I like the idea of developing a triathlon power profile chart. As you note, however, the only real values that matter for us are the 5 minute power and the FTP. We even might want longer durations, as it is quite common for triathletes to have good 1 to 2 hour power and then fall off the chart, so to speak, at the IM distance.

I don't know if most folks realize that this power profile chart is based on the best values at the assorted durations. IIRC, the top 5s and 1 minute values were not from road riders. When I went to the USA Cycling power seminar last year the top 5 second power had just been improved upon by a BMX racer. The 1 minute value is a track ride, I'd guess from the kilo. It is quite common for athletes, road riders, to vary a decent amount across the power profile chart as it is not even specific to them.

---

Jason
Dig It Triathlon and Multisport
http://www.digittri.com

I think you would be very well served trying to get a pretty high 5 min and FTP. I do lots of "interval" work that consists of roughly 5 min work with 2-3 min rest. Those are done as somewhere between 4 and 6 sets, and they are done as best average. This will help to raise your VO2 and FTP. Interestingly enough, my "FPT" in my power profile is not as good as my 5 min mean max. The reason for this I haven't done a 60 minute all-out effort any time recently. I have quite a few triathlon 40K efforts, but those are nowhere near all-out, and they don't last 40 minutes. FWIW, my estimated FTP, based on the last month of riding and some tests (ie 16 mile TT) is "relatively higher" than my 5 minute power, but it doesn't show up that way on the power profile chart; however, at the same time I haven't done a single all-out 5 minute effort either, just a lot of 5 minute intervals.

Additionally, I don't think triathletes are well served to lower their standards by creating their own power profile charts. Simply riding hard a few times per week for a season should get just about anyone to at least 3.5 W/kg at FTP (ie mid Cat 4). This might get you on the podium in your AG at some local races, but it just seems you are lowering your standards if you look at any other way than that you are a Cat 4 level. Another way to look at it is that there are tons of amatuer roadies out there across the country who could lay the smack down on pretty much any triathlete any day of the week, and they can do it without aerobars. What do they do? They ride their bike often, and they ride it hard a few times per week. If you measure yourself against them, then you will likely always have room for improvement. If you simply use other triathletes as your barometer, then you very quickly think you are the local stud, when in fact you probably get dropped like a bad habit the minute a group ride goes uphill.

You're going to laugh when you see my numbers.

3.04 FT
3.97 5 min
7.74 1 min
18.45 5 sec

It's quite possible that my PT reads low since I did my ride at IMMoo in 5:48 and averaged 144 watts. That was consistant with all of my training rides and previous racing.

jaretj

" ...as it is quite common for triathletes to have good 1 to 2 hour power and then fall off the chart, so to speak, at the IM distance. "

I'm still not convinced this is true. Sure, we see folks fall apart after mile 80, but not those who stick to the TSS pacing guidelines. I still haven't seen a power file from a badly-fading athlete who started at, and stayed at, the IF that projected a TSS < 290.

I think their brains fall off the curve, not their legs. ;-)

Fair enough . . .

---

Jason
Dig It Triathlon and Multisport
http://www.digittri.com

"... I don't think triathletes are well served to lower their standards by creating their own power profile charts. "

I agree. 3.5 w/kg for 60 min power is the bare minimum that even a moderately committed athlete under the age of about 45 should achieve. 4.0 w/kg is well within the reach of most guys. Getting above 5 takes some serious commitment to time in the saddle, but that's what the AG leaders are hitting (at least in the sub-masters AGs).

Did you do that on the CT?

If so, I'm going to have to come over this winter and do that do.

jaretj

I agree more or less with Flanagan. We don't need our own power chart.

I think it would have limited utility anyway. My girlfriend puts out almost the same watts:kg as I do, but we're travelling at entirely different speeds during a race. Overall power is more meaningful for most triathlon courses.

Besides, it isn't hard to figure out what you need to do to be competitive at big races. For an Olympic distance you need to swim in the low 20's, ride 25-26mph, and run a 34-37 minute 10K. How does a powerchart add anything to this?

I think it's a helpful reminder to people. Sometimes people think they've done all they can. The power chart will show them in a very objective way where they stand. If there is a bell curve of potential FTs, most athletes underestimate where they fall on that curve. Almost everyone in this sport can get far more powerful than they think they can.

So, if a guy is not getting to 25mph in a 40k, he needs to evaluate his bike setup and his power output. If his power output is lacking, he needs to HTFU and train more. There is only one excuse for an <40 AG'r not being able to ride a 60' 40k on a time trial bike: "I didn't bother training enough."

