Wow... where to begin...

1.) I didn't do an ftp test 13 days ago, I was quoting the results of my last test, which were longer ago than 13 days. Same with weight, I rarely step on a scale. I was likely lighter than 240lbs when I made that post.
2.) Even if I did do an ftp test 13 days ago, can you conceive that there are factors (sleep, nutrition, recovery since last hard effort, temperature, etc etc) that could contribute to that test being less than ideal? Meaning that my ftp was higher than 330 back then and I haven't improved as much.
3.) I don't care about w/kg, already addressed this. Except for hilly courses, it artificially makes me look weaker/slower due to my height and associated weight.
4.) The images I posted are from Strava, ever heard of it? If you have a Garmin you can start a lap, ride it out, and end the lap time and Strava will display lap time, lap speed, lap wattage, intensity compared to other similar recent efforts, and heart rate.

and last but not least... 5.) I don't give a **** if you believe me, this is an internet forum and you're a complete stranger so your belief of my ability matters literally zero to me. Where's your proof that YOUR ftp is even above 100?

I love this part the best. W/Kg as a measure doesn't punish heavier or taller people. The additional weight punishes the larger cyclist, the larger weight means that they have to produce more power to go the same speed as a lighter cyclist. The fact that you don't care about this metric is meaningless. It exists, and it's how sane people compare the power output of different cyclists, taking into account their weight. Find any book you like on how to effectively use a power meter and reread the section on w/kg. By all means continue to ignore it, but accept that fact that a 50kg cyclist that produces 6 w/kg will go faster than you over the long haul.

:lol: really? I've openly admitted to that last part a dozen times in this thread. Are you really selective in what you read or do you have really poor reading comprehension?

Once again, I'm not denying that it exists, I'm saying that it deceptively makes me look weak. It makes me look like someone who is 50kg with an ftp of 200 watts. Guess who's going faster in the flats? Guess where I live, the flats! If I decide to ever race around here, I'll absolutely dominate the 50kg rider because I can put out 400 watts for an hour and hold 25mph in the freaking hoods without drafting. Can you say that about most riders? No! By the rules I'd start out in cat5 and wreck shop. The only thing keeping me from it? Some idiot crashing into me and destroying my bike or my body.

Hills, sure, I'd get beaten. But I don't race, I wouldn't race hills if I did, and the w/kg metric doesn't mean that my power came free. I had to work for it like everyone else.

LOL, I guess you can't teach an old dog new tricks and are limited to what you've been told/trained on in the past. It's flat out scientifically proven, if you're capable of reading any number of scientific studies, that what is formally called "base miles" isn't as important as you would believe. For whatever reason you've been trying to start something this whole time with garbage like, "What are your credentials, exactly?" My credentials are I'm capable of reading and actually take the time to understand, even if I told you I'm a Cat2 racer what the hell difference does it make other than ego posturing. Ex-Pro's (GCN) or those with a Ph.D. running these studies out rank us both... You make it sound like you don't understand that all exercise, don't care what intensity, trains your aerobic engine for the time you put into it. Doing 2-3 hours of sweet spot sub threshold work works your aerobic engine more intensely than your "base miles" for the same time period and is a better use of time (if limited) as long as you're able to recover before the next workout. The same physiological changes will occur (generating mitochondria, more capillaries, etc) with less time, IF you're able to recover. Train for the event you're targeting... It's honestly really sad that people are so stuck in their old ways and keep doing what they used to do without any understanding of what's going on which is EXACTLY what I said initially. Regurgitation without any understanding.

It's funny how so many here just straight out assume that the OP has zero aerobic engine. He's an involved soccer player for gosh sakes and additionally hasn't learned (likely, this is an assumption) how to bury himself as very few sports ask for that (most sports have substitutions) and that's more mental training. He won't learn how to do that by trudging along. Many competitive soccer players aerobic engines will absolutely shame many Cat4/5 cyclists. But I digress, there's so much diarrhea here now that I just hope the OP can filter out the BS of all this e-wang posturing and figure out what works out best for him.

If you believe you would "dominate" that 50 kg rider in a race, maybe go enter a race and see if that's how it pans out. You don't win races by having more watts than the other guy. You win by crossing the line first. Not the same thing at all.

No, it gives you an identical power profile to the OP, and if the OP was 50kg that would mean his FTP was 150 watts. Don't worry, math is hard.

Ok, so now your 20 minute FTP test where you did 405w is suddenly a 1 hour test? Got it. Btw, I don't dispute your numbers, or your honesty. Seriously. I've just never seen anyone post Strava or Garmin data & show such a small amount of data. Usually people just give a link to the ride data for the given day.

