this is so difficult to understand. It is exactly the same as those who could not be convinced there was any benefit of using a powermeter rather than good old RPE.

imposter2.0

Sorry, but that's just an explanation of the theory, which we've had many times before. What I was after was an explanation of how, in practice, you can apply higher total force through a pedal revolution. In other words, the mechanics (like I said earlier) of how it is done.

Tom Dean

bahzob wrote:

(Due to its pedigree the Wattbike is an exception to Alex's rule above and can be used for extreme power training as this link shows
http://wattbike.com/uk/blog/post/us_track_sprinter_jimmy_watkins_hits_2372w)

You will have to explain that one...

The link certainly shows extreme power, not sure that it is training though.

Whatever, even if the 'peanut shape' is an important factor in sprinting, sprinting technique on a static trainer is quite different to sprinting on the road or track, regardless of the trainer's 'pedigree'.

bahzob

I'm getting tired of answering your questions. How about you answer some of mine
- do either of you actually own a power meter?
- if so do you actually understand how it works?
- what examples from your ride data do you have to show the excellence that you both clearly believe you possess?

imposter2.0

bahzob wrote:

I'm getting tired of answering your questions. How about you answer some of mine
- do either of you actually own a power meter?
- if so do you actually understand how it works?
- what examples from your ride data do you have to show the excellence that you both clearly believe you possess?

Funny how you always seem to get upset at the point at which someone actually asks you to provide evidence

For the record, I haven't claimed any 'excellence' (unlike you) - I'm simply asking you to explain the actual biomechanics through which I may be able to achieve a better pedal stroke. I've seen the graphs, now you need to explain the physical process. Or you could just get upset again and use that as a diversion to avoid answering..

bahzob

I have explained many times. Sorry but I can't be responsible for your lack of understanding.

imposter2.0

bahzob wrote:

I have explained many times. Sorry but I can't be responsible for your lack of understanding.

You haven't. You've just banged on about theory. If I had seen it, do you really think I would still be asking for it?

Tom Dean

bahzob wrote:

I'm getting tired of answering your questions. How about you answer some of mine
- do either of you actually own a power meter?
- if so do you actually understand how it works?
- what examples from your ride data do you have to show the excellence that you both clearly believe you possess?

I'll assume I'm the other one this is aimed at - like I said (FFS), I am not arguing with your basic point that technique is important in sprinting.

The fact you think my answers to your questions have any bearing on this discussion demonstrates, yet again, your faulty reasoning. To humour you; no, yes, I never claimed excellence.

If you are trying to claim authority, fine. Bear in mind I was just asking you to explain your point which (as you said) contradicted what a qualified coach said earlier in the thread. Does your excellence allow you to do this without explanation?

-apologies for clogging up the threads with this stuff. I, like I think the majority, come on here because I want to learn something. I see no reason to let unjustified arguments pass, especially when they are put forward with so little humility.

ric/rstsport

watt bike does NOT measure pedal forces. There is no evidence to support that a 'circular' (or whatever rubbish you want to call it) pedalling style is more advantageous.

kevin69

@bahzob: ok, lets say i want to pedal better.
i don't have access to a wattbike or power meter.
i have a bike; a garmin; and a turbo.

what are you proposing i actually do in order to generate more power via improved technique?

racingcondor

If I can drag this back to the OP's post for a minute I have a theory on why the peak power is so low (oh and Bahzob, I'm with the others, while a figure 8 suggests an untrained rider it doesn't follow that there are big benefits to be had from focussing on technique (leg speed, sure but that doesn't seem to be your argument). All it suggests is that you probably won't find many better than 4th Cat cyclists with an untrained pedalling pattern).

Assuming the OP is using the calculated power on TrainRoad I think this -

don't think that i increase my power by very much (less than doubling) and that it doesn't happen very quickly (perhaps peaking after 10-15s rather than 5s).

is telling. Looks to me like the TrainRoad estimated power is smoothing his actual output using a formula which is too slow to adjust. Without an actual power meter this is probably usefully removing the outlier numbers etc but it's resulting in his peak power being removed as an outlier.

Combine that with the difficulties producing power on a turbo and we have a reasonable explanation.

kevin69

racingcondor wrote:

Assuming the OP is using the calculated power on TrainRoad I think this -

don't think that i increase my power by very much (less than doubling) and that it doesn't happen very quickly (perhaps peaking after 10-15s rather than 5s).

is telling. Looks to me like the TrainRoad estimated power is smoothing his actual output using a formula which is too slow to adjust. Without an actual power meter this is probably usefully removing the outlier numbers etc but it's resulting in his peak power being removed as an outlier.

Combine that with the difficulties producing power on a turbo and we have a reasonable explanation.

I am using the calculated power.
Your suggestion sounds very reasonsonable to me.
Thanks.