VO2 Max and FTP power

[DavidT]

OK, I was skeptical of BigBoats 420W ceiling until I just looked up the world hour record and power estimates in the Kyle-Bassett paper in "High Tech Cycling"
They adjust to sea-level equivalent power for all the altitude efforts. The highest value pre-EPO was Merckx at 429W. Post EPO we have Indurain at 436, Rominger at 460, Boardman at 442.
Seems like he's in the right ballpark.

 

[Steeplechase]

Agreed. Mreckx was 65-68kg...again, big difference. 429 watt / 68 kg = 6.3 watts/kg....yeah.

A rider such as Tom Zirbel winning all the US TT's the last 2 seasons has a confirmed 20 minute power of 480-500 watts. But he weighs 88kg and is 6'5'' tall, so giving a conservative estimate of 450 watts at FTP that's still only 5.2 watts/kg. Oh yeah he can climb halfway decent too.

 

[BigBoat]

BibBoat....Isn't it possible to have a high-ish crit without blood doping/epo? Altitude training and REST have a huge effect...I have a crit of 44.5-46.5% mid season with no altitude work when recovered. Really really. Without recovering beforehand it's 40-41%. Big difference, ala "Peaking".

Also, we're not talking 420 watts for an hour for a 68kg rider. We're talking over 170lbs and over 75kg's. Also a ****ton of weight to carry compared to a lightweight.

Your crit will rise while sedentary, and lower while training hard. You probably have 45% in peak shape and you could perhaps get it to 47-48% living at 5,000 feet.

Tom Zirbel winning all the US TT's the last 2 seasons has a confirmed 20 minute power of 480-500 watts.

Zirbel was blood doped or on epo for his TT rides. His doped FTP is probably 5.2 watts per kilo, clean he's probably at 4.2 or so. Personally, and this is just my "opinion"; I dont think somebody the size of Shakil o'neil could get 420 watts at FTP without dope. Indurain guys, could do about 510.

 

[blackcat]

BigBoat fool again,

no flames

 

[BigBoat]

BigBoat fool again,

no flames

........

Now as for Vo2 max and above training, yes training at altitude does inhibit doing those "super hard" above LT efforts. Ideally one can preform these high power intervals with supplemental oxygen (while living at altitude) or at lower altitude for maximum benefit.

I dont think altitude training is "fair" if thats what were getting at. But then again, my attitude is far different.

 

[davidg]

Agreed. Mreckx was 65-68kg...again, big difference. 429 watt / 68 kg = 6.3 watts/kg....yeah.

Interesting thread, but Merckx was more than 65Kg.

Try 72-74. That would put him at 5.9W/Kg based upon an assumed value of 429W (since he didnt use a power meter for the hour record).

Nevertheless, this would put 6W/Kg as being fairly close to the expected limit given his stature as the greatest (open another thread if you want to debate this - lol)

 

[Steeplechase]

Bigboat, your attitude does seem to be far different. A larger rider produces incrementally more power, but weighs more. Just by saying a rider produces 420 watts at FTP peak (we're talking when HCT is high from resting and tapering) does not mean he is doping. The big guys in the Tour...well they are producing huge power outputs. The smaller guys, not so much without doping. That doesn't mean their watts/kg are not just as high or higher.

I've done a couple of races this year...100% CLEAN like every other young pro I hang out with. Yes Gilberto Simoni rode away from me on the climbs at altitude. Doped or not he would ride away from me even with my 380 watts FTP/73kg at the time. Honestly I think you would need 380 watts / 65kg to keep up with that guy. But I didn't do half bad either.

I'm under no illusion that I can convince you that a lot of pros are clean. There are people out there with huge power outputs at FTP. Huge Vo2 max's too. None of these things, however, guarantee success in racing. A doper can loose. A clean guy can win. Yes there are dopers everywhere. But that does NOT mean he's unbeatable. That's why we race bikes.

Really looking forward to the Tour stages w/o radio communication, for this exact reason...that's why we race bikes and don't just do power tests.

 

[Steeplechase]

72-74kg sounds correct after looking into Eddy Merckx's race weight a bit more. As for the hour record, well, that number was a calculation based on

1) Assumed CdA
2) Assumed RR
3) Assumed atmospheric conditions
4) Assumed weight
5) Assumed "smudge factor" for calculating sea-level equivalent power

It could very well have been a higher power output. But, 430 watts puts Merckx right at that 6watts/kg level...as I guessed being the level of genetic freaks ALA Lemond, Merckx, etc. with Vo2 max 90-94ml/kg.

