A watt is not always a watt......people's weight and builds factor into it. Sure, someone may be pushing 300 watts for their FTP, but if they are a big guy, it may not be that impressive. Similarly, if you are on the smaller / thinner side, you may never even sniff 300w.....and there is nothing wrong with that.

You wattage is unique to you....it is not an absolute number that can be compared between riders. Extreme example - Fabian Cancellera can put out a helluva a lot more watts than Alberto Contador.....but FC is never gonna win the Tour de France, etiher.

---

Chicago Cubs - 2016 WORLD SERIES Champions!!!!

"If ever the time should come, when vain and aspiring men shall possess the highest seats in government, our country will stand in need of its experienced patriots to prevent its ruin." - Samuel Adams

That's why they're the Pro's and we're not.

Just talking about heart rate and RPE right now, Sounds like you are saying your RPE and heart rate are no matching up, ie. you feel like you are pushing a 8-9 out of 10 but your heart rate is only in zone 2. You need to establish new heart rate zones for cycling.

Watts can not be compared, watts/kg can be.

First of all there is a wide range of talent in the world. Some people are born able to do 300 watts for an hour without training. Some people will never get there.

Second of all, the size of the aerobic engine scales with height. So there will be quite a few 6'6" guys who can do 300 watts for an hour, but that won't make them remarkably fast.

While almost nobody who is 5'0" will do 300 watts for an hour, but if they can they might be in the pro-tour.

Unless you are a full time cyclist doing 20 hours a week, you can't usually hit the same kind of heart rates you can running. You might discuss this issue with your coach, or if you don't have a coach, use RPE as a zone guide rather than heart rate. Or power.

How many hours a week do you ride your bike? When I was biking ~10 hours a week I got up to an FTP of around 260 after about 3 years of consistent work. (I am 6'3" so that is not great power). Another year of 15-20 hours a week and I bumped it to 285. 2 or 3 hard rides a week and trying to stay in zone 2 (coggan, power based zone 2) most of the rest of the time.

---

---

Kat Hunter reports on the San Dimas Stage Race from inside the GC winning team
Aeroweenie.com -Compendium of Aero Data and Knowledge
Freelance sports & outdoors writer Kathryn Hunter

How did you determine your HR zones? Lab or field testing or some blanket formula. The formulas don't work for everyone.

Another thing to consider, riding outdoors I can sustain a higher wattage for longer (about 15-20%-ish). I ride a POS trainer, but I assume that it's pretty standard across the board.

I have actually never seen my cycling heart rates ever get any closer to my running heart rates over 3-4 years of 20 hours/wk. Cycling HRs are still 10-15 beats lower at a similar RPE and that discrepancy grows rapidly as I run longer and my locomotor uselessness begins to shine through. I would say that is pretty standard among full time cyclists who dabble in running.

---

Professional Athlete: http://jordancheyne.wordpress.com/ http://www.strava.com/athletes/145340

Coaching Services:http://www.peakformcoaching.com/

10 beats is a lot closer than most newish triathletes can get it.

Maybe you started out with good legs!

---

---

Kat Hunter reports on the San Dimas Stage Race from inside the GC winning team
Aeroweenie.com -Compendium of Aero Data and Knowledge
Freelance sports & outdoors writer Kathryn Hunter

watts/kg only reflects how well a person can climb. Absolute watts matter when the road is flatter.

How do I hit 300 watts? I sprint up a hill as fast as I can, then when I hit 300w, I stop and vomit.

---

Paul
Current Top 2:
7 Things Non-cyclists Should Know About Road Cycling
The GORUCK Challenge Ruined My Life

W/CdA

---

---

Someone has a signature that says "genetics loads the gun" or something like that. It s a lot to do with it. I'm slightly bigger (6'3", 190#) so I pay a penalty on the bike but even after 10+ years of smoking, and a few years of much worse, I was able to jump back in and have a 1 hour FTP test over 300 watts within 18 months. This was with almost no defined interval training, just riding hard outside. I also came from a background of very high level training(Jr Nat team rower) so I had a pretty good understanding of effort levels. With a v02 max level around 82 in high school helped a ton. Probably not that high now, but even with all the bad things I did, it is still higher then a lot of people start with.

"only" is a little misleading. It also can represent, albeit non-linearly, a person power to drag ratio. A lighter rider usually has a smaller frontal area and will have lower rolling resistance with comparable setups.


When you swim and run a lot, you'll naturally struggle to hit higher heart rates cycling as you have a bigger "engine" than you have specific leg fatigue resistance for when cycling.

---

TrainingBible Coaching
http://www.trainingbible.com

Open question to anyone: On a flat road, decent surface, negligible wind, what is YOUR typical speed (within a range) when you are pushing 300 watts?

It takes about five years of dedicated effort of cycling to reach that point where the plateu of performance becomes difficult to break through. I suspect it takes longer when balancing running and swimming. The adaptations take time, but also it is worth keeping in mind that most of the population tops out around 250w for an hour effort. I also have a hunch that many (although not all) people who claim a >300 FTP may be extrapolating their best efforts instead of what seems typical.

You can answer that for a given CdA here:

http://www.analyticcycling.com/ForcesSpeed_Page.html

So anyway around 26mph if your CdA is .25, which is probably a typical decent ironman setup CdA

My CdA is a bit lower than that for short TTs, and I'm at around 27.5mph @ 300 watts, on a hilly course with wind (but the wind may be affording a slight increase in speed in this case)

of course temperature alone can change this quite a bit. On a very hot day I can do that same 27.5 @ 285 watts, for instance.

---

---

Kat Hunter reports on the San Dimas Stage Race from inside the GC winning team
Aeroweenie.com -Compendium of Aero Data and Knowledge
Freelance sports & outdoors writer Kathryn Hunter

Alright, thanks for all of the responses....perhaps I should add some clarification.

I am 6'1" 156 lbs on race day, 159/160 during training. My BF is 8.5% (calipers) 12-13% (BF Scale).

I looked back at my last race data (Haines City 70.3). 2:39, 207 average power, 21.0 MPH, IMFL was 20.4 mph, I did not have a power meter for that race.

I have been working with a coach for the last 16 months. I am very pleased with my race performance improvements...he has done a hell of a job...and I have trained my ass off.

We train off of heart rate (bike/run)...and those zones were set 16 months ago, and I have seen definite improvement. I am faster at lower hear rates.

My coach (trust him completely) told me that some of my concern about not being able to push to higher heart rates during training can be due to training fatigue. I am sure that is the case.

My speed on the bike has improved also.....it just seems like the effort I have put in should be yielding more than a 207 avg watts for a race. Really, I don't care what the watts are....just using that as a gauge, as people on ST throw that number around. My goal is to be able to avg 22+ MPH for a 70.3 and 21+ for a full....since speed translates to lower times.

Lastly, i know there are a lot of factors to take in, but for me to hit those speed, what sort of wattage would I need to push (average). Does it just take longer to build up to higher wattage/faster speed on the bike vs run?

I would agree with this, if I am riding hard on the bike my legs will always be done long before I feel I've tapped out the heart/lungs. Despite no endurance sports background, I quickly became FOP on the swim and run but I am still not there on the bike. I am strong enough now to limit the damage my competitors do to me on the bike leg, particularly in short races, but I still feel the returns I see from hard bike training are far less than the other sports. IMHO heart rate is not a good indicator of effort on the bike - go by your power, not your heart rate. I could put out 250 watts at 75 rpm and probably see a 10 bpm discrepancy or more vs. the same 250 watts at 120 rpm. I use my bike HR to tell me when to take it easy, and that's about it. When I get a lot of accumulated fatigue even longer FTP efforts won't pull my HR out of Z2. I wouldn't worry too much about everyone else's watts, worry about your own. If they are increasing - great, if not, switch things up in your training. 300 watts is a rather arbitrary number - I will come off the bike ahead of some guys pushing more than 300, and I will probably be behind some guys pushing less than 230

I am sure genetics must have something to do with it. I come from a family with several people that have done bike racing or triathlon at some point, and I know every single one of them easily gets over 300 for an hour. Two of us do triathlon and are in the 320 - 350 range, one is a pro cyclist and probably does > 400. And one just trains like a pro (with his pro brother) and probably floats somewhere in between.

