# Training & Nutrition - Power Profiling, where do you sit?

Bikeforums.net is a forum about nothing but bikes. Our community can help you find information about hard-to-find and localized information like bicycle tours, specialties like where in your area to have your recumbent bike serviced, or what are the best bicycle tires and seats for the activities you use your bike for.

Pages : [1] 2

EURO
02-03-06, 04:01 AM
http://www.cyclingpeakssoftware.com/images/powerprofile_v4.gif

The number is power output in watts/bodyweight in kilos.

To determine your power output you need to time yourself doing a certain measured effort. A flat out performance on the flat, or riding a hill that you know the length and % incline of.

Then put it into this calculator

http://www.kreuzotter.de/english/espeed.htm

The important thing to take into account is the time categories, because you can put out much more power over 5s than FT (continual effort).

For me, I only have figures for last year, where I put out 270 watts for just over an hour up Alpe d'Huez. My weight was 67 kilos, so that's a P/W ratio of 4.02 FT power output, putting me (last year) between 'good' (cat 3) and 'very good' (cat 2). Armstrong did Alpe d'Huez putting out 516w in the time trial. He was 75 kilos, giving him a P/W ratio of 6.88 - i.e. off the scale.

Where do you sit?

F1_Fan
02-03-06, 04:14 AM
I do a 7-ish minute hill climb as a test every couple of months. My best from last season was 75 kg and 300W (Powertap)... 4.00 W/kg. Adjusting slightly for 5 minutes that might be more like 4.1 W/kg. Moderate Cat 4. I race Cat 4/Master so that's about right for me.

LowCel
02-03-06, 05:52 AM
According to my powertap after doing 30 minutes tempo I have been coming up right at 3.8:1 lately. Getting an average power of 295 - 297 watts and I weigh 77.5 kilo's (171 pounds). I'm looking forward to going all out for 30 minutes to see what I come up with.

I guess that puts me in the good (Cat 3) category. I'm entering my first cat 5 race here in a couple of weeks. Hopefully I won't be embarassed.

56/12 and 22/28
02-03-06, 06:22 AM
I'm "Good". :p

Hope I get better.

Voodoo76
02-03-06, 07:37 AM
Never spent any time on a powertap. But what was interesting on the chart is that if I go by max effort (eg 200m time) I come up with 18.82 at the top of Cat 2, if I go by 40K im down around 4.20 down around the 2/3 border. Thats about how I raced, plenty of speed no endurance.

2Rodies
02-03-06, 08:00 AM
According to my powertap after doing 30 minutes tempo I have been coming up right at 3.8:1 lately. Getting an average power of 295 - 297 watts and I weigh 77.5 kilo's (171 pounds). I'm looking forward to going all out for 30 minutes to see what I come up with.

I guess that puts me in the good (Cat 3) category. I'm entering my first cat 5 race here in a couple of weeks. Hopefully I won't be embarassed.

Lowcel you and I are very close in our power to weight catagories. I make less power in my cp30 range but I weight about 21 pounds less than you. Based on these numbers, like you, I'm a good cat 3. I believe this to be true to an extent. I've done a lot of race simulation training rides with cat 2's and 3's. Where I know that I can't even come close to these guys is at the end in the sprints. I just get shelled. From what my team mates who are 3's tell me the road races in the 3's are mainly tempo riding till near the end. The selection is made. but unike the 4's the selection is usually bigger. Then it's a sprint to the end. At this point I'd just be fodder in a 3's field. Still at 44 (45 in just over 9 weeks) I'm pretty happy with my abilities and my form is getting better every day. Luckily next season it's all 45+ for this guy!!!

NoRacer
02-03-06, 08:02 AM
According to the book "War", Ferrari checks (well, used to check) whether Armstrong is ready for the TdF when his power output at LT is 6.7W/kg.

R600DuraAce
02-03-06, 09:05 AM
My "real" FT (1 full hour average power output) is 235w. 3.8w/kg. Average HR 172. My 20 minutes average power is about 250w. Again, power to weight ratio is only relevant to climbing. Raw power and speed will always faster on the flat, unless the heavier riders get all tired before the finish line.

http://www.cyclingpeakssoftware.com/images/powerprofile_v4.gif

The number is power output in watts/bodyweight in kilos.

