What is the physiological limit?

[Waterloo Sunrise]

In an hour record setup, what, in your opinion, is the best that a human could possibly achieve without doping. Think Mercx undoped, on his best ever day.

 

[BrindSurch]

what do the numbers mean?

 

[Waterloo Sunrise]

Watts/Kilo

 

[BrindSurch]

Well 6.7+ as that what Armstrong have done and they didn't dope.

 

[Ferminal]

Well 6.7+ as that what Armstrong have done and they didn't dope.

Lance's own expert on the matter disagrees.

I’ll say is that 6.7 watts per kg at threshold is not physiological or humanly possible, unless you’re a hybrid human horse or a grey hound human dog or another species. I don’t even think Frankenstein could hold 6.7 watts per kg at threshold. Though, I must say that, unlike most artificially manipulated creatures of science, Frankenstein did have a uniquely low carbon footprint as he was made of recycled body parts and was activated with a clean bolt of lightning. But that’s a totally different story.

 

[Alex Simmons/RST]

6.4W/kg has been recorded for FTP / 1hr power.

 

[Le breton]

question

In an hour record setup, .......... Think Mercx undoped, on his best ever day.

What does it mean:Think Mercx undoped, on his best ever day?

If you imply that Mexico was Merckx best day ever, you are somewhat off the mark. He was tired from a long racing season.
now, the power needed to ride 49,431 km in one hour at 2300m above sea-level is only 80% of that needed at sea-level. However, at 2300m a.s.l. most people can only produce about 90% of their sea-level power.
If Merckx could do 440 watts for 1 hour at sea-level ( on a lab ergometer in Cologne, Köln!!!!!) he likely could produce about 400 watts in Mexico.

 

[Le breton]

Mayo & Ventoux

A little bit before being convicted of doping, Iban Mayo climbed Ventoux in 55'51", 1 mn faster than Vaughters old mark.
I have lots of data which allow me to calculate pretty accurately the power needed for that almost certainly dope-assisted performance. I get 6.66 watts/kg. Then I add 1% to compensate for the loss in power due to altitude and get 6.75 watts/kg.
However Mayo undoped is definitely not the best climber in the world.
A racer, whom I believe did it clean, climbed Ventoux in 58:31, ie producing about 6.45 watts/kg ( again with 1% added to compensate for altitude), ie just below Boardman 6.5 watts/kg in his superman 56.375 km hour.

 

[luckyboy]

A racer, whom I believe did it clean, climbed Ventoux in 58:31, ie producing about 6.45 watts/kg ( again with 1% added to compensate for altitude), ie just below Boardman 6.5 watts/kg in his superman 56.375 km hour.

Was that Moncoutie in the 99 Dauphine?

 

[python]

<snip>
I have lots of data which allow me to calculate pretty accurately the power needed for that<snip>.

what do you consider 'pretty accurately' ? 5%? 10%.. ?

i understand you are trying to contribute some meaningful numbers but id stop short of calling anything 'pretty accurate' when there is much room for unknowns and uncertainty.

(i) did you know mayo's weight that morning, how much he lost in sweat ? how much he drank ? how much was soaked in his clothing ?

(ii) did you consider wind direction changes, road surface changes, CdA changes as the rider stands on the pedals ?

besides, there is no hard fixed coefficient for power loss with altitude that fits everyone - inter-individual variations could be x3 greater than your assumptions....etc...etc

that's why i don't consider these types of threads very meaningful w/o the actual power files or a specified slop.

 

[Waterloo Sunrise]

What does it mean:Think Mercx undoped, on his best ever day?

If you imply that Mexico was Merckx best day ever, you are somewhat off the mark. He was tired from a long racing season.
now, the power needed to ride 49,431 km in one hour at 2300m above sea-level is only 80% of that needed at sea-level. However, at 2300m a.s.l. most people can only produce about 90% of their sea-level power.
If Merckx could do 440 watts for 1 hour at sea-level ( on a lab ergometer in Cologne, Köln!!!!!) he likely could produce about 400 watts in Mexico.

