Originally Posted by makeitso5005 (Post 18007030)

Considering you didn't know the OP's time available to ride nor given any guidelines before making your blanket reaction statement that base miles are an important part of training it just shows how generic of a comment you initially made. As someone also with a soccer background, I know you can come into the sport with a strong level of fitness. You're just assuming he has no endurance as a first year even though soccer players (of course varying by level) have one of the biggest aerobic engines in any sport. The only indicator we currently have is he can ride 200w for an hour pretty easily. Base miles, if the OP were to google "base miles" on training schedules, would indicate long and very slow so it's all becomes very confusing when people give blanket statements and then grolby changing that definition to any time on the bike. It wasn't until the OP responded to my inquiry did you find out how many hours a week the OP has available and I specifically stated that base miles will be a part of anyone's training schedule with 15+ hours available to train. As far as road racing, it's not in the cards for the first year... I have no idea why you even bring this up. He needs to become comfortable riding in a friendly group ride and then maybe a few short crits, throwing him into 2+ hours of riding in a nervous and aggressive racing pack of 30+ riders just aren't skills someone gets first year! His 20+ hours of training per week will allow plenty of time to work on his aerobic engine for if he chooses to begin that level of competition at some point. In the end, your comments are purely self serving as you didn't find out how many hours he has available to train until after you already responded to my comment. Both of you Bostonians please read what I type instead of just reacting as, again for like the 5th time now, base miles are important to anyone who's got the amount of time the OP has to train to prevent over training. As you're reacting to only my first comment (and even there I stipulate if he's got more than 20+ hours a week base miles will be included!) regarding base miles and continue to try snowballing on something that doesn't exist... I've NEVER stipulated base miles are a waste universally, only that they're not quite as important as some people believe and the science and opinions of ex-pro's agrees especially on restricted schedules. Something we didn't know when I first posted...

OP: Sorry this post has become so watered down. My recommendation in your situation is just to ride and keep yourself interested and motivated by varying up your rides, you have plenty of time to ride/train per week. Ride with friends, ride to explore, ride to push yourself, just keep it varied and interesting for yourself. Find yourself a local group ride using one of the links people have provided or ask your local shop and become comfortable riding in a pack and developing the skills needed to ride skillfully in a pack. Go be a spectator for a few crits, watch how riders prep/warm up, warm down, talk to a few, see how the bunch race. One of the big issues with Cat5 races is that they tend to be crashfests as a lot of ego's come to battle in the first few laps. Once you feel like you'd be comfortable in the crit pack then go ahead and sign up for one, hopefully someone from your group ride or shop will also be racing to show you the ropes, but don't forget the mantra (just because you're 19, I'm making an assumption here) of 'don't race what you can't replace.' As we wouldn't want you to be without a bike because of something completely out of your control. In any regard, congrats on the new bike! The CAAD10 is an incredible frame, so just ride and have fun and don't be afraid to push yourself.

Originally Posted by DaveWC (Post 18012659)

Wait, what? I wouldn't think that at a w/kg FTP of just barely over 3.0 you would be mocking the power of others. Your w/kg is identical to the OP and you're making 194w seem like a joke. Grab a calculator and enjoy the irony bud.

Alias530 weight 240lbs = 108.86 kgs, FTP 330w w/kg = 330/108.86 = 3.03
OP weight = 64 kgs, power posted = 194w w/kg = 194/64 = 3.03

p.s. watch for the news that Alias530 has suddenly lost 50lbs.

Originally Posted by TMonk (Post 18012865)

And if he did, I'm gonna call B.S. on being able to produce 500w for 5min.

Originally Posted by Alias530 (Post 18012987)

Oh man, where to begin with this asinine post.

1.) I wasn't mocking him, I was sharing what worked for me to gain power.

2.) While w/kg might be a useful metric to predict how well someone will do when racing, it doesn't really translate well for the extra tall. At 6'6", 240lbs means something completely different than 240lbs at 5'6". You want to explain to me how having longer bones and more skin gives me any advantage... like, at ALL? Being heavy BECAUSE you're tall is something entirely different from being heavy because you're all muscled up. There's a reason why professional racers are almost all smaller than the average American female. Because no matter how hard I train, I'll never reach a wild w/kg because I'm heavy due to my height, not muscle mass.

3.) Since that 330w/240lb post, I haven't lost 50lbs like your sarcastic and rude comment would allude to, but I've lost 15 and I've re-done my FTP test. Closer to 3.75 now.

Originally Posted by TMonk (Post 18012998)

^
Oh, I believe it now knowing your size :). 50lbs is kind of a big deal. Also, those numbers just seem so huge to me as I'm only 150-160lbs throughout the year, and as such will never in my life produce 500w for 5 minutes :D.



W/kg isn't everything, just most of it. CdA is also important, and the absolute W in the numerator as well. Your advantage, being a guy with longer bones and bigger muscles, is that you are more powerful. I do get that the context of "professional racers" in your post means road/stage racers, however that body type doesn't necessarily translate to success in other racing disciplines or scenarios.

A world class climber (Quintana, Pinot) wouldn't be able to match you in flat kilo or sprint "drag" style effort, for example, so you have that going for you.