To determine your power output you need to time yourself doing a certain measured effort. A flat out performance on the flat, or riding a hill that you know the length and % incline of.

Then put it into this calculator

http://www.kreuzotter.de/english/espeed.htm

The important thing to take into account is the time categories, because you can put out much more power over 5s than FT (continual effort).

For me, I only have figures for last year, where I put out 270 watts for just over an hour up Alpe d'Huez. My weight was 67 kilos, so that's a P/W ratio of 4.02 FT power output, putting me (last year) between 'good' (cat 3) and 'very good' (cat 2). Armstrong did Alpe d'Huez putting out 516w in the time trial. He was 75 kilos, giving him a P/W ratio of 6.88 - i.e. off the scale.

Where do you sit?

pedex
02-03-06, 09:25 AM
4.9, hour

shawneebiker
02-03-06, 09:29 AM
http://www.cyclingpeakssoftware.com/images/powerprofile_v4.gif

The number is power output in watts/bodyweight in kilos.

To determine your power output you need to time yourself doing a certain measured effort. A flat out performance on the flat, or riding a hill that you know the length and % incline of.

Then put it into this calculator

http://www.kreuzotter.de/english/espeed.htm

The important thing to take into account is the time categories, because you can put out much more power over 5s than FT (continual effort).

For me, I only have figures for last year, where I put out 270 watts for just over an hour up Alpe d'Huez. My weight was 67 kilos, so that's a P/W ratio of 4.02 FT power output, putting me (last year) between 'good' (cat 3) and 'very good' (cat 2). Armstrong did Alpe d'Huez putting out 516w in the time trial. He was 75 kilos, giving him a P/W ratio of 6.88 - i.e. off the scale.

Where do you sit?

Good Topic Euro....

I just tested 2 days ago using my new Polar power meter, 277 watts for 20 min. T.T. Unfortunately I'm 35 and weigh 100 kilos. I just starting using power.

By the way I think the Polar power meter gets an unfair bad rap. It was a bit fussy to set up but it seems to be working great........Alot of cool features.
:D

LowCel
02-03-06, 09:36 AM
My "real" FT (1 full hour average power output) is 235w. 3.8w/kg. Average HR 172. My 20 minutes average power is about 250w. Again, power to weight ratio is only relevant to climbing. Raw power and speed will always faster on the flat, unless the heavier riders get all tired before the finish line.

If you are calling the 1 hour the "real" FT then mine is just 289 w. This has me at 3.7:1. That is tempo riding though, haven't done a true test since I received my powertap.

It was actually a 52 minute tempo ride, ran into a traffic problem before I was able to finish the hour. My average heart rate was 149. My zone 3 is 150 - 155.

http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b148/LowCel/workoutinterval.jpg

sleepystarz
02-03-06, 10:01 AM
Damn.. that powertap is cool. Wish I had one on my bike. I'm just going to keep going back to that page euro linked and watch my progress over the next year by filling in the blanks each month.

OC Roadie
02-03-06, 10:06 AM
Euro- Nice thread and link. I based mine off of a 90 minute climb up Mt Baldy, puts me at ~278 watts over a 90 minute climb for a P/W ratio of 3.78. I need a chart with a 90 minute effort, or I need to go find a 60 minute climb :)

WD_40
02-03-06, 10:27 AM
Cool website. Thanks for the link, EURO.

2Rodies
02-03-06, 10:35 AM
By the way I think the Polar power meter gets an unfair bad rap. It was a bit fussy to set up but it seems to be working great........Alot of cool features.
:D

The thing about the Polar is that it isn't very accurate. My buddy replaced his with an SRM and he's seen some pretty big difference in the readings. I used a HAC 4 for years (even more inaccurate than the Polar) when I got my PTP I did a side by side comparison. At 300w on the HAC I was reading 720w on the PTP. It was then I realized why I was blowing up on my hill repeats, I was trying to maintain 300w hill repeats on the HAC! Anyway the Polar is still better than nothing, but a PT or SRM are really still the best and most accurate options.

Pizza Man
02-03-06, 11:01 AM
Thanks EURO.

I weigh 63 kg and according to my first lab test a few months ago can maintain 285W, so I'm at 4.5 FT.
I can currently maintain 350W for 5 min, so that's about 5.6 (between Cat 1 & Cat 2).

