Power Data Estimates for the climbing stages

[Cramps]

1800m/h over 40' is more impressive than the same VAM over 20'.

I see what you mean now.

How about this as an alternative? If the climbs were equivalent from year to year, then the easiest thing would be just to compare power on the identical climbs. But of course there aren't enough identical climbs. I suggest instead using the measures you seem to already have for each climb: Height and Grade, to predict power. e.g., you have
Colombiere 640m 8.50% = let's just say an average of 6.0 w/kg
Ventoux 1383 8.54% = 5.5 w/kg (let's say)

Taking all the climbs for a tour, you can then estimate the impact of height and grade on power output. A doped-up year should show less effect of height and grade on power output.

If you post your data, I can give it a try.

 

[taiwan]

That is correct, but I don't know precisely what the relationship is. Time needs to be accounted for somewhere as 1800m/h over 40' is more impressive than the same VAM over 20'. In that case it's obvious, what about when the margins are much tighter? At the moment the only way I can tell is on an xy scatter. My desire is to somehow convert that into numbers. I could do it by taking the slope but it's not very reliable. It would have to be the slope of each year too as time becomes less of a factor in explaining power (which we expected) when comparing the years.

It is not a big issue though, I just thought it would be nice to have a performance rating with time removed from the equation.

e.g. something like this (using approx -1.5%/10min):

Output Time (h) Rating
5.84 0.45 96.06
5.69 0.54 94.34
5.85 0.56 97.22
6.05 0.50 100.00
5.77 0.51 95.45
5.94 0.49 98.04
5.91 0.58 98.39

Not sure if helping, but isn't there stuff about W/kg versus duration of effort on acoggan's site? I mean he has tabulated W/kg values over different times for people he tested. Not sure how he got them though, or how to use them. Need to look at the pages again.

 

[taiwan]

Over 20min you can sustain ~105% of your FTP (what you can sustain for an hour) from Andy Coggan's site. I wouldn't dare to try and interpolate though, and a climb in a GT is not an isloated effort, so...

 

[BigBoat]

There's that one forum...to sum it all up.

http://www.fillarifoorumi.fi/forum/...km-h-VAM-W-W-kg-etc-%29&p=1906952#post1906952

Thankfully Bradley Wiggins was who weighs about 10 pounds more than Hinault did and 2 pounds more than Lemond did was kind enough to share he rides at 450 watts for TTs of 1 hr.

 

[Bumeington]

If it helps at all, studies or reviews thereof seem to indicate that EPO usage whilst improving VO2max to a certain extent has a far more significant effect on time to exhaustion. I will find the study if it's of any perceived benefit in what you are doing, but they showed an increase in ~5% VO2max but a ~50% increase in time to exhaustion in one study I read.

Let's say I can hold 378W for 20 mins with a VO2 power of 400W, and an FTP 360W. Now if I increase VO2 and FTP by 5% (I love the drugs) then 420W VO2, 378W FTP, my "time to exhaustion" at 378W has increased threefold (from 20 to 60 mins).

My point? I don't think EPO does anything special on time to exhaustion, just increasing VO2 max a little will mean you can go for a lot longer at lower intensities. I think this would also be the case if you took an untrained individual and then "trained up" their VO2 max by 5%.

 

[BigBoat]

All your doing with epo is increasing red cells. Increasing red cells=increasing watts. Now if you use testosterone (many cyclists suffer low test) you can increase your actual fitness level.

In the long run EPO may have a permanent increase in power...due to a sort of muscle memory like phenomenon. But it will not be much higher than if the rider rode totally clean and trained to the max.

 

[Krebs cycle]

I think you will find you claimed to be able to calculate someone's FTP based on ONE time for a 4km pursuit. I have never claimed the hyperbolic function to be BS, ever.

Nice try though, I am sure you will fool someone.

No of course you never claimed it was BS because you didn't even know it existed. Why did you say the below in response to ferminal? Did you actually know the answer but you were just foxing and trying to fool the rest of the forum into thinking you're an uneducated idiot instead of a cycling analysis genius?

Originally Posted by Ferminal
Does anyone have a link to literature which shows the decline in output over exertion time?

Originally Posted by Dear Wiggo
Is there such a thing?

The answer to this question is YES, there is. The fact that you asked this question despite me urging you to learn about it months ago means that you simply don't want to learn about the underlying physiological mechanisms that form the basis of my reasoning that a world class track endurance cyclist (who was highly aerobic as opposed to anaerobic) could successfully convert into a world class GT cyclist.

