How good can a clean rider be?

[karlboss]

Take your guesses what sort of power to weight ratio the top clean rider has?
Or if everyone is doping what would their power to weight be if they didn't?
For 30 minutes max effort.

 

[Mongol_Waaijer]

I think anything sustained (FTP) over 6w/kg is suspicious, especially if it is occuring hours into mountain stages in the middle and later periods of stage races.

I rode as an elite amateur (clean) and anything over 4.5 w/kg was absolute murder to hold.

There are plenty of good clean riders whose 5 minute interval wattage outputs are the same (or less) than the amounts guys like Lance and Contador generate.

 

[TRDean]

I think anything sustained (FTP) over 6w/kg is suspicious, especially if it is occuring hours into mountain stages in the middle and later periods of stage races.

I rode as an elite amateur (clean) and anything over 4.5 w/kg was absolute murder to hold.

There are plenty of good clean riders whose 5 minute interval wattage outputs are the same (or less) than the amounts guys like Lance and Contador generate.

I agree that 6w/kg is high, but you may be low balling a little. I work with some young riders...some who have not hit puberty, and a few that have. There is a little 12 year old who can maintain just over 4 w/kg for 30 minutes and some 14 year olds who are over 5. These are kids who have not even come close to hitting their stride yet. I would suspect that for me 6.5 would be closer to making me question results. I suspect that there will be others who totally shoot me down, but that is just my thinking.

 

[issoisso]

There is a little 12 year old who can maintain just over 4 w/kg for 30 minutes and some 14 year olds who are over 5.

They're obviously doped. I'd have their popsicles lab tested for traces of EPO if I were you.

 

[TRDean]

They're obviously doped. I'd have their popsicles lab tested for traces of EPO if I were you.

If you are serious you are a sick puke...I know for a fact they are not. I think some of you guys are a little short in the croch!!

 

[issoisso]

If you are serious you are a sick puke...I know for a fact they are not. I think some of you guys are a little short in the croch!!

And here I was thinking that was far too ridiculous for anyone in the world to possibly take seriously
Thanks, you just gave me my biggest laugh so far this week.

 

[TRDean]

And here I was thinking that was far too ridiculous for anyone in the world to possibly take seriously
Thanks, you just gave me my biggest laugh so far this week.

Ok I took it seriously...sorry...but these are young kids I know and it struck a nerve. I'm glad I gave you a good laugh.

 

[Escarabajo]

I have asked that question several times in other threads. The key part is to focus on efforts close or above the 30 minute mark. Here is what I have found on this forum.

I have heard the guys from the "Science of the Sport", Ross Tucker and Jonathan Dugas, talk about the 5.8 W/kg mark. Here is their take from their website:

What is physiologically possible?

If this kind of analysis is to be useful, then every single aspect must be factored into the calculation - the wind speed throughout the climb, the mass of rider and bike, the length and gradient of the climb. Then one might be able to make a strong case for the position that what we are seeing is impossible physiologically.

There are people (experts in the sport) who believe that the upper limit of performance should lie around 5.6 to 5.8 W/kg on a longer climb. This is well below what is being calculated for the current Tour, particularly the Verbier. However, if the wind speed is not controlled, then the calculated power output may well fall below that "ceiling". The point is, we just don't know what the wind is doing and so the margins are currently too large. Therefore, you cannot use isolated performances, lacking control over variables, to infer doping.

Andrew Coggan gave me a link of a chart for all out efforts over different periods of time. It even describes the different types of modalities behavior when going from one effort to the other. The absolute max that I can read from this table is 6.4 W/kg for prolonged efforts (well above 30 minutes). Here is the link:

http://home.trainingpeaks.com/articles/cycling/power-profiling.aspx

The only problem I have with these tables is that some numbers could have been extrapolated. I haven't had the time to ask Andrew Coggan about that. The second question is who were the riders that were tested in order to build these tables? What was their condition when they were tested. In other words, you will hope that when you assemble this type of information the riders would be completely clean and well fitted. Now, if some of the values were extrapolated then there is no way of knowing if an athlete can get to the top of the charts clean. Maybe if he is reading this he can help us understand better these tables.

Finally, JV pitched in some numbers for Bradley Wiggins well above 6 W/kg for around 20 minutes. The problem with his version is that we can not look at these numbers objectively anyway. Here is his version:

Ok, so answer the 20 min effort vs 40+ minute effort question, I only have limited information from elite athletes, so this isn't a University study....