But, my 5s and 1 min numbers are not much higher, and put me in the Cat 5 range for the sprint. I can't sprint, but my coach has me working on it.

This is why I currently only do well in races with a hill top finish or where I make a break with at least 2 miles to go.

rule
02-03-06, 11:11 AM
Cat 4 range.

TheKillerPenguin
02-03-06, 11:30 AM
5m is at 6.31, putting me between cat1 and domestic pro??? This assumes that the power curve cycleops posted on their website for the Fluid 2 is accurate.

Otherwise, I have a 12:20 effort up a steady 2.2 mi 7.67% climb, at 350W, but thats too long to count as a 5m, and too short to count as FT

oboeguy
02-03-06, 11:34 AM
I fit into the low-end of the Cat4 range apparently at around 275-285W (on a good day) for 88kg . Heh, nice to know. If I get down to where my weight should be (purely subjective), i.e. around 75kg, I should be able to scratch the bottom of Cat 3.

My "field test" is riding-up "l'Alpine d'Huez" about 9 miles north of the GWB. It's only 2km long if you start from the river level but it's a good test at 7% grade, using a HRM to stay within my limit (Lance's test portrayed in I thank "Lance Armstrong's War" was a 1km hill outside of Girnoa at 10%).

BTW, speaking of Lance in the Alpe d'Huez TT, I've never seen determination as I did on his face as he passed by us. O - M - G. Now I know why... 516W for over half an hour? That's sick!

Edit: clarification

shawneebiker
02-03-06, 12:21 PM
The thing about the Polar is that it isn't very accurate. My buddy replaced his with an SRM and he's seen some pretty big difference in the readings. I used a HAC 4 for years (even more inaccurate than the Polar) when I got my PTP I did a side by side comparison. At 300w on the HAC I was reading 720w on the PTP. It was then I realized why I was blowing up on my hill repeats, I was trying to maintain 300w hill repeats on the HAC! Anyway the Polar is still better than nothing, but a PT or SRM are really still the best and most accurate options.

There's been several comparisons between the two and they are generally within 5%. One of the studies showed the difference between SRM and Polar was as little as 1.7%. I'll be using it to track my progress rather than comparing myself to others

http://web.archive.org/web/20030309132525/http:/www.solariscentral.org/cycling/Power_Output_FAQ.pdf

pinky
02-03-06, 12:25 PM
These threads transfer well from weightweenies, eh Euro?
Well from wattage tests over the last two days on trainer with a powertap, my 1 minute was 7.59 w/kg, my 5 minute was 4.2 w/kg and my 20 minute from yesterday was around 3.7-3.8 (don't have the file on hand). Looks like I need some serious sprint training...but I could've told you that without the tests.

Penguin, trying to copy cycleops curve on the trainer is near impossible because it varies on how hard you press the roller against your wheel, a full twist changed mine from 205 watts at 90rpm in a 53x19 to 225 watts at the same cadence/gear.

simplyred
02-03-06, 12:50 PM
Cat 3 Range...

2Rodies
02-03-06, 01:43 PM
There's been several comparisons between the two and they are generally within 5%. One of the studies showed the difference between SRM and Polar was as little as 1.7%. I'll be using it to track my progress rather than comparing myself to others.

I've read them also, most of them have one thing in common and that is that the Polar unit only give reliable info if it installed correctly. This is important because getting installed correctly isn't easy. If installed incorrectly it will still give you power information but the accuracy may be in question. This is from of the cyclingnews.com comparison:

The Polar is more difficult to install and can be especially troublesome on bikes with curved chain stays. Note also that the quality of the installation significantly affects the wattage readings of the Polar unit because it determines wattage based off the frequency of chain vibration (vs. the PowerTap which uses strain gauges in the hub). If the sensor is not aligned properly with the chain, it will affect the accuracy of the wattage readings.

With out a doubt the SRM and PT units are more accurate due to the way they gather information by using strain gauges. However using a Polar power unit is by far better than just using HR alone.