If I claimed that you could accurately calculate a cyclist's FTP on the basis of one data point at 4min then I was wrong. If I claimed that you could get a ball park figure a cyclist's FTP on the basis of one 4min data point then I was correct and I stand by that position because the critical power model is what predicts the relationship. The other thing that I stand by is the assumption that British Cycling have more than one 4min data point on Brad Wiggins. I assume they have a range of power vs time data points with which they could have constructed a critical power model many years ago. The other thing that I assumed they would know, is whether or not Wiggins was in fact "highly aerobic" for a pursuiter because they would have done AOD measures over 4min. They might have even done some oxygen uptake kinetics measures given that several of the world's leading experts on this topic work at English universities (such as Andrew Jones and David Poole) and have the necessary equipment to conduct those measures accurately.

You are the one who said "no that's impossible" Wiggins could not be highly aerobic because I... yes me... the amazing big ring/dear wiggo.... have debunked the MAOD test measure. It's like you're saying that you debunked the fact that Wiggins is tall because British Cycling measured his height using a tape measure instead of a laser precision stadiometer.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

No of course you never claimed it was BS because you didn't even know it existed. Why did you say the below in response to ferminal? Did you actually know the answer but you were just foxing and trying to fool the rest of the forum into thinking you're an uneducated idiot instead of a cycling analysis genius?

Way to miss the point. Just because there's a common shape to power production over time does not mean you can predict with any sort of accuracy what a rider's drop is going to be - which is what Ferminal is looking for.

Saying "the slope is hyperbolic" is like looking at the WKO+ graph and saying - the shape is hyperbolic. But that tells you far too little information to even guesstimate the drop in power over time.

The answer to this question is YES, there is. The fact that you asked this question despite me urging you to learn about it months ago means that you simply don't want to learn about the underlying physiological mechanisms that form the basis of my reasoning that a world class track endurance cyclist (who was highly aerobic as opposed to anaerobic) could successfully convert into a world class GT cyclist.

That WKO+ graph I have been looking at for some number of years now meant I understood the hyperbolic nature of power over duration long before I started posting in the forums.

Please tell me all about the 2 week tapers the TdF riders don't do pre-tour. Please. Go on.

You have already admitted you have no idea of Wiggins' MAOD - I asked you straight out. So how you can claim he was highly aerobic as opposed to anaerobic is beyond me. You have no idea.

If I claimed that you could accurately calculate a cyclist's FTP on the basis of one data point at 4min then I was wrong. If I claimed that you could get a ball park figure a cyclist's FTP on the basis of one 4min data point then I was correct and I stand by that position because the critical power model is what predicts the relationship. The other thing that I stand by is the assumption that British Cycling have more than one 4min data point on Brad Wiggins. I assume they have a range of power vs time data points with which they could have constructed a critical power model many years ago. The other thing that I assumed they would know, is whether or not Wiggins was in fact "highly aerobic" for a pursuiter because they would have done AOD measures over 4min. They might have even done some oxygen uptake kinetics measures given that several of the world's leading experts on this topic work at English universities (such as Andrew Jones and David Poole) and have the necessary equipment to conduct those measures accurately.

You don't even know if they do or not. You are carrying on your sophistic argument of "If BC did blah blah blah and if Brad did have blah blah blah blah then he could obviously blah blah blah."

You are the one who said "no that's impossible" Wiggins could not be highly aerobic because I... yes me... the amazing big ring/dear wiggo.... have debunked the MAOD test measure. It's like you're saying that you debunked the fact that Wiggins is tall because British Cycling measured his height using a tape measure instead of a laser precision stadiometer.

Given you don't actually know whether he does or not, your persistence with this line of reasoning seems strange.

As for what I have debunked, primarily it's been your arguments, or the way you use "data" or "studies", not the content of the studies themselves.

Riddle me this: Luke Durbridge goes ok over 5.7km - beat Brad Wiggins at the Dauphine prologue this year, aged 21. He was a member of the Aussie 4km team pursuit team for a number of years, but did not make the cut some time ago and moved on to dedicate himself to the road.

Why could he not make the grade in the team pursuit? At the time they mentioned the fact that the opening 1:02 for the KM was just too hard for him, even though he is clearly a very capable TTer, even over short distances.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Let's say I can hold 378W for 20 mins with a VO2 power of 400W, and an FTP 360W. Now if I increase VO2 and FTP by 5% (I love the drugs) then 420W VO2, 378W FTP, my "time to exhaustion" at 378W has increased threefold (from 20 to 60 mins).