---

_____________________
Don't forget to attack!

Why are you training off HR for the bike if you have a power meter? And why haven't you reset your zones in 16 months?

Honestly, those two points would make me question what your coach is doing.

I would also recommend looking at your position.....2:39 on 207w seems a bit slow (although I am not familiar with the course, so it may not be)

---

Chicago Cubs - 2016 WORLD SERIES Champions!!!!

"If ever the time should come, when vain and aspiring men shall possess the highest seats in government, our country will stand in need of its experienced patriots to prevent its ruin." - Samuel Adams

Stop swimming and esp running and you'll have a chance at getting there. For a year or two. Just stop.

Speed goals for races is the wrong approach. You should have power goals, or relative placing goals.

Speed can vary by like 5mph with differing heat, wind, and road surface, and of course, equipment and position choices.

Look at the recent Galveston 70.3 compared to wildflower. Guys who did 2:07 at Galveston were over 2:20 at wildflower.

Hear me now, believe me later.
Train to make more power, pace by feel or power, work on your position and equipment choices, results will come.

---

---

Kat Hunter reports on the San Dimas Stage Race from inside the GC winning team
Aeroweenie.com -Compendium of Aero Data and Knowledge
Freelance sports & outdoors writer Kathryn Hunter

Stop running. Running prevents you from getting adquate recovery if you are putting in work on the bike

How you get to 300 W? Good parents and good training. If your question is more like how do you get a decent w/kg, watch your diet (which you seem to be doing).

As others have mentioned, get your cycling specific LTHR and proceed accordingly. When you want to do a test, do so outdoors, when you are not fatigued. I won'tbe surprised if you pick up another 20 watts or so

Fwiw, Coggan estimated that most could hit 4.4 w/kg with dedicated training

I'll have to dig up A.C.'s post...but I was pretty certain he calculated < 50% of all "middle aged" males could even hit 4.0 w/kg.

-Scott

That actually puts 300 watts in the vicinity of what the average person can attain with a LOOOOT of hard work.

I kind of figure that 300 is near my genetic limit.

---

---

Kat Hunter reports on the San Dimas Stage Race from inside the GC winning team
Aeroweenie.com -Compendium of Aero Data and Knowledge
Freelance sports & outdoors writer Kathryn Hunter

Gain 30# and ride up a big hill for an hour

Or just type it on slowtwitch that you hit 300

Week before last I did a very hilly ride and NP was 303 for 3:03, but at 190-195 my w/kg isn't all that impressive, barely a cat 3 if I recall the chart. AP was about 241 (rendering a *horrible* VI :) ) . Hills help.

Have you ever ridden outside with a powermeter or just on the computrainer?

Yes, my race results were outdoors.

I stand corrected. I think we are both referring to the same theead. Perhaps it was something like 300w for 75kg or something?

That's because most of them are carrying too much weight (I will be 50 next month)...my bike after 15 years of tri is really getting better - the biggest factor is I have dropped 15 lbs from my previous normal. Add a PM to know how you really are training and I am closing in on the 4w/kg. and should be there soon...I just hate to effin tests to verify them!

That isn't going to work. Getting fatter or more muscular only has a tiny effect on your FTP.

"bigger" guys tend to have bigger FTP because they are taller, and our wonderful genetic code scales the aerobic engine with height.

---

---

Kat Hunter reports on the San Dimas Stage Race from inside the GC winning team
Aeroweenie.com -Compendium of Aero Data and Knowledge
Freelance sports & outdoors writer Kathryn Hunter

I got to 4.00 watt/kg by getting to 300w, then dropping 15 lbs and maintaining same power. Helps to start fat, and lose the weight by biking a lot!

Now I don't know you or what your background is, but if you can't get your HR into Z3 when you're doing Z3 watts (which everyone is right about: watts depend on the person, don't worry about how many someone else does), then that may not be your Z3 HR. That seems pretty straight-forward. Have you done a cycling test? Do you know those are your HR zones? Because if you can't achieve them, then they may not be.

---

kelly dunleavy o'mara
@kellydomara

You ever see Good Will Hunting. Will, the genius, says regarding math, etc:

Will: Right. Well, I mean when it came to stuff like that... I could always just play.

The guys holding 300+ watts for 2-4 hours, a lot of them are like Will. I feel pretty lucky that I got some ok cards dealt to me for cycling, with some hard work I'm >4 w/kg, which allows me to get some ok results as long as there aren't too many "Will"s in the field. Note that none of this discounts the value of hard work, it just means that each of us tends to hit different results with the same workload. A given individual will do better if they work hard/smart.

This bears repeating.

---

I talk a lot - Give it a listen: http://www.fasttalklabs.com/category/fast-talk
I also give Training Advice via http://www.ForeverEndurance.com

The above poster has eschewed traditional employment and is currently undertaking the ill-conceived task of launching his own hardgoods company. Statements are not made on behalf of nor reflective of anything in any manner... unless they're good, then they count.
http://www.AGNCYINNOVATION.com

My HR is also on the lower end on the bike. During a 20 minute TT I can get into the low 170's. That's it.

---

24 Hour World TT Champs-American record holder
Fat Bike Worlds - Race Director
Insta: chris.s.apex

Have you gotten into any group rides?

You should find a local group ride that you would struggle to take pulls at the front. Do everything you can to stay with them on the climbs and eventually work your way to taking a couple pulls during the ride.

Best way to get strong is to train with those that are stronger than you! Nothing like the possibility of humiliation to motivate you :)

how the hell do people hit 300 watts?


Step 1: Pick good parents
Step 2: Buy a power meter and obsess yourself with Strava.
Step 3: Train really hard
Step 4: Train even harder
Step 5: Stop doing unnecessary things like swimming and running
Step 6: Stop doing necessary things that infringe on your ability to train and recover. You know...like work, chores, attention to family/friends, etc.
Step 7: Dope


Some people can achieve the goal in fewer steps than others.

My coach uses HR primarily, I happen to have a power meter and I see watts when I am on the CT, we also use watts for intervals but primarily training is HR based.

I hear what you are saying about 16 months...I have definitely improved in this area but I sort of feel like if I am killing myself trying to get my HR up to Z3, why re-test and not push as hard as I would to get my HR that high? I have not asked about re-testing, he knows what he is doing....I keep having a PR (knock on wood) at every race so something is working...and I am very pleased. My question is really about understanding how you get to the point of operating at higher wattage (aka go faster), what is a realistic gain, is it a time thing, leg strength, etc. I guess I just feel like I should be faster on the bike by now.

Bike more


depends, the only way to know is work hard and see what happens.


Most of the gains will come pretty quick if you put in a lot of time and effort. They can slowly increase year by year on top of that though. Has nothing to do with leg strength. It is aerobic.

---

---

Kat Hunter reports on the San Dimas Stage Race from inside the GC winning team
Aeroweenie.com -Compendium of Aero Data and Knowledge
Freelance sports & outdoors writer Kathryn Hunter

... see the bold font above. How do you know your ave power was 207 if you didn't have a power meter??

But...207 watts for over 2.5 hours seems pretty strong to me.

You ever see Good Will Hunting. Will, the genius, says regarding math, etc:

Will: Right. Well, I mean when it came to stuff like that... I could always just play.