You mistake me - I was working on the basis that most people would agree Merckx is the greatest ever cyclist, just to get people thinking about about what is humanly possible - I have no view over whether Merckx ever did put out his best effort in an hour record, or for that matter how doped he was, but just trying to get people to set their expectations high rather than the preveiling wisdom that it's impossible for someone who weights 65KG to ride at 390W for an hour without being doped - a position I consider utterly laughable.

 

[fatandfast]

The hour record is measured in distance not kilowatts.

 

[Le breton]

what do you consider 'pretty accurately' ? 5%? 10%.. ?

i understand you are trying to contribute some meaningful numbers but id stop short of calling anything 'pretty accurate' when there is much room for unknowns and uncertainty.

(i) did you know mayo's weight that morning, how much he lost in sweat ? how much he drank ? how much was soaked in his clothing ?

(ii) did you consider wind direction changes, road surface changes, CdA changes as the rider stands on the pedals ?

besides, there is no hard fixed coefficient for power loss with altitude that fits everyone - inter-individual variations could be x3 greater than your assumptions....etc...etc

that's why i don't consider these types of threads very meaningful w/o the actual power files or a specified slop.

Pretty accurate means 2%. To give you an idea my calculations and the indications of my Powertap are the same to within 1-2%.
Why don't you try to do the calculation for yourself and you will see that most of your objections are irrelevant. Go on analyticcycling.com if you don't want to do it from scratch.

First and foremost Mayo's weight : add or subtract 5 kg and the watts/kg will hardly change.
I must confess I always give a bonus to the rider : the 1-2kg weight loss on the climb might not be completely compensated by drink intake, but I don't take it into account on the ground that the weight loss compensates for the power loss from not drinking enough because it's hard to do and from the sweat retained by the cloth, not much with modern textiles.
And yes I followed that stage pretty closely as I had posted a prediction on a website that Mayo would win in 55mn. ( He was not as doped up as I had guessed )
Same is true for power loss with altitude. We are talking about 1% on average from 300m to 1900m, it certainly is not 3 or 4%. It really plays a role only after Chalet Reynard. Do you want to argue it is 0.5% or 1.2%? Besides what does it matter if you don't know precisely what it is for racer A, as long as it is true on average for a group of racers in view of the fact that racers/winners are interchangeable : what Mayo did that day, another racer can do another day.

As for the road surface, I have climbed Ventoux often enough and made tests on another similar road surface (mountain pass) with my Powertap to determine the road resistance and it is 2.8-3 kJ/km on that climb for Mayo.

Answering another question from somebody else, yes it is David M. in 1999.

 

[python]

Pretty accurate means 2%.

not buying it for mayo. what you calculated for yourself is your own and is relevant to mayo only remotely.

Why don't you try to do the calculation for yourself and you will see that most of your objections are irrelevant.

have been doing these kinds of calculations for many years including comparing them to my own power data. sticking yourself as a validation technique has limited value to accurately estimating power for another person, on a different day, under different conditions.

Go on analyticcycling.com if you don't want to do it from scratch.

no need to. when i estimate these types of data, i prefer my own but i know better than advertise it as "pretty accurate". it's to satisfy my own need for taking a broad glance at a rider. no more.

the rest of your post shows limited knowledge of physiology. averages are useless in accurately estimating an individual.

 

[Le breton]

funny

not buying it for mayo. what you calculated for yourself is your own and is relevant to mayo only remotely.

You mean MAYO was on a different planet, my physics did not apply to him?
have been doing these kinds of calculations for many years including comparing them to my own power data. sticking yourself as a validation technique has limited value to accurately estimating power for another person, on a different day, under different conditions.

Did it occur to you that you just might not be very good at it? Also, do you realize we are talking about power/mass?
. when i estimate these types of data, i prefer my own but i know better than advertise it as "pretty accurate". it's to satisfy my own need for taking a broad glance at a rider. no more.