I would have won the Tour this year but I saw Barguil was racing so decided against it, don't want him putting me head first into a pole.

Bit off topic, and I am sure you lads will hate to get away from such an amazing topic, but not too long ago I did a one hour FTP test on my trainer and it was absolute torture. Got numbers considerably lower than what I got from eight and twenty minutes tests too, although I think I could have done a bit better. Not going to be trying again any time soon though.

Seriously what is your deal? I was interested in giving the OP some useful friggin advice on how to get into racing. You seem to be trying to prove that you know how to use Google Scholar to find articles on sports science and repeat them without having any of the context that comes with actual experience in racing. No one has said that the science you are referring to is wrong. Only that you seem to have no actual experience with training for bike racing and how someone new to the sport might prepare for it. And you don't have the context to understand what we're talking about. For example, you keep accusing me of "redefining" what base means. Right, because "base training" is synonymous with LSD and that's the only thing people ever mean by using the term.

If you were able to recognize that you and I were never talking about the same thing in the first place, there may have been a productive conversation to be had. Instead you just decided that because you can find articles on Pub Med that you know exactly how the OP should train for crits, and you're all bent out of shape cause no one is taking you seriously. It's funny how you're acting like it's too bad this thread is all confusing, like you aren't the worst B.S. peddler here - we gave what was ultimately really simple advice, ride a lot and have fun. You're just mad that everyone declined to recognize your obvious genius. Like I said. Deal with it.

I meant that myself at 100kg and 400 watts is the same w/kg as 50kg and 200 watts. "Math is hard" right back at you with a side of "logical inferences are hard".

I was rounding up. Figured it was easier than saying "using the 95% method of estimating 1 hour power, mine is 384.75 watts". Still a big number, as others have said.

And I'm not posting my Strava with gps data back to my house for the whole internet to see :lol: even with privacy zones enabled that's way too close to home for me. I don't even display what state I'm in on my profile.

So in which Cat do you think you belong?

Can someone clarify for this virtual race between the theoretical body sizes:

The 50 kg guy putting out 300 watts (6 w/kg) can hold 25+ mph in the flat, right? vs the 110 kg at 400 watts, about the same. Just looking the kreuzotter calculator ... not having done 25 miles in an hour I can't really say.

Extra skin and bones weighs how much for a 72 inch 240 pound guy vs 66 inch guy? All I can find is a vague 15-20% of the total weight is bones (evidently including marrow and water?), and around 20 pounds for skin, which seems to be around 30 pounds difference? Any doctors in the house?

I've got no dog in this fight but since I'm on the virtual sideline of this virtual race, realistic numbers would help in choosing who to cheer for. I usually root for the underdog FWIW.

Regarding OP I'd love to chime in, except my opinion would be from an untrained and uneducated perspective as far as race fit goes. So I won't, except that 194 comfortable watts for an hour is darned good to start with, certainly not something to be discouraged about.

I mean, damn dude, it's like, you're not even wrong. Yeah, there's more bang-for-buck in high-intensity training. Duh. Calling me an "old dog" is laughable. I know the studies brah. The question is what's the best approach for someone to get into the sport? A classic answer, with lots of merit, is "time on bike." It's not just about building aerobic fitness up from zero. It's also about building fluency on the bike, and the only way to do that is time in the saddle. Now there's an interesting counterpoint on what kind of riding said n00b should be doing, and a case to be made for structure for riders coming in with more fitness and even the total novice. But the way to do that is not by saying anyone advocating for unstructured riding is old and dumb and doesn't know the latest research. There's a bigger picture that you don't seem to understand.

I would suggest the OP visit the 33 and check the "So you're thinking about racing" sticky. Also check out the velodrome in Northbrook if you're on the North Side.

Your need to argue has left you in a loop. Figure out what you're trying to say... actually don't, you're the only one who cares as you had to reply twice to my last post for some reason...

Take one of the most widely known sayings in the English language with an obvious meaning and still the only words you see is "old" and "dog." It says a lot about what you're here for. First to defend your boy and now to posture against me. Using the needs of the OP as an excuse to try and rail me is silly considering the OP never made it past page 1 of this thread and nevermind the fact that you virtually only address me in your posts. Just so you know, the saying of "can't teach an old dog new tricks" implies that once you learn something it's very difficult for you to do it another way. As you obviously have your own singular way... But, you don't seem to realize I've agreed with the viewpoint base miles/fun miles are good going on 6+ times now... but still you can't let someone say a little structure is good, since there's only way toward enlightenment, so you keep on finding ways to argue.