The guys holding 300+ watts for 2-4 hours, a lot of them are like Will. I feel pretty lucky that I got some ok cards dealt to me for cycling, with some hard work I'm >4 w/kg, which allows me to get some ok results as long as there aren't too many "Will"s in the field. Note that none of this discounts the value of hard work, it just means that each of us tends to hit different results with the same workload. A given individual will do better if they work hard/smart.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

This x2. Genetics and natural ability is HUGE. Having the data availalble we do today is a blessing and a curse. We end up comparing ourselves, using our data, to people we have NO business comparing ourselves to. We are not Pros, we are AG'ers and this is our hobby, or passion, or what we do to pretend to be young. I would second riding with people who are faster and hitting some hard group rises. I am all for efficient use of time, and the trainer definitetly accomplishes that, but you can get faster just trying to hang with guys/gals who know how to put the hammer down/then recover on group rides. You alone will rarely have a breakthrough workout or surprise yourself sitting on the trainer.

Because at some point in time it becomes not about training "hard" or even "a lot". There also has to be training "appropriately" or "smartly".

Remember, you have to train the person who you are, not the athlete you want to be.

Question:
How has you max HR changed since a year ago? You're out of the saddle crushing it up a hill as hard as you can HR. Still similar? More than 10 beats lower?

Answers to your questions
1. Its not a leg strength thing. The force required for cycling is actually quite low. Yes, weightlifting and improved strength can help a. Very high wattages (sprinting), Musculotendinous stiffness (economy) and bone health (cycling is non-weightbearing), but you do not need to deadlift 1,000 lbs.
2. Volume of riding is probably the biggest contributor.
3. Realistic gains are very hard to figure. a. Genetics / Potential b. Life factors c. Current status all effect them.
4. 300 watts for hours is quite elite. If you were elite, you'd know already.

This blog post from last week is quite relevant to your questions. About 6 paragraphs in (Its a long one) it starts getting at some of your questions.
http://www.bcsm.org/tortoise-and-the-harewho-says-its-either-or/

---

I talk a lot - Give it a listen: http://www.fasttalklabs.com/category/fast-talk
I also give Training Advice via http://www.ForeverEndurance.com

The above poster has eschewed traditional employment and is currently undertaking the ill-conceived task of launching his own hardgoods company. Statements are not made on behalf of nor reflective of anything in any manner... unless they're good, then they count.
http://www.AGNCYINNOVATION.com

Have you done a maximum heart rate test? I assume your zones based on max HR & in my case formulas were not even close.

What sort of HR /Max HR can you hit while running ?

Looking at my logs I have hit 171 on the bike on the trainer in a FTP test, and running I have only hit 175 at the end of 5km & 10km races. I'm 28, but I don't think my max HR is that high and my resting HR is 38-40. Is that somewhat an anomally to have HR's that close? i've never done an actual max HR test, but I figure the sprint at the end of a 5km or 10km would be close?

I find doing sufferfest videos i'll hit low 160s regularly during hard intervals, but running I have to be in a race pretty much to get my HR that high (or doing intervals).

You regularly do 2-4hrs on the Computrainer? Are you being held in Guantanamo or something? I would just get it over with and tell them what they want to know!

In all honesty, I've biked a fair amount for a number of years and I can't really imagine holding any kind of reasonable power on the CT for that amount of time. I just couldn't do it mentally. If you're going to do your workouts indoors, I say do 1:00-1:15 per day every day and do 2x20s at pretty hard pace. That should make you very strong. Use Kevin Metcalf's (reigning masters national champ) post as a guide: http://forum.slowtwitch.com/...post=4193285#4193285 I would do the exact same thing he does if I needed to train indoors.

I didn't read every post so this may have already been mentioned, basically you need to raise your maximum power to raise your power over time. Take it from an old bike racer (69 years old) that can still show 900+ watts maximum that you need to start doing short intervals to raise your max power. How short? Start at 10 seconds, after a couple of weeks add 20 sec intervals into the mix and work up to 2 min intervals while still doing the 10,20, 30, 40 sec intervals using max power. Only do these max power intervals once a week for a total of 10 minutes or less, not counting recovery periods between the intervals. Recovery periods should be 5 times as long as the interval when doing these short high power intervals, not the short recovery periods used when trying to raise VO2 max. I know that this seems counter productive in Tri where if you sprint on the bike in a race, you've just hurt your run but try it for a couple of months and see if the 300 watts doesn't come easier over a longer and longer period of time.

Unfortunately I do not have good data to share. Due to injury I have not run for 2 years and did very little HR based training before that due to an extensive run background (didn't feel I needed it). I can tell you that intervals at threshold pace for running I was in the 165 range.

Riding at FTP is in the 155 range. So I believe my difference is in the 10BPM range.

Swimming I can go into the 160's just cruising up and down the pool!

---

24 Hour World TT Champs-American record holder
Fat Bike Worlds - Race Director
Insta: chris.s.apex

Please read the entire line of text. I did have a PM for the 70.3 where I avg 21. I did not have it for IMFL (140.6) where I averaged 20.4

No regular 2-4 hour CT sessions, only 1 of those a week. I do maybe one long ride outdoors a month. I actually push harder on the CT vs outdoors. My 3.5 hour ride Saturday was horrible....I averaged 175 I think (computrainer). The 207 70.3 was a race...obviously. I was amazed when I got to Guatanemo and saw the Computrainer set up....but am glad they have it here. I am sick of being shot at though.

As far as HR goes while running, I don't know what that would be....I believe 16 months ago it was 191 running (yes, 191)......and 181 right now would feel like death.

I have no expectations to get to 300 watts....I was merely using that as an example.

I guess I am just wondering how much hope there is for on the bike....I am 44 and started running/working out in 3 years ago. I have a 5:10 HIM under my belt and am shooting to break 5 hours this year. I have more in me on the run and know thats where most of it comes from, I feel like I have a decent swim, but with the bike being the longest leg...I would like to see more improvement there.

Sorry.... misread it. What do you think your FTP is?? If you can hold 207 for 2.5 hours +... I would say your FTP must be 260 if not higher.

As an example of what can be done with power one of my clients raised ftp by 31% in 10mths last year (had a few years of tri and an IM build behind him). Achieved by hard work on his part, monthly testing and resetting of zones and ~6hrs a week on the bike. His improvement was a bit more than typical (normally around 15-20% over that period) but a worthy demonstration that, even for an athlete in their 50s, there is no reason not to aim for big improvements.

It's easy to keep improving by just having a consistent program and ironing out execution mistakes. Making the kind of gains that see your FTP at the start of the program become your IM pace requires a bit more from the coach. Which is why I quoted P13 & xtr above - the point is valid.

Do you like apples?

---

Professional Athlete: http://jordancheyne.wordpress.com/ http://www.strava.com/athletes/145340

Coaching Services:http://www.peakformcoaching.com/

Genetics. All genetics.

Earlier it was mentioned that body size has a lot to do with power. In my case having my FTP just over 300W isn't anything to write home about when my Watts/kg is <3.5, and I can't ride a 40km TT under 60min (more like 61-62min).
So if your 150lbs soaking wet and complain you can't hit 300W, I'll trade you bodies so you can hit your number, however I'm not going to trade you back once you realize its not all its cracked up to be.

I'm sure pros just love reading this sort of thing. No hard work and training, just genetics.

I'd argue that pros are far more likely to realize their athletic potential than AGers. And thats a terribly hard thing to do.

Hi Will :). Just don't go showing up here. I already get enough humiliation from the local cat 1/2s.

That's me too. I get all excited after a test or really strong ride, then look at Coggan's chart.... notsomuch.....

Well of course, most pros don't have to hold down an 8am - 6pm job 5 to 6 days a week.

Talent, discipline, and desire. Most of us only have only one or two of these traits, then we wonder why we aren't as good as those who possess them all.

Yeah, they just rolled outta Mom and Dad's house, and became pros. Never worked an honest day in their lives.

---

float , hammer , and jog

Yep, I am 129lbs, just over 58KG (only 5'4")...my FTP right now is 220...If I get to 300 as an FTP I may compete for best bike leg (pipe dream). Even tho I am 50, I am thinking I may be able to get to 240-250, I have never spend the winter raising my FTP. Maybe this upcoming winter I will do it; right now I think I can get higher just off my HIM build because I am using power to help me make sure I am working hard enough.