Come to think of it, I think we're on the same page here :D

Originally Posted by TMonk (Post 18013014)

Nice, that's huge!

I aim for about ~100w lower than that during my tests mid season :)

Originally Posted by grolby (Post 18003538)

Not for a bike racer, it's not. For someone with 2 months of riding under their belt, assuming no prior experience in endurance sports, it's pretty excellent, especially if that's riding along easily. A few months of steady riding should see some significant improvement. But always remember that bike races aren't won by power numbers, they're won by getting across the line first. Power helps with that, but it's only one part of the picture.

Originally Posted by Alias530 (Post 18013006)

Sure, I might do poorly in a hilly race but that's because I'm heavy not because I'm weak.

Originally Posted by PepeM (Post 18013176)

How is w/kg misleading for tall guys again?
Which is exactly the point of w/kg. It normalizes power so you can compare people of different weights.

Originally Posted by Alias530 (Post 18013197)

Because being tall is not an advantage like having bigger muscles is

Originally Posted by Alias530 (Post 18013197)

Let's say the average cyclist is 5'8". I'm at least 50-100lbs heavier than them, just in skin and bones. Having heavier skin and bones doesn't give me extra power. It means I have to have more power in order to be competitive, but it's not easier to get stronger just because you're tall.

Originally Posted by Alias530 (Post 18013197)

Again, it might predict how well I'd do in a race, but it doesn't mean that getting a higher power figure is easier.

Originally Posted by Alias530 (Post 18013197)

Hence the reason you see zero people 6'6"+ in the TDF. Humans do not possess the ability to get a 7w/kg FTP when they weigh 240lbs+.

Originally Posted by Alias530 (Post 18013197)

It's the same reason why little skinny teenagers who have never worked out a day in their life can do tons of pullups while top bodybuilders might struggle to do a dozen or two. Strength does not go up proportionally as people get heavier.

Originally Posted by PepeM (Post 18013214)

In what way does w/kg suggest that?



That is correct. The heavier you are, the higher the power you will have to be able to produce to get the same result. That is exactly what a metric like W/kg says.



That is correct. Who thinks that though? How does W/kg in any way suggest that getting a higher power figure is easier?



No one produces that kind of ftp regardless of their weight.



True. How does w/kg have anything to do with this?

Originally Posted by PepeM (Post 18013239)

Higher w/kg over long distances, for sure. Higher w/kg on short efforts, not so much.

Originally Posted by PepeM (Post 18013219)

Everything you said suggests why POWER as a metric can be misleading. The point of the W/kg metric is to address that exactly.

Originally Posted by Alias530 (Post 18013252)

Watts to kg punishes heavy riders due to the larger denominator. It's easier for lighter riders to have impressive w/kg, not really debatable.

My 50-100lbs dead weight, as a result of being tall, means I need to have quite a bit more power to have an impressive w/kg ratio.

Change my example to 6w/kg... the w/kg chart out there goes up to 6.4.

Originally Posted by Alias530 (Post 18013258)

I can sprint up to about 40mph on flat ground for short periods, yet my w/kg for 5 seconds puts me in the "untrained" category for 5 second w/kg. Does 40mph on flat ground sound like "untrained" to you?

Originally Posted by Alias530 (Post 18013263)

And I'm saying that having 50-100lbs of dead weight BECAUSE you're tall, not because you're all muscled up, gives you a low w/kg.

Originally Posted by PepeM (Post 18013274)

It doesn't 'punish' anyone.

It is easier for lighter riders. Also for younger ones. Also for ones with more time to train. Also for ones with a coach.

Due to your weight, you would need to be able to produce a huge power output (perhaps impossible) to be a top climber. A metric like W/kg allows you to know that. It is not misleading you in any way. It is, in fact, showing you the sad reality: someone your size most likely won't be able to be a world class climber. If we were to rely solely on power, you might be misled to believe that since you are able to 'dial it up to 400 watts', you should be great up the hills. Then you look at W/kg and realize, maybe not.



Sounds like nothing to me. The chart is just a guideline. Want to measure racing success, go race.



And I both understand and agree with that, but I don't see why it is the metrics fault.

Originally Posted by Alias530 (Post 18007168)

Intervals... 194 watts feels hardly any more difficult than lifting my leg and letting it fall. Harder sustained efforts (5+mins) for me are closer to 500. Intervals are what got me there.

Originally Posted by link0 (Post 18013120)

Pretty damn good for someone with only 2 months training though.

Originally Posted by PepeM (Post 18013298)

To be fair, you posted this:

which made it sound like you were mocking the OP. Your w/kg is pretty good (just like the OP's) for a non-racer. Plus, even if someone thinks it is 'meager', what do you care?

Originally Posted by Alias530 (Post 18013286)

I'm just explaining myself because I was mocked for my "meager" FTP a few posts back. Just trying to explain that it isn't meager, I'm just tall.

Originally Posted by DaveWC (Post 18013708)

You weren't mocked. Your w/kg were just put into perspective. This is mocking the power output of a cyclist...

Don't throw stones...