Non PED performance charts

[sponsor]

This should not need to be in the clinic, but I posted here thinking it might get moved.

I'm looking for the W/Kg performance charts that are current.

I can't find data gather dates, but recall seeing some of these charts for the years there was no TdF winner.

Shouldn't there be new charts?

I'd like to see every chart that is public on current pro values from VO2 to blood work. But W/kg would make me happy for now.

 

[Master50]

Might like to see the file as the picture is illegible to my old eyes. It looks like an interesting chart. I am sure there must be a clinic approved chart that ranks the boosted levels too

 

[panache]

This should not need to be in the clinic, but I posted here thinking it might get moved.

I'm looking for the W/Kg performance charts that are current.

I can't find data gather dates, but recall seeing some of these charts for the years there was no TdF winner.

Shouldn't there be new charts?

I'd like to see every chart that is public on current pro values from VO2 to blood work. But W/kg would make me happy for now.

I believe that chart is Dr. Coggan's. He frequents these forums. Maybe he can comment?

 

[sponsor]

Might like to see the file as the picture is illegible to my old eyes. It looks like an interesting chart. I am sure there must be a clinic approved chart that ranks the boosted levels too

I have computer glasses...
I look at the top of Cat 1 and see different numbers. I found at least 5. I also found some of Dr. Coggan's posts from 2006.
My guess I would love to compare charts over time. My guess is the Cat 4,3 and even Cat 2 won't change so much, but just the ones below you can see are different.

A more conservative one on top.

 

[acoggan]

This should not need to be in the clinic

I would tend to agree (although I understand the question you're really trying to ask/answer).

I'm looking for the W/Kg performance charts that are current.

The most current version (#5) that has been revealed publicly can be found on page 54 of the 2nd edition of our book.

However, it has been superseded by versions #6, #7, and #8, with the latter being developed for WKO4.

Note that although the tables have evolved over time as additional data has become available, no "anchor" athlete ever used to construct the tables has ever been sanctioned, or even implicated in any sort of formal inquiry, for doping (which of course isn't the same as saying that they have never doped).

Finally, also note that the entire power profiling approach has been made redundant/obsolete by the development of the new power-duration model to be found in WKO4, which enables you to evaluate an athlete's performance at all durations, not just four (the original power profiling approach) or twelve (Hunter Allen's fatigue profiling extension thereof).

P.S. I strongly encourage people to read the original source material, to understand how the tables were created and the purpose they are intended to serve (note that the date listed on this article is when it was mirrored on the TrainingPeaks website; the power profile tables and accompanying article first appeared on the CyclingPeaks website on May 19, 2003):

http://home.trainingpeaks.com/blog/article/power-profiling

 

[sponsor]

P.S. I strongly encourage people to read the original source material, to understand how the tables were created and the purpose they are intended to serve (note that the date listed on this article is when it was mirrored on the TrainingPeaks website; the power profile tables and accompanying article first appeared on the CyclingPeaks website on May 19, 2003):

http://home.trainingpeaks.com/blog/article/power-profiling

Thank you for posting that. I am using TrainingPeaks.
As it seems you are the source of the most seen chart - seemingly 2006 data, there are other charts with different numbers. The same number puts someone from Cat 1 to UCI pro tour rider. Maybe that's accurate because of where the power is measured (@ 20K into a ride or 200K into a ride). Looks like I'll need to but and read a book.

 

[Alex Simmons/RST]

Thank you for posting that. I am using TrainingPeaks.
As it seems you are the source of the most seen chart - seemingly 2006 data, there are other charts with different numbers. The same number puts someone from Cat 1 to UCI pro tour rider. Maybe that's accurate because of where the power is measured (@ 20K into a ride or 200K into a ride). Looks like I'll need to but and read a book.

Just to reinforce - categorisation of a rider's racing status is not the purpose of such tables, that's what racing is for.

It's primary purpose is to help you understand and track your individual power profile and what that means for your training.

 

[D-Queued]

Just to reinforce - categorisation of a rider's racing status is not the purpose of such tables, that's what racing is for.

It's primary purpose is to help you understand and track your individual power profile and what that means for your training.

What?!?

I already used this to put in for my upgrade.

Dave.

 

[Alex Simmons/RST]

What?!?

I already used this to put in for my upgrade.

Dave.

Pink font might help some

 

[sponsor]

Just to reinforce - categorisation of a rider's racing status is not the purpose of such tables, that's what racing is for.

It's primary purpose is to help you understand and track your individual power profile and what that means for your training.

It is just one piece of information. I would at least like to know is based on "clean" riders.

I am using it along with racing. If a rider has a choice to race against anyone, then I agree the table is not so useful. But if choices are limited, it does help see where they should try to compete.

If a rider is putting out higher power than their category average, it tells me they need more race experience, or access to higher level races, or they are sand bagging. The focus should be on racing, not building power (although never heard of having too much power).

The converse of course is if they show lower power than their category, but are doing well, the focus maybe should be more on increasing power.

If I really want to know how good a rider is I just compare VeloView scores and we can all stay home

 

[D-Queued]

It is just one piece of information. I would at least like to know is based on "clean" riders.

I am using it along with racing. If a rider has a choice to race against anyone, then I agree the table is not so useful. But if choices are limited, it does help see where they should try to compete.

If a rider is putting out higher power than their category average, it tells me they need more race experience, or access to higher level races, or they are sand bagging. The focus should be on racing, not building power (although never heard of having too much power).

The converse of course is if they show lower power than their category, but are doing well, the focus maybe should be more on increasing power.

If I really want to know how good a rider is I just compare VeloView scores and we can all stay home

How about they are heavier/larger than the average competitor in their category?

Dave.

 

[Alex Simmons/RST]

It is just one piece of information. I would at least like to know is based on "clean" riders.

It is as far as I know and as already stated by Andy Coggan, but even if it were not, it's purpose wouldn't change, that is, to provide some insight into your own relative power-duration strengths and weaknesses.

I am using it along with racing. If a rider has a choice to race against anyone, then I agree the table is not so useful. But if choices are limited, it does help see where they should try to compete.

If a rider is putting out higher power than their category average, it tells me they need more race experience, or access to higher level races, or they are sand bagging. The focus should be on racing, not building power (although never heard of having too much power).

The converse of course is if they show lower power than their category, but are doing well, the focus maybe should be more on increasing power.

If I really want to know how good a rider is I just compare VeloView scores and we can all stay home

Well yes it is reasonable to assume that if you are not winning Cat 4 races with 5W/kg threshold at your disposal, then you could probably use some work on race craft.

 

[sponsor]

How about they are heavier/larger than the average competitor in their category?

Dave.

Wish I could get that too, including equipment weight and drag coefficient.
But I'd like most of all to know the W/Kg - clean.

 

[acoggan]

I'd like most of all to know the W/Kg - clean.

Maybe you missed my previous post?

http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showpost.php?p=1579201&postcount=5