Please re-read and comprehend the post. The comment was about athletic potential. Who will reach their "athletic potential" faster:
a) guy who can train all day
b) guy who only has a few hours to train each day
In many (if not most) cases, it's pretty obvious.

Please re-read and comprehend the post - you don't GET to be a pro, unless you've already displayed quite a bit of ability and effort.
When does this happen? It's certainly before the days of being a pro and having all day to train.

---

float , hammer , and jog

"Discipline is the hardest part of talent."

Joe Dombrowski is riding in TdC now weighs about 145lbs. and can do 20 minutes at 410w whenever he wants. 6.something w/kg. Talent (genetics). Then he works his balls off (still 145lbs with the balls, just an expression) and is now a Euro Pro. Good on him. You can watch him pace Wiggo up el Diablo tomorrow. When something comes easy to you, it's hard to work at it. You discount it. These guys work hard. Phil Gaimon is another one. From Bissell to Garmin. Tough boy.

I'm 6' 4" and have an ftp of about 350w. Also mildly asthmatic and 215lbs and old as fuck. No great genetics unless you like male pattern baldness, but I love to ride the bike and have busted my ass to get to be a mediocre amateur road racer. I think you can raise that ftp number a lot if you focus on training with your PM instead of just having it around as a yousuckometer. Get a coach who knows how to analyze power files and can prescribe intervals to power.

Do work.

I am about your height and weight but go a lot faster on similar watts. Keep working on your position as well as watts. What your coach says is true, your HR is depressed from fatigue, but that is normal some of the time.

I have just retired from tri, but when I was religiously using my HRM, I found no difficulty in maintaining the same high heart rates in all 3 sports.

From exercise, the highest HR's I've seen on my HRM for swimming is 204. Cycling 205 and running 207. Pretty close.

I've done 100km bike rides (fun rides that are races and not much fun) at 175BPM average for 3 hours. Running I've done several 1/2 marathons at 175-180BPM average, and swimming my last IM was 1:02 at 175BPM average.

My cardiologists have restricted me to 175 max,and 160BPM average :-( With those restrictions I just kept getting slower and slower, but at least I'm still alive.

---

TriDork

"Happiness is a myth. All you can hope for is to get laid once in a while, drunk once in a while and to eat chocolate every day"

A gross generalisation, but many triathletes (and cyclists too) don't train "hard" enough, nor easy enough.

Usually those that a "plateau" don't brutalise themselves say on a 10 x 30sec on/off, or 3x3min or 4x8min vo2max efforts, to the point of vomiting and/or falling off the bike. Or actually do a genuine L2 ride keeping that power low.

Most end up in the middle, which works for a while. Then it doesn't.

Open question to anyone: On a flat road, decent surface, negligible wind, what is YOUR typical speed (within a range) when you are pushing 300 watts?

On the TT bike it would be ~ 29mph (at 6000ft). Wish I could do 300W for an hour...

Yeah, they just rolled outta Mom and Dad's house, and became pros.

Kinda sounds like Taylor Phinney...

well, sorta. If you look at the majority of the Euro pro cyclists, they are already very solid racers in high school and besides going to school they don't have many other responsibilities and therefore, lots of time to train. Our high school had several guys that later became professional racers for big teams including US postal, RadioShack, Trek, Garmin, Belkin, Lotto, etc.

Once they graduate from high school the guys wanting to take a shot at a pro cycling career will typically either get a part time job to support their racing and still have a lot of time to train (for these guys the next step up is a professionally run cat 3 UCI continental team) or they immediately get to join a UCI Continental team and race and train full time. They don't get a salary but get everything else a pro gets and they do the big U22 races and maybe a few races including pros. Their success in these teams defines their future, you do well and you'll move on to a pro team. If you do not succeed, you've given it a shot and your limitations have been exposed. You will likely need to take a step back and focus on local racing.

---

_____________________
Don't forget to attack!

I'd sure pros would agree with that sort of thing. And the few that I've conversed with about it do.

At that level everyone has worked hard and trained hard. And at the level below that, and at the level below that. I worked very, very hard to get to a Cat 1. I raced and trained with a number of guys who, while my equal at some point in our ascension of the ranks, eventually eclipsed me due to their talent. Some are now pro tour level. They didn't train that much harder or smarter than I did. They just responded to their training and improved that much more.

That's genetics.

Agreed.

It's not about the time to train. If you have the ability to be a pro you're very likely going to showcase that ability very early on in your racing. For a lot of cyclists that's high school/ juniors and some college/espoir. From there they're put into the pipeline and that ability is further developed. But most are doing something besides simply training, whether it be school or a part time job or both.

Or, on that rare occasion, it's that guy so obsessed with the dream that he works odd jobs or odd hours specifically to get in those training hours. But rest assured nothing is gifted and that kind of lifestyle is very hard to maintain.

We're essentially saying the same thing. Hard work gets you to the higher/highest levels of the sport, genetics will determine what level you can ultimately reach. But without the work you'll not get anywhere.

We're kind of saying the same thing, but not completely. Without the genetics you won't get anywhere.

You can do all the hard work in the world and not hit 300w.

Or you can roll off the couch and hop on a bike and be rolling 300w within a couple of weeks.

The former happens much more frequently than the latter, but the latter does happen.

And that's simply genetics. So I don't agree with your last sentence at all, especially in regards to the op who was talking about a fairly mediocre (relatively speaking) wattage like 300w. Hard work does matter for many, but not for all for that level.

You are equating two things that are not necessarily related.....your results and your belief that your coach knows what he is doing.

I could pull together a half-assed training plan and as long as you followed it, you would improve (especially as a newbie). That is not hard to do. The question needs to be are you maximizing your potential?

To be brutally honest, based on the two points noted above, I honestly don't think your coach knows what he is doing. Training by HR when power is available is simply mind-blowing. Over 16 months, your fitness has improved. If you are retesting to find out what your new levels are, you are not training efficiently.

I get that you have improved with your coach....but as shown above, it doesn't necessarily mean what you think it means.

I would recommend looking for a new coach. Seriously.

---

Chicago Cubs - 2016 WORLD SERIES Champions!!!!

"If ever the time should come, when vain and aspiring men shall possess the highest seats in government, our country will stand in need of its experienced patriots to prevent its ruin." - Samuel Adams

I recommend everyone read Michael Hutchinson's new / forthcoming book entitled "Faster - The Obsession, Science, and Luck Behind the World's Fastest Cyclists". The Kindle version is out already and the paperback will be released in the fall.

http://www.amazon.com/...clists/dp/1408843757

It's one of the best books I've read on the topic of "why am I not faster? and what does it take to be a pro?". Hutchinson himself has a world-class lung capacity and was one of the top TT specialists in the UK for a period of time (slightly below the Wiggins / Millar level but certainly up there). He covers all of the crazy things that cyclists (TT specialists in particular) do to make themselves faster, and fully describes the huge impact that genetics has on your performance.

Regarding pros who are genetically gifted - in one section of the book he interviews Alex Dowsett (recent UK TT champion and Pro-Tour cyclist for Movistar). Dowsett admits that he doesn't really love cycling - or at least to the extent that a typical cycling fan who watches EuroSport all year long and gets up early in the morning to do group rides for fun does. Dowsett said the most important thing that allowed him to be a pro was that he was just naturally gifted at it. Yes - hard work was needed to make it happen. But it sort of makes you laugh / cry when you realize that some of the world's top pro cyclists are putting out double the watts that you can, and they aren't really half as much into the sport as you are.

I hope this horse has been beaten to death, but lets be real here.

You train with power, I train with power. So far, so good.

I occasionally look at things like speed & HR, because those are outputs. It goes something like this:

watts -> other factors (elevation, hydration, temperature, fatigue) = speed, HR.

And to answer your question, 300w is easy (upcoming nothumblebrag alert). Get a real coach.

My FTP in 2 years of triathlons:
Winter 2013: 318
Summer 2013: 335
Fall 2013: 353
Spring 2014: 368

Weight has been consistent enough, ~80kg.