 

[davidg]

72-74kg sounds correct after looking into Eddy Merckx's race weight a bit more. As for the hour record, well, that number was a calculation based on

1) Assumed CdA
2) Assumed RR
3) Assumed atmospheric conditions
4) Assumed weight
5) Assumed "smudge factor" for calculating sea-level equivalent power

It could very well have been a higher power output. But, 430 watts puts Merckx right at that 6watts/kg level...as I guessed being the level of genetic freaks ALA Lemond, Merckx, etc. with Vo2 max 90-94ml/kg.

Interested in what VO2 calculator you have used. Using the one posted by Alex Simmons on cycleforums, a weight of 72Kg and 430 FTP would put Merckx VO2 at about 83ml/Kg/min. Figure seems low, although I have seen him quoted as 77. If this is true, then he wasn't a 'genetic freak' in this respect, but clearly was someone special.

 

[Steeplechase]

Woah, 72kg and 430 watt FTP? 83ml/kg? That is possible I suppose going back to the beginning of the thread when we were discussing metabolic efficiency and it's effect on FTP power. Theoretically a lower Vo2 Max combined with a high efficiency of 22-23% could yield this type of power. It is yet to be determined in this thread whether or not efficiency can be "trained" to this level, and if "smooth pedaling" has anything to do with it. Or, if some riders naturally have this level of efficiency despite the lower Vo2.

 

[Escarabajo]

Bradly Wiggins: 71-72kg at 410 watts FTP powertap (from Tour 09 prologue) VO2 max?

Friend: 77kg at 400 watts FTP powertap. Vo2 max?

Friend: 77kg at 420 watts FTP powertap. Vo2 max 88ml/kg.

If it is of any use here are the numbers I calculated for Wiggins in this Tour:

Prologue ITT: 406 W @ 72 Kg = 5.64 W/kg
Climb to Arcalis: 432 W @ 72 Kg = 6 W/kg.

These numbers look to be achievable riding clean.

 

[DavidT]

72-74kg sounds correct after looking into Eddy Merckx's race weight a bit more. As for the hour record, well, that number was a calculation based on

1) Assumed CdA
2) Assumed RR
3) Assumed atmospheric conditions
4) Assumed weight
5) Assumed "smudge factor" for calculating sea-level equivalent power

It could very well have been a higher power output. But, 430 watts puts Merckx right at that 6watts/kg level...as I guessed being the level of genetic freaks ALA Lemond, Merckx, etc. with Vo2 max 90-94ml/kg.

I used the 1 hour record data to show that BigBoat's estimation that 420W FTP is the limit for non-blood boosted efforts was very consistent with the power estimations provided in the quoted paper. After all the definition of FTP is maximal average power over 1 hour.
The rolling resistance should be very accurate but RR is also a fairly insignificant resistive force compared with wind resistance at >50Kph. RR is also the only place that rider weight comes into the equation.
By far this biggest inaccuracy comes from the drag estimate.

 

[Escarabajo]

I used the 1 hour record data to show that BigBoat's estimation that 420W FTP is the limit for non-blood boosted efforts was very consistent with the power estimations provided in the quoted paper. After all the definition of FTP is maximal average power over 1 hour.
The rolling resistance should be very accurate but RR is also a fairly insignificant resistive force compared with wind resistance at >50Kph. RR is also the only place that rider weight comes into the equation.
By far this biggest inaccuracy comes from the drag estimate.

That's correct. For the time trial most of the power comes from the Drag. In fact the drag coefficient changes dramatically depending on the position on the bike. It comes into play twice in the formula because it hits again with the frontal area of the rider.

Drag power: (1/2)*CD*Air Density*(Air Velocity^2)*Frontal Area*(Distance/Time)

CD= Drag Coefficient. Strong factor of position on bike. It is 1.1 for a vertical commuter or 0.5 for pure drafting in racing position. Hands on the drops.

Frontal Area= Increases with poor aerodynamic position

 

[davidg]

Bradly Wiggins: 71-72kg at 410 watts FTP powertap (from Tour 09 prologue) VO2 max? 80ml/Kg/min

Friend: 77kg at 400 watts FTP powertap. Vo2 max? 72ml/Kg/min

Friend: 77kg at 420 watts FTP powertap. Vo2 max 88ml/kg. 76ml/Kg/min

Using the same calculator you would get the figures above in bold. This is assuming an efficiency of 23% which is a bit below the generally quoted figure of 25%, and an FTP at 90% of VO2max.