That said: CVV can produce about 5.9 watts per kg in peak form for 40+ minute climbs, Wiggo is a bit more at 6.1 w/kg for this length of effort.
From the pre-Tour tests both riders have done up Rocacorba (a 33 minute climb) I know that Wiggo was at 6.1w/kg and CVV was 5.7 w/kg (He was off form a bit in June). However, Wiggo did a local 10 mile TT in GB about 2 weeks before the Tour, or 5 days before the Rocacorba test. He posted a time of 18mins flat (and was disqualified for using a 1080 wheel...funny rules over there). Anyhow, his power was 482 watts, so using his Tour weight of 72 kgs, so 6.7 w/kg. So, anecdotally, there's about a 9% decrease in power when going from a 20 min effort to a 40+ min effort. At 6.7 w/kg you certainly can climb at a VAM of 1750, but at 6.1 you wont even hit 1700 (again, anecdotal based on experience).
The last TT in the Tour Wiggo averaged 434 watts, consistent with his previous tests of 40+ minutes and just about 6.1 w/kg. I don’t have any data for Wiggo up climbs in the Tour, as he didnt use a PowerTap.

JV

The only reliable information I can go by are the numbers pre-nineties versus after it. The only reason I say this is because of the big advantages that have been seen from the sophisticated doping programs after the nineties. There have been power numbers showing values well above 6 W/kg after the nineties but no matter how much people plea their case that the riders were clean, you just can never know.

Here is an example of a rider over 6 W/kg after the nineties:

(BTW, the guy who put out the 6.42 W/kg for 1 h was Chris Boardman, who had a VO2max of 90 mL/min/kg.)

Some forists have stated that riders like Eddy Merckx, Greg Lemond, and Bernard Hinault have barely touched the marks of 400 Watts which would put them below the 6 Watts/kg mark (I believe). I have only done the calculations for Herrera in Alpe d'Huez 1984 winner time (370-380 watts) and for Greg Lemond in the 1989 time trial (420 watts) and they were below the 6 W/kg mark. If before the nineties the power numbers show below these power numbers of 6 w/kg, then discussing whether they doped or not is a moot point. So let's no bother with that topic anyway.

Last but not least. Greg's opinion on the maximum power achievable by a clean rider:

http://www.bikeraceinfo.com/oralhistory/lemond.html

My wattage, relative to VO2 Max...a VO2 Max of 92 or 93 in a fully recovered way...I think I was capable of producing 450 to 460 watts. The truth is, even at the Tour de France, my Tour de France climb times up l'Alpe d'Huez yielded a wattage of around 380 and 390. That was the historic norm for Hinault and myself. You've got times going back many, many years. But what was learned recently, in the last 5 years, was that when you start the Tour de France, you start with a normal hematocrit of, say, 45 percent. By the time you finish, it's probably down 10 or 15 percent. Which means my VO2 Max dropped 10 or 15 percent. So that's why I was never producing the same wattage. And then there a lot of other factors that help performance if you've recovered. My last time trial in '89, I averaged about 420, 430 watts, which would match or be slightly down from what my real VO2 Max was.

Of course, in the '90s drugs came on the scene, so the wattages have gone out. There are some things that are just not explainable, people with VO2 Maxs in the low 80s producing 500 watts. A physiologist friend of my said that for a person to do that, 500 watts, he has to have to have nearly 100 milliliters of Oxygen. There are a lot of questions there for me

 

[TRDean]

I have asked that question several times in other threads. The key part is to focus on efforts close or above the 30 minute mark. Here is what I have found on this forum.

I have heard the guys from the "Science of the Sport" talk about the 5.8 W/kg mark. Here is their take from their website:




Andrew Coggan gave me a link of a chart for all out efforts over different periods of time. It even describes the different types of modalities behavior when going from one effort to the other. The absolute max that I can read from this table is 6.4 W/kg for prolonged efforts (well above 30 minutes). Here is the link:

http://home.trainingpeaks.com/articles/cycling/power-profiling.aspx

The only problem I have with these tables is that some numbers could have been extrapolated. I haven't had the time to ask Andrew Coggan about that. The second question is who were the riders that were tested in order to build these tables? What was their condition when they were tested. In other words, you will hope that when you assemble this type of information the riders would be completely clean and well fitted. Now, if some of the values were extrapolated then there is no way of knowing if an athlete can get to the top of the charts clean. Maybe if he is reading this he can help us understand better these tables.