Get a real coach.

---

----
@adamwfurlong

Whilst I also question using hr when power is available, i disagree that 300 watts ++ is not easy... Ur throwing down some serious watts but is that translating to fast bike splits?

Others have commented but this really jumped out at me.

Somebody once told me that training by HR is like driving your car by engine temperature. It's a useful metric, but when you have something much better to use, do that. Does it not strike you as odd to see your watts falling for the same HR during a long interval?

300 watts is relative to the size of the person. If I could ride 300 watts I'd probably be a 50 min 40K guy

I've averaged 25mph in a sprint triathlon on 212 watts, 300 watts would be incredible for me...so not easy.

jaretj

I agree. There are a few examples of professionals with an abundance of natural talent who never develop their potential, but on balance professional cyclists are much closer to their peak ability than serious amateurs. The reasons are pretty obvious. I can sustain training that resembles ~75% of what a pro does, but I don't have the luxury of recovering like they do. Silly as it sounds, when a pro lounges around and relaxes when off the bike they are "working" to make the next session productive. I've got a job, grass that needs mowed, a wife and kids. I don't care how Type-A someone thinks they can be about their training and recovery, they are leaving potential on the table as long as they need to balance the sport against something else. This, along with choosing the right parents, is the advantage professionals have that lets them reach their potential.

This is very interesting to me. I'm 6'7", 195-ish# and I use 300 watts as my FTP. I do 1/2IMs at ~255 watts; 7th in AG after the bike at Muncie last year. In March, 300 is not my FTP; but by this time of year it's a good standard. I'll lose a few #s to race weight around 190-ish. And, my power ability generally goes up as the season goes on (could be > 300, but I never test it later in the season. That seems to buttress your assertion. I always just figured that 300 watt FTP was because I weigh 195; not because I'm 6'7". It kind of makes sense, I'd have to think about it more, I guess. So, if I put on more weight (not a good idea for faster racing, etc.; I'm just asking), then that would not impact my wattage FTP on the bike? And, similarly, for your assertion to be true, then I could lose weight naturally (i.e., by eating fewer calories; not by burning more calories by working harder on the bike, which would increase my FTP) and that would not adversely impact my FTP, right?

Hey Mike, I'd be willing to talk with you a bit about how I hit over 300 for my FTP at the end of last year if you would like. I rotated the same 5 workouts every single week for the last half of last year doing at most 4 a week, and most of the time only 3 since I was racing a lot at the end of the year.

Part of their genetic gift is the mental ability to sustain hard efforts, the drive to compete, the work ethic to train hard day in and day out to achieve a goal or see just very small gains. It's similar to the obsessive behavior many academics or engineers and doctors have towards their profession, research, invention, design, etc. Professional athletes posses both a physical gift and metal gift.

---

TrainingBible Coaching
http://www.trainingbible.com

Yes, gaining or losing weight should not affect your FTP *much*

Adding muscle mass may increase your anaerobic capacity, which will contribute a few (like 3 or 4) watts to your FTP

Similarly losing weight may cost you anaerobic capacity, and cost your 3 or 4 watts on your FTP.

So as long as you don't get so thin that your body stops functioning well, aerobic power should not decrease much. It might decrease while you are operating at a caloric deficit, in the process of losing the weight though. I think this is what stops a lot of people from getting skinnier. They are weak while losing it.

---

---

Kat Hunter reports on the San Dimas Stage Race from inside the GC winning team
Aeroweenie.com -Compendium of Aero Data and Knowledge
Freelance sports & outdoors writer Kathryn Hunter

HR is a product not an output. Even RPE is better than hr for training, but if you have a powermeter there's little to no reason to use it to guide your training.



Yeah you've been training for 16 months. It's false logic to attribute it exclusively to your coach. Even if you were just going out the door everyday and doing whatever you felt like you'd probably continue to improve. If you were training more logically/effectively you'd probably have improved even more.

---

___________________
Twitter | Kancman | Blog

Thanks bro.....you were on my list to call and talk to!

This is common in pro sports. I've read many bios of tennis players that say they hate tennis (McEnroe, Agassi, etc.). That's the downside of being a pro. It's kind of unnatural, turning a sport into a job/profession. So many pros talk of the grind of travel, expectations, relentless competition, politics, etc. It's not all it's cracked up to be, I don't think. It turns into a "job".

I think being a pro at any sport would suck the joy out of it for me. (But that's not exactly a problem I'm faced with, deciding to be pro or not.)

Look at the pros in the giro this year.

Fly to ireland, race in rain for 3 days.
then fly to italy, next day, race in the rain again, in streets that have no grip at all.

everyone crashes

tomorrow they will race again ,like it or not.

---

---

Kat Hunter reports on the San Dimas Stage Race from inside the GC winning team
Aeroweenie.com -Compendium of Aero Data and Knowledge
Freelance sports & outdoors writer Kathryn Hunter

Yes, exactly my point!

I do sports as a release from work. I wonder if they grind on Excel spreadsheets as a release from their "work".

I totally agree... and I've struggled with this on higher volume weeks as I'm trying to trim some weight which is counterproductive to workout quality. Unfortunately I wasn't completely successful at dropping weight during my base phase and maintaining discipline there after. But in hindsight, I'm better off increasing my fitness than dropping weight during build periods. It think it's why my FTP leveled off. I'm stretching my energy systems so thin with my training volume that there's just not enough "oomph" leftover to push it on rides.

Ultimately it's pointless to dwell on a number. you put in the work, your fitness will improve and you'll go faster.... or even better, you go faster because you paid attention to aero details and improved your bike fit.

---

TrainingBible Coaching
http://www.trainingbible.com

I do that..lol

---

---

Kat Hunter reports on the San Dimas Stage Race from inside the GC winning team
Aeroweenie.com -Compendium of Aero Data and Knowledge
Freelance sports & outdoors writer Kathryn Hunter

Forget 300 watts...what I'd like to know is how the hell people hit 400 watts! I'm a okay amateur racer and a 400 watt threshold is a complete impossibility for me no matter what training I ever put into the sport. Choose your parents well.

Even in the ProTour there are very few individuals who can put out 400+ watts for any extended period of time. Here is an estimate of the watts and CDA for each rider in Stage 11 of last year's Tour de France: http://www.cyclingpowerlab.com/proraceanalysis.aspx

Not sure as to the accuracy of the information, but interesting to see their estimates nonetheless.

>Even in the ProTour there are very few individuals who can put out 400+ watts for any extended period of time.

The caveats are that most of those guys are 135-155lbs, and it was Stage 11. I'd bet most of the guys outside the top 20 were just sitting on 330W to safely make the 25% time cutoff with a 3-4 minute buffer for catastrophic mechanical.

also, tired.

---

---

Kat Hunter reports on the San Dimas Stage Race from inside the GC winning team
Aeroweenie.com -Compendium of Aero Data and Knowledge
Freelance sports & outdoors writer Kathryn Hunter

 
>also, tired.

Yeah, that's what I meant by "Stage 11."

True - good points. I don't think anybody is surprised to see Martin, Froome, Tuft and other big guys put out close to 400 watts. The one rider on the list I find fascinating is Jonathan Castroviejo. He is the reigning Spanish national TT champion and is about 5' 8" and weighs about 137 lbs (!)

With off the charts power / weight ratio like that that you'd expect him to dominate the mountains and be a GC contender, but apparently that's not the case. I've followed him closely over the past year and it seems like Movistar (as well his previous team) use him purely as a TT specialist. Definitely lends some credence to the theory that not all watts are created equal - just because you can put out lots of power on the flats doesn't necessarily make you a good climber (even if you are a flyweight).

Also, Castroviejo has the most extreme TT aero position I've seen.

Hey Jack...

Is the high FTP of the bigger guys secondary to them being taller? Longer femur lengths? Better mechanical advantage?