This is where your "old dog" methods shine through. As you obviously have your own ways to doing things and are very stout about them. You're advocating treating this guy like a 5 year old that you're telling to play in the park for a few hours as it's only about "time on bike." No goals, no objectives, no nothing except go out and run around and play (seat time). The only difference is that I'm advocating some minute level of structure to better utilize time, why would a rider that has already invested in a power meter not want some structure and goals? Would anyone who's played organized sports not be able to handle a handful of drills to help them achieve their own goals? By your stance that's a definite no, they all need to start at the very bottom where more riding will solve all ills. Somehow through your unorganized, no objective, no drill method he'll somehow achieve this "fluency on the bike." Yet doing the same thing, except with some goals and drills (be it riding to power zones for a single or a few intervals, riding high/low rpm for short stints, holding the drops for given time, riding lines, etc) a rider will be unable to obtain this "fluency." Honestly, it sounds like you're arguing trying to retain the honor of the training method you were brought up in and everything else is dishonorable. The #1 thing for a "noob" is to keep it interesting and motivating. With no goals, objectives or skills to try and work on it makes it incredibly hard to remain motivated as your only objective is continue to slog "time on bike." The "bigger picture" that you completely miss is that with a "noob" trying to ride 20+ hours a week (a huge commitment) the most prominent issue is staving off is disinterest, usually fueled by lack of achievable goals and measurable progress. But again, no one cares as this hasn't ever been about the OP, or even about the commitment on the bike, it's been about you defending your training ideals tooth and nail. So let me put an end to this... I give up, you win! Your kung-fu is the best... I'll conclude this the same way I concluded my last post, "there's so much diarrhea here now that I just hope the OP can filter out the BS of all this e-wang posturing and figure out what works out best for him."

FTFY

And so it doesn't seem like I'm picking on women, its not just them. Maybe its my location but the average person is huge.

I've tried this before in a different thread and I'll try this again now. You come on this forum and throw around your power numbers and talk about how you'd hypothetically dominate races and are nearing Cat 2 levels and would "wreck shop" in your first Cat 5 race.

Just race. You're making excuses. By saying that you're afraid of some idiot taking you out as the only reason you don't, you make it sound like every Cat 5 rider gets taken down at some point in his first 10 races. Some things are unavoidable, sure, but the vast majority of racers make it through their 10 Cat 5 races (fewer if you're "wrecking shop" and winning) without an incident.

If you were on this forum just talking about your power and how you'd like to improve it, that's one thing, but based on how you contextualize all of these numbers/speeds, you really seem to want to prove something about how you're stronger than others, and the only real way to do that is lining up for a race. Hell, I suggested a TT in the last thread where this came up, and you won't do that either apparently.

It's obvious you don't really care how people on this forum perceive you, so I don't expect you to care if I say we think all this posturing makes you sound arrogant and overly defensive. I just think that for your own sake, you'd probably get a lot out of finding out one way or another how you actually stack up with a race or 2 or 30.

I still don't understand this poster's ability to ignore the w/kg metric because he feels that it unfairly penalizes him because he's tall. Apparently he comes from a powerlifting background & while any competition is based on total lift weight of various lifts, strength to weight ratio is something that is commonly compared. Does he complain to other lifters that this is unfair, just because he's tall doesn't necessarily mean that he's strong... he still has to work hard to lift heavy crap. I also don't get the idea of bragging that you are fast/have lots of power but only on flat ground. Seems pretty wimpy to me.

btw, I had great power the other day... check the jpg in the link.

http://www.bikeforums.net/attachment...1&d=1438180338

+1

+1

I'm going to add my 2 cents one last time and do my best to stay out of this thread: Do some reading, get comfortable in a group, then race. The rest will figure itself out as you gain experience.

I see what you did there :thumb:

Look at this number:
http://bikeforums.net/attachment.php...hmentid=467796

Sick, right? That number would crush some souls.

The ignorance of how racing works is strong here.

What you people are doing is trying to say that I'm weak BECAUSE I'm heavy.

I would wager I have one of the highest FTP's on this board, but you all say "but you're heavy so you're weak". No, I'm strong, but might not be fast on hills. Also, peak power of 800 is pretty weak. I went on an eaaaaaaaasy spin today, average heart rate of 103 and I still had a peak power of over 800. But that's because I'm tall right, not because I'm strong :lol:

Educate me then if you're so smart. All too common for some troll to come in and say "you don't know how XYZ works but I don't either so I'm going to stop talking after saying you don't know what you're talking about".

I've never raced so if you have you sure as hell better know more about it than me :lol: that's like bragging about knowing more about sports than me. I don't follow sports AT ALL so that isn't saying much.

When people are attacking me what other way is there to respond than to defend myself? My choices are ignore you and be thought to be a ***** or defend myself and be thought to be defensive.

Yes and a dump truck will have more horsepower than a sports car.