Finally, JV pitched in some numbers for Bradley Wiggins well above 6 W/kg for around 20 minutes. The problem with his version is that we can not look at these numbers objectively anyway. Here is his version:



The only reliable information I can go by are the numbers pre-nineties versus after it. The only reason I say this is because of the big advantages that have been seen from the sophisticated doping programs after the nineties. There have been power numbers showing values well above 6 W/kg after the nineties but no matter how much people plea their case that the riders were clean, you just can never know.

Here is an example of a rider over 6 W/kg after the nineties:





Some forists have stated that riders like Eddy Merckx, Greg Lemond, and Bernard Hinault have barely touched the marks of 400 Watts which would put them below the 6 Watts/kg mark (I believe). I have only done the calculations for Herrera in Alpe d'Huez 1984 winner time (370-380 watts) and for Greg Lemond in the 1989 time trial (420 watts) and they were below the 6 W/kg mark. If before the nineties the power numbers show below these power numbers of 6 w/kg, then discussing whether they doped or not is a moot point. So let's no bother with that topic anyway.

Last but not least. Greg's opinion on the maximum power achievable by a clean rider:

http://www.bikeraceinfo.com/oralhistory/lemond.html

Great information...so I may be mistaken in thinking that when a person hits puberty their FTP must go way up through increased vascularization, etc. Good topic here!!

 

[Kerbdog]

They're obviously doped. I'd have their popsicles lab tested for traces of EPO if I were you.

Almost broke my hole laughing. More please.

 

[fatandfast]

High values in PTW ratio, VO2 max do not make you a good racer,period. The criteria are far greater than 4 or 5 values. That is why one or two qualities gained legally or not don't get you a win.

 

[elapid]

Escarabajo - Great post with excellent information. Thanks.

 

[BroDeal]

I agree that 6w/kg is high, but you may be low balling a little. I work with some young riders...some who have not hit puberty, and a few that have. There is a little 12 year old who can maintain just over 4 w/kg for 30 minutes and some 14 year olds who are over 5. These are kids who have not even come close to hitting their stride yet. I would suspect that for me 6.5 would be closer to making me question results. I suspect that there will be others who totally shoot me down, but that is just my thinking.

Does the fact that they are kids have anything to do with it? I am purely guessing here, but from observation it seems to me that kids in general have a lot better power to weight ratios than adults.

 

[RHitaliano]

Does the fact that they are kids have anything to do with it? I am purely guessing here, but from observation it seems to me that kids in general have a lot better power to weight ratios than adults.

Easy flock a bro bro , bros bro

Great DPF scientist will comment on your post.

In book called Lore of running there is page that shows graph similar to what you infer regarding the kids. Figure 2.8 on page 48 compares VO2 amongst certain athletes. Of note is Derek Clayton and Frank Shorter who have poor VO2 scores but run freaking fast.
http://books.google.com/books?id=wA...esult&ct=result&resnum=1#v=onepage&q=&f=false


I will watch old video of these events later and determine if book Lore of running is correct. My power calculations can not be beaten.

 

[Escarabajo]

I found this chart in the Science of the Sport. You can be the judge:

This is based on climb performances. Here is the complete link if you want to read some more:

http://www.sportsscientists.com/2009/07/tour-de-france-2009-power-estimates.html

 

[Cobber]

I found this chart in the Science of the Sport. You can be the judge:

This is based on climb performances. Here is the complete link if you want to read some more:

http://www.sportsscientists.com/2009/07/tour-de-france-2009-power-estimates.html

Yay! We got a mention!!

Great post by the way, Escarabajo. Reading it now....

Edit: What strikes me is that the 1999 tour is mentioned throughout the article as being low because of the increased scrutiny drug use following the Festina affair. But didn't someone retrospectively test positive for EPO in '99?! So basically... everyone since Indurain is guilty?

 

[Waterloo Sunrise]

Long time lurker, first time poster.

Just felt the need to jump in on this, because I'm convinced most pros are doping as much as the next guy, but some of the figures on this thread are comical.

My 18 year old brother has been training semi seriously (10 hours a week) for 2 and a half months and can already go at 5.3W/KG for half an hour with no signs yet of plateauing. Obviously I don't have any illusions of him going above 6.2 without me disowning him, but the idea that 5.8 is an undoped limit for pros with 10 years full time training in their legs is just laughable.

 

[Escarabajo]

Long time lurker, first time poster.

Just felt the need to jump in on this, because I'm convinced most pros are doping as much as the next guy, but some of the figures on this thread are comical.

My 18 year old brother has been training semi seriously (10 hours a week) for 2 and a half months and can already go at 5.3W/KG for half an hour with no signs yet of plateauing. Obviously I don't have any illusions of him going above 6.2 without me disowning him, but the idea that 5.8 is an undoped limit for pros with 10 years full time training in their legs is just laughable.