I ask only because I'm 5'10 and 205... I'm decently strong among the guys I ride with (just a bunch of old guys), but have 2 friends who are 6'4 and up who seem to have some pretty strong FTP's. They don't ride as consistently as me, but seem to be able to put out good numbers without as much preceived effort.

I see their Trainer Road rides and their NP numbers seem damn good compared to mine...

Just as wingspan is important in things like swimming and basketball, femur length is as well in cycling.

---

I talk a lot - Give it a listen: http://www.fasttalklabs.com/category/fast-talk
I also give Training Advice via http://www.ForeverEndurance.com

The above poster has eschewed traditional employment and is currently undertaking the ill-conceived task of launching his own hardgoods company. Statements are not made on behalf of nor reflective of anything in any manner... unless they're good, then they count.
http://www.AGNCYINNOVATION.com

Is he young?

Perhaps his team just uses him up as a domestique in the mountain stages.

Or perhaps his power is not as off the charts as we think? Maybe his power/CdA ratio is off the charts with that position but not his power/kg?

---

---

Kat Hunter reports on the San Dimas Stage Race from inside the GC winning team
Aeroweenie.com -Compendium of Aero Data and Knowledge
Freelance sports & outdoors writer Kathryn Hunter

It has nothing to do with mechanical advantage. The genes that make you taller also cause you to have bigger lungs, bigger heart, more blood. It just all scales up. the whole aerobic engine.

---

---

Kat Hunter reports on the San Dimas Stage Race from inside the GC winning team
Aeroweenie.com -Compendium of Aero Data and Knowledge
Freelance sports & outdoors writer Kathryn Hunter

Hi, I'm 34 and started playing music 3 years ago. I practice an hour a day, and about 3 hours on Saturday. I split my time between the cello, piano and guitar. What I can't figure out is why can't I play flight of the bumblebee on any of them. Quite a conundrum. Do help.

All three are necessary, but not sufficient requirements.

---

http://bikeblather.blogspot.com/

 

>All three are necessary, but not sufficient requirements.

Then what's the 4th to reach sufficiency? Latex tubes? Or did you mean that individually they're not sufficient, but together they are?

It means you need all 3.

---

http://bikeblather.blogspot.com/

It seems like a few guys got buy on just mostly talent every now and then. Probably more feasible in fast twitch sports.

---

---

Kat Hunter reports on the San Dimas Stage Race from inside the GC winning team
Aeroweenie.com -Compendium of Aero Data and Knowledge
Freelance sports & outdoors writer Kathryn Hunter

Exactly. It's why the best swimmers are tall. It's not about the strength or leverage of longer arms. Though it's been theorized that Phelps does gain a slight advantage by being supposedly having a proportionally longer torso and arms compared to his legs length.

If Donzo98 was 160lbs, he'd probably still have nearly the same FTP.... but wouldn't be carrying around an additional 45lbs of weight which would defintiely reduce rolling resistance and probably wind drag as well since having either big shoulders does not help aero or getting into a good position.

On the flip side, long legs and arms mean more frontal area on the least aerodynamic shape of the whole rider/bike combo... large round cylinders. SO a tall rider needs to make more power to overcome their higher drag.

---

TrainingBible Coaching
http://www.trainingbible.com

With off the charts power / weight ratio like that that you'd expect him to dominate the mountains and be a GC contender, but apparently that's not the case. I've followed him closely over the past year and it seems like Movistar (as well his previous team) use him purely as a TT specialist. Definitely lends some credence to the theory that not all watts are created equal - just because you can put out lots of power on the flats doesn't necessarily make you a good climber (even if you are a flyweight).

22Jonathan Castroviejo Nicolas (Spain) (1.71,62)1:02:020.2153705.971718
The CdA they use is a gross approximation. They are all around .22 and I can acheive that at 6' 170lb and old equipment. Being smaller with all the latest stuff, surely should have the pros less than that on average.

I'd guess that Castroviejo is around .17 CdA. That would make his W/kg more like 4.7 in the TT position. And I'm pretty sure he can do better than that climbing considering how scrunched up he is in the TT position, but not enough to challenge the real climbers.

I can only wish... I would settle for 185!!

It does seem strange that you'd train with HR when power is available. There is nothing wrong with training by heart rate, but the bottom line is that if you have the coin for power and a coach, you would be better off having a coach that uses power. Similarly, if you are really concerned about FTP, then the thing to do is target it to the exclusion of other things. There's a thread here on how to do it: 2x20 @ 95-100, next day 1x20@105, day off. Repeat till you've had enough. The same is true with running; even the cell phone will give you pace info. Check out the attack point website for calculators and ranges. As to reaching three hundred--check out the "it's killing me" thread on cycling forums. There's a whole tome of power based knowledge that jordan rapp provides in that thread.



If FTP is not rising it could be any number of things, but if you're working hard it sounds like recovery may be insufficient. Eating, sleeping, work stress--all of these things could affect it.

---

owner: world's tightest psoas (TM)

Respectfully disagree.
There is a reason eastern block european powerlifters use to have muscle attachments moved and why David Epstein has written about strong evidence of specific morphological changes showing is disproportionate numbers in certain sports.

---

I talk a lot - Give it a listen: http://www.fasttalklabs.com/category/fast-talk
I also give Training Advice via http://www.ForeverEndurance.com

The above poster has eschewed traditional employment and is currently undertaking the ill-conceived task of launching his own hardgoods company. Statements are not made on behalf of nor reflective of anything in any manner... unless they're good, then they count.
http://www.AGNCYINNOVATION.com

I spent some time today looking into this idea of whether femur length was 'important' for cycling.

I could find no such evidence. There are some trends, such as the best TTers have longer femurs than the best sprinters, but that appears to be entirely due to TTers being taller on average.

powerlifting is a pretty different situation, in cycling you can use your gears to affect whatever leverage you want. There are some small pros and cons to femur/torso ratios I suppose for aerodynamics but this isn't a big deal.

if you have data showing that femur length is 'important' for cycling I would be curious to see it.

---

---

Kat Hunter reports on the San Dimas Stage Race from inside the GC winning team
Aeroweenie.com -Compendium of Aero Data and Knowledge
Freelance sports & outdoors writer Kathryn Hunter

Jack, if you've the data, I'd love to see what you've compiled on femur length of different cyclists (unless you're going off eyeball rather than some measure).

I've never seen such a data set (although I'm sure I'm not the only one who has a moderate interest in this).

---

The question of who is right and who is wrong has seemed to me always too small to be worth a moment's thought, while the question of what is right and what is wrong has seemed all-important.

-Albert J. Nock

I found this:

http://bjsportmed.com/...ent/23/1/30.full.pdf

---

---

Kat Hunter reports on the San Dimas Stage Race from inside the GC winning team
Aeroweenie.com -Compendium of Aero Data and Knowledge
Freelance sports & outdoors writer Kathryn Hunter

Thanks!

---

The question of who is right and who is wrong has seemed to me always too small to be worth a moment's thought, while the question of what is right and what is wrong has seemed all-important.

-Albert J. Nock

Except, once again, they didn't have said luxury before becoming professional. And I know a good lot of domestic pros that don't have that luxury either.

Some people seem to think they could be so much better without all of the other "life" things that get in the way. But those people are wrong 99% of the time. You either have the talent or you don't. Working a job or having a family would not hide that talent.

That's not to say that you couldn't be better than you are, but it is to say that it is very, very, very unlikely that you would be anywhere near the level needed to be a professional cyclist, even if you did nothing but ride 5 hours a day and chill out, eat, and sleep for the other 19. Because you don't have the genetics.

Muscular strength scales as the 2/3rd power with overall height of individual, i.e. (muscular streangth) = (height)^{2/3}.
This means that shorter people are, comparatively speaking, stronger than taller people.

Aerobic capacity scales as the 3rd power with height (for people with same body types): (aerobic capcity) = (height)^3.

Weight also scales as the 3rd power with height: weight = (height)^3.

Surface area only scales as the 2nd power with height: (surface area) = (height)^2.