Mr_Super_Socks
02-03-06, 02:18 PM
My "field test" is riding-up "l'Alpine d'Huez" about 9 miles north of the GWB. It's only 2km long if you start from the river level but it's a good test at 7% grade, using a HRM to stay within my limit (Lance's test portrayed in I thank "Lance Armstrong's War" was a 1km hill outside of Girnoa at 10%).

Interesting. I always shoot to average at least 10mph up that hill for my Nyack rides. Since it's at the beginning of a much longer ride, I usually try to keep myself at a reasonable HR. That calculator is telling me I'm putting out 328 watts up the hill if I average just 10mph. At 71.3kg, that's a 4.6W/kg over a 12 minute period.

Are you sure it's a 7% avg grade? 4.6 seems to put me higher on that chart than I would have expected. I am going to get my USCF license this year and I want to start racing, but I'm doing the ALpine d'Huez test this weekend to get a mor accurate reading.

shawneebiker
02-03-06, 02:20 PM
I've read them also, most of them have one thing in common and that is that the Polar unit only give reliable info if it installed correctly. This is important because getting installed correctly isn't easy. If installed incorrectly it will still give you power information but the accuracy may be in question. This is from of the cyclingnews.com comparison:

The Polar is more difficult to install and can be especially troublesome on bikes with curved chain stays. Note also that the quality of the installation significantly affects the wattage readings of the Polar unit because it determines wattage based off the frequency of chain vibration (vs. the PowerTap which uses strain gauges in the hub). If the sensor is not aligned properly with the chain, it will affect the accuracy of the wattage readings.

With out a doubt the SRM and PT units are more accurate due to the way they gather information by using strain gauges. However using a Polar power unit is by far better than just using HR alone.

I agree its not as good as SRM and PT but since I already had the S725 it seemed like a good alternative to dropping \$\$\$ on the other systems. SRM is way out of budget.. For the price I think its a very viable solution for power. I think its a good alternative if you already have one of the Polar units......I like the Polar software....

It's not much harder than installing a wired cycling computer. If you do your homework ahead of time....

I'm still not sure that if I was going to purchase a PT or Polar again that I wouldn't go with the Polar. We'll see how It works out in the next few months...

See this link: http://web.archive.org/web/20030309132525/http:/www.solariscentral.org/cycling/Power_Output_FAQ.pdf

TheKillerPenguin
02-03-06, 02:20 PM
Penguin, trying to copy cycleops curve on the trainer is near impossible because it varies on how hard you press the roller against your wheel, a full twist changed mine from 205 watts at 90rpm in a 53x19 to 225 watts at the same cadence/gear.
Ahh well, figures.

DannoXYZ
02-03-06, 02:29 PM
Profiling is inherently racist and I won't stand for it....

2Rodies
02-03-06, 03:12 PM
I agree its not as good as SRM and PT but since I already had the S725 it seemed like a good alternative to dropping \$\$\$ on the other systems.

When you fully kit out the Polar unit it really isn't all that much cheaper than a Power Tap Pro. A fully kitted out Polar is around 740 bucks and a PTP with an open pro wheel is aroun 1100 bucks. Yes 360 bucks is 360 bucks but for what you get it's worth it.

BikeInMN
02-03-06, 03:14 PM
When you fully kit out the Polar unit it really isn't all that much cheaper than a Power Tap Pro. A fully kitted out Polar is around 740 bucks and a PTP with an open pro wheel is aroun 1100 bucks. Yes 360 bucks is 360 bucks but for what you get it's worth it.

PT Pro wheels can be had a heck of a lot cheaper than 1100.

Alfred E Bike has them for \$812.99

http://aebike.com/site/page.cfm?PageID=30&Description=powertap&Brand=

trekking_TW
02-03-06, 03:15 PM
Based on measurements taken while climbing:
355W for 7min. = 4.49W/kg , middle of 'very good' Cat 2

2Rodies
02-03-06, 03:18 PM
PT Pro wheels can be had a heck of a lot cheaper than 1100.

Alfred E Bike has them for \$812.99

http://aebike.com/site/page.cfm?PageID=30&Description=powertap&Brand=

Wow that's a smokin' deal. Now it would seem to be a no brainer between the Polar and Power Tap. I agree about the SRM being too expensive. Although I was just about ready to drop the coin for one when the deal of the century fell in my lap and I bought my PTP. I got mine from a domeststic pro rider who was given two by the team he rode for. Brand new with a second bike kit and a Mavic CXP33 rear wheel for 450 bucks shipped.