 

[BigBoat]

Woah, 72kg and 430 watt FTP? 83ml/kg?

Not even with a 95 V02 max could you get that at 72 kilos in my opinion. Maybe the dude with the 83 V02 max could hold that power for 8 minutes with a .44 magnum held to their head.

We do not know what Eddie Merckx averaged for his Mexico City TT because he did not have a power meter on his bike. It certainly wouldnt have been much better than 5.7 or so. Thats a HUGE amount of power to hold for an hour without a high crit. Most guys jacked on EPO cant even get to that. I talked to Lemond for a while a few years ago and he told me he could hold about 390 for an hour at 148-150 lb.

 

[131313]

Not even with a 95 V02 max could you get that at 72 kilos in my opinion. Maybe the dude with the 83 V02 max could hold that power for 8 minutes with a .44 magnum held to their head.

I'm not sure why I'm bothering, but someone has to question your constant barrage of BS. OK, you've allegedly talked to Greg Lemond. Great. You don't seem to understand that raw power is a function of body size;larger heart, larger lungs, more mitochondria, larger liver... Do you not understand how this works?

Secondly by most accounts, 430W at threshold (an hour) translates to approximately 83-88 vo2 l/ml +/- 5, based on what are the most accurate equations (depending on what percentage of vo2 FTP occurs).

Lastly, Zirbel was putting out over 5.5W/KG in his first year of racing (since I race up 40 minute climbs right next to him). Yeah, I guess you think he was doping then....

Seriously, what is your deal? A mediocre Cat 3 who is convinced that every domestic pro capable of getting a result is doping?? (and therefore this justifies your own drug use since 'everyone is doing it'. You might as well tell Roulston that he's doping too, since I'm sure his power numbers are similar to Zirbel's (I'm not sure just how big he is, by when he was on Healthnet and racing in the states I remember him being a giant. Then again, everyone seems big to me!).

My own power numbers aren't spectacular since I'm only 140 lbs, but I know that larger riders put out more power. It's not that complicated.

To the guy asking about the accuracy of vo2 formulas, give this a look (note, the BEST formulas are around 8-10%, the more common formulas which don't include age are within 20%):http://www.biomedexperts.com/Abstra...ons_for_aerobically_trained_males_and_females

 

[davidg]

I am just posting what I have found so far. Like most things on this forum, I wasn't there collecting the data, so I am putting 2 + 2 together and assuming it makes 4. (dangerous I know)

Merckx VO2max has been frequently quoted at 77ml/Kg/min

His weight at 72-74Kg but I dont know what it was the day he did the hour record. Suffice to say he was 1.84m tall (6'1") so for a lean rider that sounds about right.

I cannot comment on the power output, since as I mentioned before he did not have a power meter, so the 430W is what has been quoted here.

BUT, given his position in the sport, it is a reasonable assumption that he could have been close to 6W/Kg for the hour. We could almost take that as the possible limit. Some mitigating factors.

The hour record took 12 years to be beaten and knowing the reputation of the riders that took it w.r.t. PED can conclude that the new records did not have as much substance (even though they are still fantastic rides, PED or not)
When Boardman did it at his peak, he managed to add just a few metres to the record, and since then it has been beaten just once.

No-one has come close to Merckx in terms of career performance, so it would be a reasonable assumption to position him as the benchmark. Maybe we should set some arbitrary term called the 'Merckx' with a value of 100. all other riders could be referenced to this. And my feeling is that this would be close to 6W/Kg.

My 2 cents worth

 

[BigBoat]

raw power is a function of body size;larger heart, larger lungs, more mitochondria, larger liver... Do you not understand how this works?

No Having a larger liver wouldnt help threshold power as long as the person ate and drank properly. Heart stroke volume and the body's ability to utilize oxygen is what determines your FTP potential.

Secondly by most accounts, 430W at threshold (an hour) translates to approximately 83-88 vo2 l/ml +/- 5, based on what are the most accurate equations (depending on what percentage of vo2 FTP occurs).

430 watts For a man that weighs 195 pounds they would need a physiological V02 max of 80. For somebody at Merckx weight (160 pounds) it would take a physiological V02 max of over 95.

Lastly, Zirbel was putting out over 5.5W/KG in his first year of racing (since I race up 40 minute climbs right next to him). Yeah, I guess you think he was doping then....

Well Zirbel told everybody he could do 500 watts ("480-500 for 20 minutes"). I I multiplied his 490 watts by .95 to get his FTP. He weighs 88 kilos. 5.28 watts per kilo.