My point? I don't think EPO does anything special on time to exhaustion, just increasing VO2 max a little will mean you can go for a lot longer at lower intensities. I think this would also be the case if you took an untrained individual and then "trained up" their VO2 max by 5%.

All your doing with epo is increasing red cells. Increasing red cells=increasing watts. Now if you use testosterone (many cyclists suffer low test) you can increase your actual fitness level.

In the long run EPO may have a permanent increase in power...due to a sort of muscle memory like phenomenon. But it will not be much higher than if the rider rode totally clean and trained to the max.

This is my point:

Krebs Cycle has argued, often, that if Brad really were doping, you would expect his performance over short TTs to be better than they are.

Brad has improved over short TTs - no question. Krebs says not enough to prove doping.

But when you look at his long TTs, he has improved out of this world, smashing all and sundry - the final TdF TT was a prime example of his order of magnitude in increase, followed by other TTs in the earlier races and the Olympic TT.

Just because your Hgb mass improves, does not necessarily mean you can do better at 5-8 minute efforts. There is the oxygen delivery, but also the oxygen consumption to consider.

In 2004 Brad did 4:16 in qualifying for the pursuit. 2006 he came 21st in a 4.1km prologue for which he trained exclusively with a dedicated team of helpers. In 2008, his last pursuit qualifying time was 4:15 - a staggering 1 second improvement over 4 years. That's less than half a percent. [ETA: 2004 was cold, wet, miserable Manchester. 2008 was warm, humid Beijing. That 1 second could easily have come from conditions - haven't checked].

What I am suggesting is this: Brad has already maxed out his oxygen consumption capability. Adding more oxygen does not affect his short-term power as much as Krebs says doping should, as the limit of his mitochondria, etc, etc, has already been reached. As evidenced in his 4km pursuit plateau 2004-2008.

Where the additional oxygen does come in handy is in the fatigue resistance, over the longer distance TTs, where Brad is now a dominant force vs his mediocre showings in the past. He hasn't matched the people who beat him previously, he has dominated them entirely.

 

[Krebs cycle]

Just because your Hgb mass improves, does not necessarily mean you can do better at 5-8 minute efforts. There is the oxygen delivery, but also the oxygen consumption to consider.

snip

What I am suggesting is this: Brad has already maxed out his oxygen consumption capability. Adding more oxygen does not affect his short-term power as much as Krebs says doping should, as the limit of his mitochondria, etc, etc, has already been reached. As evidenced in his 4km pursuit plateau 2004-2008.

I simply don't have the time or the inclination to point out every piece of garbage that you write, because there are just so many, so for now I'll just pick out this one.

What you are suggesting here is that peripheral muscle adaptations (eg: mitochondrial density) are what limits VO2max. But this has been clearly and definitively shown to be incorrect from a variety of different experimental approaches from the single leg extensor model, to doping studies to hyperoxia studies and ventilatory unloading studies. There now exists a worldwide general consensus in the scientific literature that oxygen supply (ie: pumping capacity of the heart in conjunction with oxygen carrying capacity of the blood, the very things you are saying above don't make a difference to power production), is the dominant factor that limits whole body VO2. You couldn't have been any further from the truth if you tried.

What is hilarious here is that in your idiotic attempt at trying to prove me wrong, you are basically saying that blood doping doesn't increase VO2max!!

Maybe if you didn't have such a massive ego complex about not always being right you would learn something. Well you might fool some people into thinking you know what you are talking about, but you don't fool me, acoggan or anyone else who actually does know what they are talking about.


edit: oh wait.... maybe you are saying that VO2 is not related to power production? Or maybe you are saying that VO2max is not important over 4min? I can't really tell anymore because you post so much sh!t all the time

 

[Krebs cycle]

Where the additional oxygen does come in handy is in the fatigue resistance, over the longer distance TTs, where Brad is now a dominant force vs his mediocre showings in the past. He hasn't matched the people who beat him previously, he has dominated them entirely.

Since you got the other bit completely wrong about oxygen supply, VO2max and power production over 5-8min, then you also have got this part completely wrong. The % of VO2max that can be maintained for 45-60min (ie: lactate threshold) is the thing that appears to be more closely related to peripheral factors that maximize oxygen extraction at the level of the muscle ie: capillary density, myoglobin concentration, mitochondrial density and aerobic enzyme concentrations. These are the sorts of adaptations that result from high volume training and that Wiggins was likely underdone compared to every one of his present GT rivals since they were all road focused from 2004-2008 whereas Wiggins was track focused. Again you repeat a lie that Wiggins was a nobody in long ITTs prior to 2009. He was already world class at long ITTs and switching from track to road it has taken him 3-4yrs to further develop those peripheral adaptations which are most important for longer FTP type efforts. He has not improved massively, but only marginally and that is all it takes to become dominant for a single year.