Maybe your knowledge of physics is not what it ought to be to do these calculations, as for myself I do get an excellent agreement between calculations and observations, and that includes other riders
the rest of your post shows limited knowledge of physiology. averages are useless in accurately estimating an individual.

I'll grant you that my knowledge of physiology is fairly limited, however that is not of much use when estimating the power output on a mountain climb.
Still, having had the opportunity to live, work and cycle at 2900m of altitude, also at 3500m and 5220m, (and compete at up to 4300m), I have become interested in the effect of altitude and read a fair amount on the subject (besides being a subject myself at 5220m a.s.l.), enough anyway to know that what effect to expect at 1900m.a.s.l. Anyway in this instance we are talking about a 1% effect which could hardly invalidate what I said.

Then to top it off you say :
"averages are useless in accurately estimating an individual"
I guess you did not understand what I wrote, go back and read it again, please.

 

[Le breton]

altitude

........... averages are useless in accurately estimating an individual.

Here is what I had written previously in answer to ... forgot his name
Same is true for power loss with altitude. We are talking about 1% on average from 300m to 1900m, it certainly is not 3 or 4%. It really plays a role only after Chalet Reynard. Do you want to argue it is 0.5% or 1.2%? Besides what does it matter if you don't know precisely what it is for racer A, as long as it is true on average for a group of racers in view of the fact that racers/winners are interchangeable : what Mayo did that day, another racer can do another day.

 

[fatandfast]

Is there a simple math chart that gives wattage values for the winners of major races? Has Contador's 4 day output been greater than his competitors? Will this years tour winner have a greater wattage production than his competition? Should you look down at your bars and get your readings as other riders pedal away from you as an amateur in order to stay within "your range"?

 

[python]

Did it occur to you that you just might not be very good at it?

le breton, do you mind if i make it short and and not too sweet ?

you are too full of yourself. claiming 2% accuracy for mayo's numbers on the basis of own performances is to put it mildly naive.

don't know if i'm good at it, but i have worked with the major health products company on a power meter design long BEFORE any commercial models were introduced including the SRM. I also worked closely with the manufacturer of one of the most popular power meters on the market today.

that's as much as i have ever delved in my personal experience and more than i'll merit you with ever again.

 

[David Suro]

There is no such things as a physiologic limit that can be clearly defined.

Prior to Sebastian Coe breaking the 4 minute mile, phyhsicians thought the barrier was impossible to beat. The same is true for the 10 sec. 100 meter dash.

Even without doping, there are advances being made in nutrition and training programs that yield improvements in performance. Somewhere, there is a human with a capacity that exceeds that of any other human. If he finds a bicycle and a coach, then his performance will surpass that of anyone else.

Records are made to be broken, and they will likely all be broken at one time or another. Such is the nature of sport and advancement.

 

[karlboss]

There is no such things as a physiologic limit that can be clearly defined.

Prior to Sebastian Coe breaking the 4 minute mile, phyhsicians thought the barrier was impossible to beat. The same is true for the 10 sec. 100 meter dash.

Even without doping, there are advances being made in nutrition and training programs that yield improvements in performance. Somewhere, there is a human with a capacity that exceeds that of any other human. If he finds a bicycle and a coach, then his performance will surpass that of anyone else.

Records are made to be broken, and they will likely all be broken at one time or another. Such is the nature of sport and advancement.

You do know that roger bannister broke the 4 minute mile before Coe was born right?

 

[karlboss]

You mistake me - I was working on the basis that most people would agree Merckx is the greatest ever cyclist, just to get people thinking about about what is humanly possible - I have no view over whether Merckx ever did put out his best effort in an hour record, or for that matter how doped he was, but just trying to get people to set their expectations high rather than the preveiling wisdom that it's impossible for someone who weights 65KG to ride at 390W for an hour without being doped - a position I consider utterly laughable.