You make a good point. But remember when we think of a Grand Tour in the second or third week we have to factor in the fatigue of the body. Look at the blood values for Wiggins in the Giro. It goes down like a Cliff. So the 6 or 6.2 W/kg that Merckx, Lemond, and other riders can do at the beginning of the tour, become hard to do in the second and third week. Studies don't take that into account because you have to use the same riders from the Grand Tours to do it anyway. And you never know if they are clean to do the study. That's why the reference has been pre-nineties riders (regardless of whether they were doping or not).

 

[Anonymous]

Easy flock a bro bro , bros bro

Great DPF scientist will comment on your post.

In book called Lore of running there is page that shows graph similar to what you infer regarding the kids. Figure 2.8 on page 48 compares VO2 amongst certain athletes. Of note is Derek Clayton and Frank Shorter who have poor VO2 scores but run freaking fast.
http://books.google.com/books?id=wA...esult&ct=result&resnum=1#v=onepage&q=&f=false


I will watch old video of these events later and determine if book Lore of running is correct. My power calculations can not be beaten.

Dude, whatever shtick it is you got going here, nobody is biting. I suggest maybe just post legitimate opinion and leave it at that because what you got now has people scratching their heads.

 

[I Watch Cycling In July]

So the 6 or 6.2 W/kg that Merckx, Lemond, and other riders can do at the beginning of the tour, become hard to do in the second and third week.

+1. Actually what Lemond was saying about his power numbers seems to fit with what someone else posted about Merckx (6.3W/kg for 1hr in the lab, but < 6W/kg in tour climbs - can't find the post now though, sorry).

So, to think about climb power numbers it's important to factor in not only wind and climb length, but also how much riding has gone on in the previous days/weeks.

(As an aside, was it just me who noticed that 459W / 6.97W/kg = 71kg...so does another lab have flawed mass measurement techniques or are these data from the same source?)

 

[Escarabajo]

...

(As an aside, was it just me who noticed that 459W / 6.97W/kg = 71kg...so does another lab have flawed mass measurement techniques or are these data from the same source?)

I think you are right. that could be an error (If you are referring to the Lance Armstrong number in Alpe d'Huez). I have him for around 6.5 W/kg for that day for 461 watts. it follows the same trend though.

 

[Rupert]

Sport Science chart

I found this chart in the Science of the Sport. You can be the judge:

This is based on climb performances. Here is the complete link if you want to read some more:

http://www.sportsscientists.com/2009/07/tour-de-france-2009-power-estimates.html

It would be best to read the Sport Science text that goes with the chart before drawing conclusions. I believe the 2004 TDF data point is unique in that it is just one climb, and the others are combined data from several climbs during the particular tour. Combining several climbs tends to make the data more credible by averaging out unknowns such as wind for which there really isn't adequate data. The unknowns make it a bit difficult to reliably calculate the performance numbers, since the power numbers aren't measure directly in these cases. So the single data point for 2004, while eye-catching, may not be as conclusive as some of the other numbers. Hopefully I have all that pretty much right. I have been hoping to hear more from from the Science of Sport guys on all this, they've been working on other things and resting a bit. I appreciate their fact-based approach to these issues.

 

[ChrisE]

Easy flock a bro bro , bros bro

Great DPF scientist will comment on your post.

In book called Lore of running there is page that shows graph similar to what you infer regarding the kids. Figure 2.8 on page 48 compares VO2 amongst certain athletes. Of note is Derek Clayton and Frank Shorter who have poor VO2 scores but run freaking fast.
http://books.google.com/books?id=wA...esult&ct=result&resnum=1#v=onepage&q=&f=false


I will watch old video of these events later and determine if book Lore of running is correct. My power calculations can not be beaten.

Please explain how watching TV can trump years of scientific research. Thanks.

 

[TRDean]

Does the fact that they are kids have anything to do with it? I am purely guessing here, but from observation it seems to me that kids in general have a lot better power to weight ratios than adults.

I don't know Bro..that is really my question. But it does not make sense...because when you hit puberty your body really becomes more powerful. So if you don't gain a ton of bone mass or upper body mass then I would think that your power to weight ratio would increase right? Needless to say, this would be a good thesis project for some aspiring exercise physiologist.

 

[RHitaliano]

Please explain how watching TV can trump years of scientific research. Thanks.

That is easy chrisE from dpf.

My DVR and yootube is far better than yours. This gives me leg up on other scientist even ones from universities and such.