From the above we can conclude the following:

1. As far as aerobic capacity is concerned, height does not determine how good a climber one is because both aerobic capacity and weight scale the same way. However, since shorter people are relatively stronger (muscular strength) than taller people, climbers will tend to be shorter -- which is exactly what we see in cycling.

2. For flat time trials (where aerodynamic resistance is the main drag force and weight plays only a very minor role), taller people have an advantage over shorter ones because aerobic capacity increases faster with height than surface area does -- and that is also what we see in cycling.

Good stuff but none of it applies to femur length independently, except as a proxy for height.

I would question #1 a bit. It is certainly the impression many people have that shorter people are better climbers, but I'm not sure how true it is. The schlecks are tall, Wiggo is tall, Froome is tall. But perhaps as you say it is only the short term climbing power where shorter riders will be better, and maybe we see evidence of that

2. more than that, in a TT position the height of the torso is hidden, only the legs remain. But despite that some short guys end up great time trialists too.

---

---

Kat Hunter reports on the San Dimas Stage Race from inside the GC winning team
Aeroweenie.com -Compendium of Aero Data and Knowledge
Freelance sports & outdoors writer Kathryn Hunter

Let me remind you that this started with you saying "Genetics. All genetics." which you have qualified to some extent because it takes a great deal of outside support and inner drive to realize this potential. I have no disagreement about genetic predisposition being the largest factor. The people I know who went the neo pro route had supportive families to invest in their dream. I know of domestic pros who couch surf, hitch hike and work real jobs to keep pursuing the dream too, so no argument there, but I don't know any professionals who made their start while balancing as much "life" stuff as a person typically has in their 30s with a home, career and family. The life workload of an aspiring pro in the late teens or early 20s isn't at all similar to what most age group weekend warriors are juggling.

I agree with you that eliminating that life stuff won't make professionals out of serious amateurs. It would however make the difference between achieving peak potential. All I claimed was that professionals are more likely than amateurs for this reason.

I just want to 2nd the rational argument that Jackmott had about leverage (femur length) being irrelevant because we have adjustable gear ratios. Even then, it woudl only present an advnatage if the victor was determined by whoever could accelerate a fixed gear bike of predetermined gear ratio, from a dead stop to 40mph the quickest. In that race, you'd want a long femur.

So with power lifting, those with a longer femur would be like those in my example above getting a lower gear ratio.

The next limiting factor would be come the wheelbase of the bike and rider height determining how much weight you can get over the front of the wheel to keep it planted. For example with typical gear ratios and wheelbase, a motorcycle can only utilize about 30hp below 50mph and maybe 40hp up to that point due to tire grip. The larger displacement "superbikes" can;t even use all of their HP until past about 150mph.

---

TrainingBible Coaching
http://www.trainingbible.com

you guys (figuratively) do realize that you're arguing with someone who in all likelihood writes/researches/works professionally on issues like this right?

Height of an individual is not a mere proxy for femur length, they are directly related and obviously scale linearly, i.e. a person with a longer femur will generally be taller overall.


The effect is real, shorter people are relatively stronger, so in a very short (less than a minute) uphill TT short people would have a clear advantage. Since uphill stages are much longer in duration (and hence, inherently aerobic), the advantage that shorter people have is very small -- which explains why taller people like you cite can do as well.


That is true, most of the surface area of a time trialist is hidden, which makes the advantage of taller people more pronounced. Still, there are outliers -- people like Levi Leipheimer who won TT races in both the Vuelta and ATOC despite being only 5'6" tall.

Not sure Levi is the right guy to go to on this one, what with his penchant for doping and all.

As long as short people don't benefit more from EPO than tall people it should still be pretty legit...hehe

---

---

Kat Hunter reports on the San Dimas Stage Race from inside the GC winning team
Aeroweenie.com -Compendium of Aero Data and Knowledge
Freelance sports & outdoors writer Kathryn Hunter

I work professionally too, it doesn't make me right all the time. Climate scientists are supposed to be intelligent experts too, but the same general field of research can't even predict the weather accurately within 1 hour after 150 years of trying...but they are confident the climate is changing permanently. I'm sure that's over simplifying it... but I thought that usually means they don't have all the variables identified or their equations are wrong.

Just throwing that out there.

---

TrainingBible Coaching
http://www.trainingbible.com

That would be a great study.

Does EPO increase your FTP by XX watts or XX percent?

---

/kj

http://kjmcawesome.tumblr.com/

 
>Height of an individual is not a mere proxy for femur length, they are directly related and obviously scale linearly, i.e. a person with a longer femur will generally be taller overall.

I think you both agree and are just quibbling over the definition of 'proxy'.

>The effect is real, shorter people are relatively stronger, so in a very short (less than a minute) uphill TT short people would have a clear advantage.

Relative to what? Do you mean that shorter people tend to have a greater strength/weight ratio? I just think it's worth mentioning that you're talking about weight, since shorter people are relatively weaker than taller people if you go strictly by your 2/3 factor above. It's only in rate-of-change comparison to the other terms (area,aerobic capacity, weight, etc) that the comparative advantage plays out.

It is largely a linear % increase based on what % increase you can achieve in your hematocrit.

Limited either by how far below 50 you are naturally, if you are tested, or limited by how far below the point where you have a heart attack in your sleep.

---

---

Kat Hunter reports on the San Dimas Stage Race from inside the GC winning team
Aeroweenie.com -Compendium of Aero Data and Knowledge
Freelance sports & outdoors writer Kathryn Hunter

It takes a great deal of genetics to be a professional. That's my only point. Doesn't matter the support, the drive, or the work ethic. Hell, you can absolutely be elite with none of those if you have the talent/genetics. And without said talent/genetics, you can't. Very simple.

It doesn't matter what type of life you had, if you are a pro athlete of any sort it's because you have superior genetics to the vast majority of the population.

30s is very late in the endurance game to try and take up a professional sport. Athletes turn pro in their early 20s because of a myriad of factors including being on the right side of physical maturity (which a 30+ dude is on the other side of), probably a pretty big aerobic foundation (that a 30 plus dude starting out certainly doesn't have), and because they have the genetic capabilities. But even then, there are people that can still turn pro because they have those genetics. Because they can respond to training so quickly and so effectively that they soar through the ranks in no time at all. And they can do that in spite of all of these "life issues" that so many other people think hang them up.

There's obviously a huge variance in peak potential and it's extremely unlikely that a person has such a potential necessary to be a professional. And frankly, if that's the case, then who really cares other than that person? I don't. But if that talent is there and a pro is what they want to be, then they'll go get it done.

Bottom line: you can make excuse or you can get it done. People with super chaotic lives get it done every day. The other people just make silly excuses to try and justify their mediocre performances. Best to ignore the latter.

Yes, exactly that. "Relatively stronger" means that a person who is twice as tall is not twice as strong -- he would be only 1.6x stronger; so when these two people need to lift themselves up an incline, the shorter person has a clear advantage.

BTW, this (2/3) power law is the reason why there are no 10-foot tall people: weight increases faster than muscular strength needed to keep the body upright, so beyond a certain height a human would simply not be able to support his weight.

 
>Yes, exactly that. "Relatively stronger" means that a person who is twice as tall is not twice as strong

I nitpickingly disagree with that terminology, but nevertheless found 99% of your posts very informative. Thanks.

that's a valid point.

My vaguely articulated point was more along the lines of the people arguing with Chris Boardman on aerodynamics or the general ST population informing pro-cyclists what pro-cycling must be like.

We also cannot conveniently ignore the fixed weight (and drag) cost of a bicycle. Being bigger makes that a smaller %age of the overall equation. I wouldn't be surprised if that doesn't swamp out any theoretical variations power/endurance/heat management variables that vary among different sized riders.

Entirely unlike long distance running, which is dominated by smaller folks.

---

The question of who is right and who is wrong has seemed to me always too small to be worth a moment's thought, while the question of what is right and what is wrong has seemed all-important.