Seriously, what is your deal? A mediocre Cat 3 who is convinced that every domestic pro capable of getting a result is doping?? (and therefore this justifies your own drug use since 'everyone is doing it'. You might as well tell Roulston that he's doping too, since I'm sure his power numbers are similar to Zirbel's (I'm not sure just how big he is, by when he was on Healthnet and racing in the states I remember him being a giant. Then again, everyone seems big to me!).

I actually am still a cat 1 but I only race masters races for fun. I'm 44. I do not dope anymore bro. I dont know what Hayden Roulston puts out. He has not told anybody of his power files like Zirbel did.

 

[Steeplechase]

Secondly by most accounts, 430W at threshold (an hour) translates to approximately 83-88 vo2 l/ml +/- 5, based on what are the most accurate equations (depending on what percentage of vo2 FTP occurs).

/Validity_of_VO2max_equations_for_aerobically_trained_males_and_females[/url]

....AND the efficiency of the rider in question. Of course this is assuming a rider weight of 73-80kg, or a larger rider in general...430 watts FTP for a 65kg rider would be an unheard of Vo2 Max.

Take a look at this article from the Journal of Applied Physiology titled "Determinants of metabolic cost during submaximal cycling " -

http://jap.physiology.org/cgi/reprint/93/3/823.pdf

The main conclusions (quoted from source above):
-------------------

The main finding of this investigation was that mechanical
power output and pedal speed accounted for
99% of the variation in metabolic cost at intensities
below LT. When the regression model was applied to
each individual subject’s data, metabolic cost could be
predicted with a standard error of 26 metabolic watts
or roughly the equivalent of 0.08 l/minV˙ O2. Mechanical
power output alone accounted for 95% of the variation
in metabolic cost (Fig. 1), suggesting that, even with
our wide range of pedaling rates, pedal speeds, and
crank lengths, muscles’ ability to convert chemical
energy to mechanical work was remarkably stable.

...

Pedaling rate per se did not significantly alter metabolic
cost, suggesting that the metabolic cost associated
with calcium handling may be insignificantly affected
by contraction rate during submaximal cycling.


------------------
In other words, the ability to IMPROVE cycling efficiency by speeding up your cadence or using longer crank arms is possible, but the benefits are minimal at best because the muscles ADAPT to the new velocities. The only way to improve cycling efficiency is to improve MECHANICAL efficiency, ala some of those fit systems such as WOBBLENAUGHT, BODY GEOMETRY, that position the rider to maximize the leverage on the pedals. Also one would think that a stiff cycling shoe and a smooth, round pedal stroke, and possibly the elliptical Q-Rings would help.

Additionally the paper claims that the lower the power output, the lower the cadence ("pedal speed") that produces maximum efficiency. For their data the cyclists only had aerobic zones up to 300 watts--extrapolating out to 400 watts at LT, the paper concludes that 1.4m/s (82RPM on 172.5mm cranks) is the most efficient cadence.

 

[Steeplechase]

Example of big watts, big rider (94kg)

http://www.fascatcoaching.com/goopages/pages_downloadgallery/download.php?filename=4400_1053676.wko&orig_name=R041208A.wko

You need TrainingPeaks WKO+ to open the link

34 minutes at 470 watts calibrated SRM = 455 watts PT.

 

[Steeplechase]

Calculate your MAXIMUM POSSIBLE FTP based on Vo2 max and full time training and MAXIMUM EFFICIENCY of 25% here:

http://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=pvrDEHoxsANfk8pR8W0AYUw

170 lbs and 88ml/kg...FTP maximum 433 watts. Makes sense versus 420 watt rider example.

For Greg Lemond Type rider...145lbs and 92ml/kg FTP maxium 420 watts. I remember him saying in an interview this is what he could do when fully recovered, but no way mid-late Tour stages.

This would OVERESTIMATE FTP CAPABILITY for 95% of riders since it assumes 25% efficiency (pretty much as good as it gets).

LA...72kg and 84ml/kg...417 watts. Yep.

Big 94kg rider from the WKO file above...FTP 450 watts possible with a very possible 80ml/kg.

Bradley Wiggins estimate...72kg and 88ml/kg...425 watts possible (~410 PT he has, makes sense).

Cancellara...man I don't know, 80kg even with a Vo2 of 91 yields 442 watts...I think he's over that based on how much he wins by. Not that we couldn't guess it.