Poor dear wiggo. If only you had done an exercise science course at uni, you would know this stuff and you would probably be agreeing with me. But you didn't so you aren't and you still don't have a f@#king clue.

 

[acoggan]

Just because your Hgb mass improves, does not necessarily mean you can do better at 5-8 minute efforts.

Uh, yeah, it pretty much does.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

These are the sorts of adaptations that result from high volume training and that Wiggins was likely underdone compared to every one of his present GT rivals since they were all road focused from 2004-2008 whereas Wiggins was track focused.

Elite endurance track cyclists do 35,000km/year.

Again you repeat a lie that Wiggins was a nobody in long ITTs prior to 2009. He was already world class at long ITTs and switching from track to road it has taken him 3-4yrs to further develop those peripheral adaptations which are most important for longer FTP type efforts. He has not improved massively, but only marginally and that is all it takes to become dominant for a single year.

Wiggins was not world class in long TTs. World class meaning podiuming. Coming 21st is not world class. Coming 17th is not world class.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Riddle me this: Luke Durbridge goes ok over 5.7km - beat Brad Wiggins at the Dauphine prologue this year, aged 21. He was a member of the Aussie 4km team pursuit team for a number of years, but did not make the cut some time ago and moved on to dedicate himself to the road.

Why could he not make the grade in the team pursuit? At the time they mentioned the fact that the opening 1:02 for the KM was just too hard for him, even though he is clearly a very capable TTer, even over short distances.

Still waiting Krebs. And acoggan you're here, you can have a go as well.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

I simply don't have the time or the inclination to point out every piece of garbage that you write, because there are just so many, so for now I'll just pick out this one.

You and I both know you have plenty of time, Krebs. Don't they pay you to be here?

What you are suggesting here is that peripheral muscle adaptations (eg: mitochondrial density) are what limits VO2max. But this has been clearly and definitively shown to be incorrect from a variety of different experimental approaches from the single leg extensor model, to doping studies to hyperoxia studies and ventilatory unloading studies. There now exists a worldwide general consensus in the scientific literature that oxygen supply (ie: pumping capacity of the heart in conjunction with oxygen carrying capacity of the blood, the very things you are saying above don't make a difference to power production), is the dominant factor that limits whole body VO2. You couldn't have been any further from the truth if you tried.

Are you seriously suggesting that the 4km world champ and olympic gold medallist who raced as a pro cyclist at the same time had underdeveloped peripheral muscle adaptations? Seriously?

Like.

He was winning by margins of up to 9 seconds over 4km and was underdone?

Ok.

You're the PhD.

I am sure everyone will believe you because you put me down.

But I don't.

Because it makes no sense.

What is hilarious here is that in your idiotic attempt at trying to prove me wrong, you are basically saying that blood doping doesn't increase VO2max!!

I am suggesting that the impact on PVO2max - ie the power produced at VO2max - is less significant an increase than the time to failure at sub-VO2max power. Hence why Wiggins is smashing the longer TTs but still not able to do similar smashing at the shorter TTs. Let me know if you want to do the whole example thing again. It's easy enough.

edit: oh wait.... maybe you are saying that VO2 is not related to power production? Or maybe you are saying that VO2max is not important over 4min? I can't really tell anymore because you post so much sh!t all the time

Given I wrote a very long post espousing the fact that VO2max and power production are closely related to Hgb mass, citing the study that you then started an entire new thread on, before you mentioned said study, you couldn't be more wrong.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

The simplest example I can provide to illustrate my theory is the 1996 Tour de France.

Bjarne Riis, Mr 60% (Hct that is) wins the overall - but can only manage 6th on the shorter, 9km prologue. He wins stage 16, out climbing Richard Virenque on Hautacam.

 

[acoggan]

Still waiting Krebs. And acoggan you're here, you can have a go as well.

The demands of the IP (and prologues) and TP are clearly not the same. I would therefore take the statement you cited at face value.

 

[acoggan]

Are you seriously suggesting that the 4km world champ and olympic gold medallist who raced as a pro cyclist at the same time had underdeveloped peripheral muscle adaptations?

Not so much "underdeveloped" as "differently developed"...but nonetheless Kreb's cycle's point is quite valid, i.e., pursuit performance is indicative of your *potential* at longer durations; you still need to train diligently (and differently) to maximize your performance at said durations.