"... But my 5s and 1min barely came in at Cat4 standard at 15.21 & 7.10. "

Keep in mind that 5s and 1min power are measures of anaerobic capacity. If you don't specifically train that capacity, you won't have strong numbers there. As a triathlete, you have ZERO reason to ever train your anaerobic capacity. So, don't even look at those numbers. Only a sprinter (incl. criterium) or kilo racer needs those numbers to be high.

OTH -- 4.5 w/kg for 60min is a very strong number for a triathlete.

I beg to differ. Tri guys in general are always about keeping it 'steady'. And on a hill, if you can go anaerobic for a minute, wouldn't that make you go faster? Train like a swimmer. Train like a biker. Train like a runner. Then do a tri.

I beg to differ. Tri guys in general are always about keeping it 'steady'. And on a hill, if you can go anaerobic for a minute, wouldn't that make you go faster?

---

It would make you go faster. For that minute.

But those numbers combined with the small hole you punch through the air and the fact it sucks to draft off you still puts you nearer the FOP than the MOP for the bike leg.

---

---------------------------
http://www.nunnsontherun.com

I've noticed the same trend in the data from my PT. Abysmally low on the left side, not so bad to the right. But then I do one hard group ride a week & a couple bike races a year. That must explain why I get killed in every sprint....

---

king of the road says you move too slow
KING OF THE ROAD SAYS YOU MOVE TOO SLOW

Although I know that you know this, it wasn't clear in your post that a good size chunk of a good W/Kg level comes from bringing down the Kg, not boosting the W. I sit at 180lb during my off-season with a little training. An FTP of 4.0 would require me to be at about 326W. During race season, I can get down to about 172lb, which requires only 312W. If by some miracle I could be more disciplined and run more, and actually got down to my all time adult low (164lb), I need only generate 297W. Thats within a reasonable estimate of my current FTP, and I could keep at that level, more or less, through the winter. Thus, for a lot of not super-lean folk, reaching the 3.8-4.0 W/Kg level has more to do with losing weight than power-boosting training. The gap from 4.0 to 5.0 is something else entirely, and I simply cannot imagine the 6.0+ level that Lance and others have been measured at.

I'd also remind less experienced ST readers that W/Kg matters very little on flat courses. My wife's W/Kg ratio is about the same as mine, so as long as she is motivated, she can keep up with me on a hilly course. When we hit the flats, my absolute power values are 100W above hers, and she has to work a lot harder to keep up since her 40-45lb weight benefit over me matters very little there. Conversely, when I ride with my main cycling training partner, whose weight is basically the same as me and FTP is about 20-25W above mine, he will crush me on the hills routinely. when we are on the flats, my markedly lower CdA enables me to push him most of the time (finally I found a reason to love my short legs and my wierdly bent back :) So, although W/Kg is an excellent measure of fitness, it doesn't predict race outcomes or even who wins the sprint on the sunday group ride.

Try telling that to this woman:

http://tinyurl.com/24eops

why?

Because she's one of the top TTers in the world (e.g., 4th at Worlds today, 5th in 2005 on a much flatter course), despite weighing <105 lbs.

well, i think you know as well as i do that if the TT course was totally flat, her weight is largely irrelevant if its a long enough and straight enough race (i.e. you can discount acceleration effects). what matters is her W/CdA ratio, and presumably she's very strong there. Combined with her low body mass, we can assume that her W/Kg ratio is very high, but thats not *why* she's winning TT's. she's winning TT's because her W/CdA is also way up there. We could replace her with a hypothetical rider of greater mass, identical CdA and power output, and i think that we could expect very similar results, no? i'm ignoring inertial effects, and rolling resistance changes due to mass, but i believe they would be small on a flat course.

there are also non-flat TT courses, where she'd presumably be (relatively) even stronger ...

do you know her W/kg?

"...And on a hill, if you can go anaerobic for a minute..."

Saying the words doesn't make it true.

Any effort above the "average" for the event result in an exponentially increasing fatigue load. There is a huge price to pay for big power surges, and the payback is never, ever worth it in a race against the clock.

I do. I also know her CdA. My lips, however, are sealed.

"...W/Kg matters very little on flat courses..."

Quite true -- it's watts/CdA that matters most in our sport, even on rolling hilly courses.

W/kg is still a figure that tells a cyclist where he/she stands on the bell curve of potential. Bigger folks ought to put out more power, and the w/kg is a normalizer.

Thank you for making my point - which is that "size matters" when it comes to CdA - for me.