I'm assuming these values would be most similar to SRM power numbers measuring at the crank...PT numbers should be lower by 2-2.5% ala the Bradley Wiggins example.

 

[blackcat]

Calculate your MAXIMUM POSSIBLE FTP based on Vo2 max and full time training and MAXIMUM EFFICIENCY of 25% here:

http://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=pvrDEHoxsANfk8pR8W0AYUw

170 lbs and 88ml/kg...FTP maximum 433 watts. Makes sense, again.

For Greg Lemond Type rider...145lbs and 92ml/kg FTP maxium 420 watts. I remember him saying in an interview this is what he could do when fully recovered, but no way mid-late Tour stages.

but Armstrong gets stronger.

And Levi was saying in 2007 during the Tour, that he gets stronger. Yeah sure, on Bruyneel's transfusions, unless they are poured down the toilet. Stuff you if you are on bread and water.

 

[blackcat]

I'm not sure why I'm bothering, but someone has to question your constant barrage of BS. OK, you've allegedly talked to Greg Lemond. Great. You don't seem to understand that raw power is a function of body size;larger heart, larger lungs, more mitochondria, larger liver... Do you not understand how this works?

Secondly by most accounts, 430W at threshold (an hour) translates to approximately 83-88 vo2 l/ml +/- 5, based on what are the most accurate equations (depending on what percentage of vo2 FTP occurs).

Lastly, Zirbel was putting out over 5.5W/KG in his first year of racing (since I race up 40 minute climbs right next to him). Yeah, I guess you think he was doping then....

Seriously, what is your deal? A mediocre Cat 3 who is convinced that every domestic pro capable of getting a result is doping?? (and therefore this justifies your own drug use since 'everyone is doing it'. You might as well tell Roulston that he's doping too, since I'm sure his power numbers are similar to Zirbel's (I'm not sure just how big he is, by when he was on Healthnet and racing in the states I remember him being a giant. Then again, everyone seems big to me!).

My own power numbers aren't spectacular since I'm only 140 lbs, but I know that larger riders put out more power. It's not that complicated.

To the guy asking about the accuracy of vo2 formulas, give this a look (note, the BEST formulas are around 8-10%, the more common formulas which don't include age are within 20%):http://www.biomedexperts.com/Abstra...ons_for_aerobically_trained_males_and_females

it was my assumption it was not Rolly as it is in the middle of the Tour, does he have time to post?

 

[131313]

No Having a larger liver wouldnt help threshold power as long as the person ate and drank properly. Heart stroke volume and the body's ability to utilize oxygen is what determines your FTP potential.

read what I said. Larger hearts have higher stroke volume. More mitochondria help you utilize oxygen. Lung capacity and blood volume scale almost directly to size. Please let Max Klieber know if you've discovered something different.

430 watts For a man that weighs 195 pounds they would need a physiological V02 max of 80. For somebody at Merckx weight (160 pounds) it would take a physiological V02 max of over 95.

Sorry to keep calling you on your BS, but you seem to spout it off as fact enough that some people actually believe some of it. How did you determine this 'vo2 max of 80', because the scientific formulas a) don't really support that answer (it could actually be 80, but it would be at the end of the spectrum, i.e. an inefficient rider with a large difference between vo2 and threshold power) and b) the most accurate formulas out there are accurate within about 10%.

 

[131313]

In other words, the ability to IMPROVE cycling efficiency by speeding up your cadence or using longer crank arms is possible, but the benefits are minimal at best because the muscles ADAPT to the new velocities. The only way to improve cycling efficiency is to improve MECHANICAL efficiency, ala some of those fit systems such as WOBBLENAUGHT, BODY GEOMETRY, that position the rider to maximize the leverage on the pedals. Also one would think that a stiff cycling shoe and a smooth, round pedal stroke, and possibly the elliptical Q-Rings would help.

Additionally the paper claims that the lower the power output, the lower the cadence ("pedal speed") that produces maximum efficiency. For their data the cyclists only had aerobic zones up to 300 watts--extrapolating out to 400 watts at LT, the paper concludes that 1.4m/s (82RPM on 172.5mm cranks) is the most efficient cadence.

I'd respectfully suggest those conclusions may be a bit off. I can't think of a topic which has garnered more words on the internet that 'pedaling efficiency' but in the end it seems genetically determined by fiber type and can't really be improved past fiber-type conversion (if at all), as long as your bike fits reasonably well and you're pedaling at a relatively normal cadence. Any results that suggest anything else seem well within the noise of measurement.