 

[Krebs cycle]

Not so much "underdeveloped" as "differently developed"...but nonetheless Kreb's cycle's point is quite valid, i.e., pursuit performance is indicative of your *potential* at longer durations; you still need to train diligently (and differently) to maximize your performance at said durations.

Yes exactly.... a point that I made several months ago. Poor wiggo desperately clings to the belief that track endurance cyclists train identically to road cyclists in order to keep his little fantasy world from imploding.

 

[Alex Simmons/RST]

You have already admitted you have no idea of Wiggins' MAOD - I asked you straight out. So how you can claim he was highly aerobic as opposed to anaerobic is beyond me. You have no idea.

Anyone can make the claim of such a rider for the simple reason that any 4km IP effort will be dominantly aerobic, irrespective of how much of a anaerobic beast you might be. The aerobic contribution to energy demand will be at least double the anaerobic contribution, and often more.

Riddle me this: Luke Durbridge goes ok over 5.7km - beat Brad Wiggins at the Dauphine prologue this year, aged 21. He was a member of the Aussie 4km team pursuit team for a number of years, but did not make the cut some time ago and moved on to dedicate himself to the road.

Why could he not make the grade in the team pursuit? At the time they mentioned the fact that the opening 1:02 for the KM was just too hard for him, even though he is clearly a very capable TTer, even over short distances.

As Andy said, the TP & IP, while both are dominantly aerobic events, still have significantly different physiological and technical demands, such that often a gifted IP rider may still be physiologically unsuitable for the TP (let alone technically). The neuromuscular demands for one are very different.


If one assumes VO2 uptake kinetics, then it's possible to view the impact on AOD with power meter data, a neat trick Andy Coggan showed me. Analysis of individual and team pursuit power data shows some very interesting and quite revealing differences (apart from those obvious when comparing the power traces alone).

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Anyone can make the claim of such a rider for the simple reason that any 4km IP effort will be dominantly aerobic, irrespective of how much of a anaerobic beast you might be. The aerobic contribution to energy demand will be at least double the anaerobic contribution, and often more.

Yes I am well aware you're not anaerobic for a 4km pursuit. This has been discussed at length, with various examples.

Krebs Cycle and acoggan bang on about THE POTENTIAL for Wiggins to have a superior MAOD, citing it as a possible reason for Wiggins remarkable ability, suddenly, at the 2009 TdF.

Neither of them have any idea if it is superior or not.

I asked Krebs Cycle why he deleted a post first mentioning MAOD, but he refuses to answer it.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

If one assumes VO2 uptake kinetics, then it's possible to view the impact on AOD with power meter data, a neat trick Andy Coggan showed me. Analysis of individual and team pursuit power data shows some very interesting and quite revealing differences (apart from those obvious when comparing the power traces alone).

"If one assumes VO2 uptake kinetics" - doesn't read well. What do you mean?

It's like you've missed words out, or something?

 

[Dear Wiggo]

The demands of the IP (and prologues) and TP are clearly not the same. I would therefore take the statement you cited at face value.

So nothing to do with MAOD?

 

[sittingbison]

...pursuit performance is indicative of your *potential* at longer durations; you still need to train diligently (and differently) to maximize your performance at said durations.

...Poor wiggo desperately clings to the belief that track endurance cyclists train identically to road cyclists in order to keep his little fantasy world from imploding.

although this belongs in the Sky thread, and has been discussed at length there, I again make the observation that on his own admission Wiggo went full *** celebrating after the Beijing Olympics, and had less than six months to prepare for the 2009 TdF. After which he dramatically improved from GT results 123rd 123rd WD 134th 71st to 4th behind AC, Schleck and Armstrong, then back to 40th and 23rd in 2010.

So prey tell how he managed to fit in the requisite diligent and different training to overcome a decade career at 4km pursuits (that up until then are given as the reason for his lack of success on the road) and join the heads of state (two of whom at least were doped to the eyeballs?). And this diligent and different training was under the auspices of the BC track set up of Ellingsworth (sic) in Manchester, NOT under JV and Garmins road program.

Sorry you two, this stinks like a week old fish and always has. It does NOT compute.

Anyway, this has nothing to do with the power data estimation.

 

[Alex Simmons/RST]

"If one assumes VO2 uptake kinetics" - doesn't read well. What do you mean?

It's like you've missed words out, or something?

I mean things like making an assumption about the time constant/half life used for O2 uptake and that the TC is the same through an event.

But even if it's not, a stable assumption on O2 kinetics is still a pretty good assumption and reveals some interesting things about the differences in IP & TP when viewed through the AOD filter.