BikeInMN
02-03-06, 03:22 PM
Based on measurements taken while climbing:
355W for 7min. = 4.49W/kg , middle of 'very good' Cat 2

355 for 7 minutes does not equal FT or functional threshold. FT is equal to what you can generate for 60 minutes.
No disrespect intended...

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

These threads crack me up cause everyone ends up thinking they're ready to go pro or race with 1/2 fields when the true is usually very different. I happen to have a fairly freakish 1 minute power that would put me in the top pro category but I'm not...

Voodoo76
02-03-06, 03:30 PM
Profiling is inherently racist and I won't stand for it....

Bunch of damn wattists.

LowCel
02-03-06, 03:36 PM
Based on measurements taken while climbing:
355W for 7min. = 4.49W/kg , middle of 'very good' Cat 2

Actually that has you in the good, Cat 3 section if you use it as a 5 minute time.

CastIron
02-03-06, 03:40 PM
Man this can't be terribly accurate. Really.

On a 'modest' one hour jaunt last summer (with better than average results) I come out to 4.32/hour. On a particularly good commute home this week, I came up with the same scale over the 1 minute mark (it was really a 2-3 minute climb).

In both cases I was pretty much center of the Cat. 2 mark. I'm nowhere near that good. Better than Euro, mind you. :p

http://img3.buzznet.com/assets/users8/ziggurat/default/msg-1119591173-2.jpg

EdZ
02-03-06, 05:04 PM
According to that chart I'm a pro. My workout with my team is 2% grade, big chain ring and 17 in the rear. Over 37 minutes, which is how long we go, I usually can pull off an average MPH of about 22 or 21. Now, we also sprint flat out every 2 minutes for 30 seconds the whole time, so my MPH is anywhere from 20 to 25. Over a 5 minute duration, I'm sure I could pull off an average MPH of about 25 if I realy push myself. I weigh 63.5 kilos, so the calculator says that im going at 449 watts. So thats 7.07 W/kg over 5 minutes. Did I do that right?

F1_Fan
02-03-06, 05:47 PM
I weigh 63.5 kilos, so the calculator says that im going at 449 watts. So thats 7.07 W/kg over 5 minutes. Did I do that right?

With calculators like that, don't forget to include the weight of your bike (incl. waterbottles and tool bag) and the crap in your pockets. That's good for another 10 kg. The formula for power is based on moving a known amount of weight...

CastIron
02-03-06, 05:52 PM
I toyed with that calculator a bit. The weights of rider and ride make little difference (some, of course, but not much). What really causes the numbers to go up is the grade and wind. Zero out those factors for a nice conservative figure (which I did).

mollusk
02-03-06, 05:56 PM
There is something wrong somewhere. I time myself in a 50 km loop every so often and the calculator shows me with a wattage of 320 W for a ride time in excess of 1 hour. Even though my loop isn't dead flat I'm considering it as flat with no wind. With my 90 kg body that puts me at 3.55 Watts/kg. This is way too high. I'm just an old (51), recreational/fitness rider. I'd say that for club riding (which I haven't done in a LONG time) I'd be considered a "B+" rider. I'm guessing that the local racers could probably ride me into the ground. Perhaps the difference is that I have my current bike set up so that even when riding on the hoods I'm not that upright and now I spend most of my time riding on the hoods. (On my old bike there was a much deeper drop in teh bars and I set it up so that I'd ride in teh drops 90+% of the time.) I don't see very much difference riding in the drops. Perhaps I see a 1 to 1.5 mph increase for the same effort when in the drops. The calculator shows a bigger change in speed going from the hoods to the drops than I realize in the real world.

daytonian
02-03-06, 05:59 PM
Bunch of damn wattists.

.....and number cruncherists

EURO
02-04-06, 01:26 PM
These threads transfer well from weightweenies, eh Euro?
:)

According to that chart I'm a pro. My workout with my team is 2% grade, big chain ring and 17 in the rear. Over 37 minutes, which is how long we go, I usually can pull off an average MPH of about 22 or 21. Now, we also sprint flat out every 2 minutes for 30 seconds the whole time, so my MPH is anywhere from 20 to 25. Over a 5 minute duration, I'm sure I could pull off an average MPH of about 25 if I realy push myself. I weigh 63.5 kilos, so the calculator says that im going at 449 watts. So thats 7.07 W/kg over 5 minutes. Did I do that right?