Any have a weight on Merckx, I've found it at 74kg...which would mean to hold 440watts for an hour would be lower w/kg than this 65kg guy holding 390

 

[Le breton]

Full of myself, going to the bathroom

le breton, do you mind if i make it short and and not too sweet ?

you are too full of yourself. claiming 2% accuracy for mayo's numbers on the basis of own performances is to put it mildly naive.

don't know if i'm good at it, but i have worked with the major health products company on a power meter design long BEFORE any commercial models were introduced including the SRM. I also worked closely with the manufacturer of one of the most popular power meters on the market today.

that's as much as i have ever delved in my personal experience and more than i'll merit you with ever again.

Don't mind at all that you are short.
I do hope you realize now that some of your arguments are near irrelevant or totally irrelevant.

Just out of curiosity, did you work on powermeters before LOOK Max1 circa 1990?
As for my calculation, I should have phrased things a bit differently concerning the accuracy.
The 2% value is on the method if applied correctly, I don't exclude the possiblity of an actual error in my calculations.
When I have time I'll tell you how it's done.

 

[python]

Don't mind at all that you are short.
I do hope you realize now that some of your arguments are near irrelevant or totally irrelevant.

Just out of curiosity, did you work on powermeters before LOOK Max1 circa 1990?
As for my calculation, I should have phrased things a bit differently concerning the accuracy.
The 2% value is on the method if applied correctly, I don't exclude the possiblity of an actual error in my calculations.
When I have time I'll tell you how it's done.

i hope you do realize that your entire self congratulatory rants in this thread are as irrelevant as your transposition of personal performances on a professional rider.

I don't exclude the possiblity of an actual error in my calculations.
When I have time I'll tell you how it's done

glad you finally admitted the limitations of your method but as i said before i am not interested given the puffing attitude you seem to have.

 

[davidg]

You do know that roger bannister broke the 4 minute mile before Coe was born right?

There is always someone to being in an irrelevance - lol.

Actually Bannister and Merckx both fall into a similar category, being that they achieved their records before there was any question of products like EPO being used. This is why the Merckx record is such a good one. I am not suggesting that Coe was a user, but since the product was not available it was not there to use, although blood doping was available.

Why anyone would want to introduce Mayo into a discussion regarding clean performance is beyond me. Apart from being caught, he was a climber and consequently this introduces so many more variables into the calculations.

The hour record is such a good choice for the topic as being on a track, the effect of surface, wind direction etc is greatly reduced. The records were always done when the wind was negligible. It also falls neatly into the definition of Funtional Threshold being 45-60 minutes. (Alex, please feel free to correct)

Unfortunately the one thing missing from this calculation is actual power data, just as there are assumptions in all of the other example choices, such as rider weight, wind speed/direction etc.

I seem to recall on a prior thread, using a consensus of Merckx's power, that I estimated 6W/Kg or thereabouts. As someone else stated, it probably wasn't his peak value.

 

[karlboss]

There is always someone to being in an irrelevance - lol.

Actually Bannister and Merckx both fall into a similar category, being that they achieved their records before there was any question of products like EPO being used. This is why the Merckx record is such a good one. I am not suggesting that Coe was a user, but since the product was not available it was not there to use, although blood doping was available.

Why anyone would want to introduce Mayo into a discussion regarding clean performance is beyond me. Apart from being caught, he was a climber and consequently this introduces so many more variables into the calculations.

The hour record is such a good choice for the topic as being on a track, the effect of surface, wind direction etc is greatly reduced. The records were always done when the wind was negligible. It also falls neatly into the definition of Funtional Threshold being 45-60 minutes. (Alex, please feel free to correct)

Unfortunately the one thing missing from this calculation is actual power data, just as there are assumptions in all of the other example choices, such as rider weight, wind speed/direction etc.

I seem to recall on a prior thread, using a consensus of Merckx's power, that I estimated 6W/Kg or thereabouts. As someone else stated, it probably wasn't his peak value.

Good thing Coefficient of aerodynamic drag is constant between everyone, making the hour record a great point of comparison instead of climbing