If you are riding in a group, the numbers will be skewed. It has to be an individual effort to work in the calculator.

1centaur
02-04-06, 04:45 PM
What's funny is that as someone who puts 7,000 combined trainer and road miles in my legs, I would be low Cat 4 on the FT measure and not even get on the bottom of the chart on the 5s measure, based on the 641 watts I maxed out at on the Computrainer, my only source of watts measurement. I guess I need a road measurement device so I can hit a spike that makes me better than untrained in the sprint.

Sincitycycler
02-07-06, 01:16 PM
I'm 2.66 P/W as a 1st year rider with lousy weekday training habits (80 miles a week + free imported beer in casinos = bad recovery). I'm even surprised that I average CAT 5 fitness.

I just turned 45, so I need to find a 45+ CAT 5 race- I'll volunteer for Autobus driver... :p

Sincitycycler
02-07-06, 01:19 PM
There is something wrong somewhere. I time myself in a 50 km loop every so often and the calculator shows me with a wattage of 320 W for a ride time in excess of 1 hour. Even though my loop isn't dead flat I'm considering it as flat with no wind. With my 90 kg body that puts me at 3.55 Watts/kg. This is way too high. I'm just an old (51), recreational/fitness rider. I'd say that for club riding (which I haven't done in a LONG time) I'd be considered a "B+" rider. I'm guessing that the local racers could probably ride me into the ground. Perhaps the difference is that I have my current bike set up so that even when riding on the hoods I'm not that upright and now I spend most of my time riding on the hoods. (On my old bike there was a much deeper drop in teh bars and I set it up so that I'd ride in teh drops 90+% of the time.) I don't see very much difference riding in the drops. Perhaps I see a 1 to 1.5 mph increase for the same effort when in the drops. The calculator shows a bigger change in speed going from the hoods to the drops than I realize in the real world.

50km = 30 miles. How fast do you ride?

2Rodies
02-07-06, 01:19 PM
What's funny is that as someone who puts 7,000 combined trainer and road miles in my legs, I would be low Cat 4 on the FT measure and not even get on the bottom of the chart on the 5s measure, based on the 641 watts I maxed out at on the Computrainer, my only source of watts measurement. I guess I need a road measurement device so I can hit a spike that makes me better than untrained in the sprint.

Not surprising at all really. Before I hired a coach I was in the 7-8k a year range for my riding. I did a lot of fast training rides with racers and fast club rides. When my coach did my Vo2max LT test my power at LT was in the low cat 5 range. Now I do closer to 5k a year and I'm much fitter and faster.

mollusk
02-07-06, 01:56 PM
50km = 30 miles. How fast do you ride?

21.2 average mph solo, mostly on the hoods. (I'm pretty tired at the end.)

merlinextraligh
02-07-06, 02:14 PM
. Still at 44 (45 in just over 9 weeks) I'm pretty happy with my abilities and my form is getting better every day. Luckily next season it's all 45+ for this guy!!!

2Rodies, by USCF rules, your racing age already is 45.

2Rodies
02-07-06, 02:23 PM
2Rodies, by USCF rules, your racing age already is 45.

F' I don't even know my own age...I'm 43, 44 in 9 weeks! This is what happens when you post stuff when you haven't had your morning coffee!

Vinokurtov
02-07-06, 03:58 PM
Where do you sit?

On my Fizik, of course.

46 in a week, going into my second full season of racing. Bad day last year on a flat TT I was at 255w on a, bottom of Cat 3. Good day on an uphill TT I was at just under 290w, or 4.16, bottom of Cat 2. That's about dead on given my finishes and TT times.

On the same uphill TT the year prior I was able to average 245w, so I was up 16% in 12 months. Too bad the gains aren't a straight line graph or I'd be mid Cat 1 by June.

krazyderek
02-07-06, 04:00 PM
6.2W/kg for sprinting, 9.1W/kg peak, 3.2-3.5W/kg sustained effort, 1.25-1.8W/kg recovery day pace