-Albert J. Nock

Weather and climate are 2 different things, my friend. So yeah. That's over simplifying it to the point of being entirely incorrect. Oceanographers can't tell you the exact wave heights of the next 3 waves that will hit the coast, but they know when high tide will be, what it's extent will be, and what average wave height will be. Kind of the same thing.

The original point of appealing to authority is a good one though.

---

Paul
Current Top 2:
7 Things Non-cyclists Should Know About Road Cycling
The GORUCK Challenge Ruined My Life

Although the observations about potential performance of different sized riders are scientifically sound, there is considerable variation among individuals. For instance, Contador may beat Cancellara in a TT given the right conditions and relative motivation of the riders (TdF 2009), but if everything else is equal, Contador does not stand a chance against Cancellara (Beijing olympics).


Long distance running resembles uphill racing, rather than a flat TT, since runners have to lift their weight at every push-off. Hence it is not surprising that long distance running favours smaller people.

Agreed entirely. And I meant to insinuate that all these confounding variables are why we see such a variety in sizes in the pro peloton that isn't seen in other sports.

My original points were more as an addendum than as a contradiction to what you said. Cheers!

---

The question of who is right and who is wrong has seemed to me always too small to be worth a moment's thought, while the question of what is right and what is wrong has seemed all-important.

-Albert J. Nock

can you fathom how top marathon dudes run 2:55/km for 42 of em?

Why do you suppose short people don't dominate sports then? If this is the case, we should see 100 to 400M sprinters in Athletics having similar heights of gymnasts. Sprinting is power:weight and yet the 100/200 WR is owned by a guy who is 6'5", the 400M is held by someone 6'1" and the 800 WR holder is 6'3". We tend to see the little people do best when cooling is a major factor (long races, not sprinting) as they have greater surface area:volume ratios.

Maybe the 2/3 law is...inverted?...when you are dealing with an inverted pendulum such as a human propelling them self.

Not trying to be a smarty pants argueaholic here, I just don't think what you are saying is actually true, although I can dig the numbers talking about weight being ^3 of height and stuff like that. For instance, I find it interesting that a blue whale scaled to the size of a 5'10" human weighs about 138 lbs, which would be an incredible racing weight for me if I were a robot whose resistance to eating was not so futile.

geeze - I thought I was the only one stupid enough to do that :-|

---

I saw this on a white board in a window box at my daughters middle school...
List of what life owes you:
1. __________
2. __________
3. __________

Shorter people do dominate the sports that favour them. The power-to-weight ratio is not the only determinant for athletic performance; absolute power maybe more important in some sports, and the sprint distances are obviously some of those sports (track cycling is another one): although their superior power-to-weight ratios means that shorter people would accelerate faster during the acceleration phase of the sprint, terminal speed and the maintainance of that speed depends more on absolute power numbers, and apparently this turns out to be the deciding factor.

The penalty that bigger people have to pay for lifting their weight at every push-off is not an issue for distances that are mainly anaerobic in nature, but as the race distance increases, this inefficiency becomes more pronounced and, as a result, the body types of world record holders become leaner and smaller: Usain Bolt weighs more than 200 lbs, Michael Johnson 175 lbs, El Guerrouj 140 lbs, and by the time you get to 5k and beyond you encounter the usual marathon-style body types (Bekele is about 120 lbs).

Triathlon consists of a sport (swimming) where weight is not an issue since it is supported by water, a sport (biking) where weight plays only a minor role (for mostly flat TTs), and a sport (marathon) where weight is absolutely crucial. The end result is not clear; Craig Alexander is medium sized (150lbs).


No, it's actually the opposite: what matters for cooling is how fast you can pump hot blood from your core to the surface in order to cool it by sweat evaporation, and what determines this is heart volume. Since heart volume increases with the 3rd power of your height, bigger people have lower heart rates. That's also the reason why babies (and smaller mammals in general) have very high heart rates.


If the 2/3 law was inverted (becoming 3/2 law), that would mean that the bigger the person, the stronger he would be, in which case there would be no upper limit to the size a mammal could achieve; when was the last time you saw a 50ft-tall woman?

Maybe I should've asked what you consider "short people".

And what body type doesn't dominate the sport that "favours them"?

So you're saying large body types dominate the sports where cooling is an issue?

I will reply to the original post.

I agree that it takes genetics to do 300w for hours. But if you are trying to hit this as an FTP number, I think with hard work, time, and measurement you can get close. 300w for an hour is my goal. Not sure I will get there.

I am an average joe, weekend warrior, time crunched cyclist (6-9 hrs a week) I am not at the 300w level for hours, but can hold it for 30 min and 285 for an hour. I am 5'11, 165lbs.

Years of unstructured training, even with power, didn't really result in any material improvements in fitness.

Things that changed:

I really wanted to get faster.
Joined a road team.
Lose 15lbs that you didn't previously think you needed to lose.
Only ride with the team 1-2 times a week and use these as the short, punchy intervals. Attack the climbers on the hills, the big guys on the flats. Make the ride hard. Burst/recover/repeat. Most group rides don't generate much TSS.
The rest of the weekly workouts:
3x5@V02 Max, 5 min rest. Last 2 min should be hell.
3x10@110% FTP, 5 min rest. Focus on even efforts.
1x60m@Hard Tempo~93-95%FTP. Road bike, cross bike, TT bike. Doesn't matter. I think this is the single most important weekly workout. Hard to do. Teaches you how to hurt. It helps when you have buddies sitting on your wheel motivating you, but solo is where its at.
Weekends - Monitor your CP curve and see what's getting stale. Find a good course to focus on that duration and go out and freshen up the CP curve with a new power record. Throw in some 3-30sec max power punches on the way home.
Once every few weeks do a long ride at a hard power level, trying to get an IF as close to 1.0. for 300w FTP, 240 for 2 hrs, 225 for 3 hrs, and 210 for 4hrs seem to be productive for me.

What is working for me is structured workouts, measurement of progress, work your weakness, and learn to suffer more than you thought you could.

When you feel burnt out take a few days off, take the wife on a date, outing with the kids, drink a beer. You will know when its time to get back into the game.

Sounds like we are in the same boat. I hope you get to your goal and would love to hear tips from other middle aged mortals trying to get respectable performance on limited time.

The average height of men in the US is 5'10", and the standard deviation about 3", so anyone under 5'7" is considered "short" (and everyone over 6'1" would be considered "tall").


No, cooling is not an issue -- in the sense that it affects everyone equally, and that it is more of an individual adaptation when the conditions are extreme.

Genetics but the good news is... there is 60% chance possibility you can. Takes hard work.

You have to get used to it. How?
Train 300 watts. How?
Intervals... shoot for 1 min 300 watts or close to it,
Keep doing it 12x in per training... you can relax 1 min or if it is too hard try relaxing when HR hit 154, and then go again.

After you do this, you can up the power for 310 or so or.... hold it for 300 wartts longer, maybe1.5 min, then maybe after a week hold it for 2 min... then keep going...

You can do it. The key is adapting your body to the situation you need to gain.

Also don't forget to rest your Heart... your heart gets tired as well from pumping high HR and so as your legs.. train smart.

You are not gaining as much or close to nothing when you can't lift up your HR to 160+.. It differs to people. Mine is 164 to gain progress.

Also some people do it easily because they have low resting HR..and their muscle growth is better. means their heart is stronger than ours. This means we have to work harder
Good luck.

This training protocol has been proven ineffective.

Why arbitrarily choose 300 watts? Why not shoot for 500?

Live the sudden appearance of multiple zombie threads!!

1. Get a trainerroad account
2. Follow an appropriate training plan
3. Rest in between workouts
4. Be consistent
5. Brag to us later about how much you raised your FTP

TR still works with Computrainer, and will make you faster.

It's been 7 years. I wonder if he'll chime in and tell us if he made it or not

---

---

---

Take a short break from ST and read my blog:
http://tri-banter.blogspot.com/

Haha. I didn’t even look at the date of the OP. Too funny.

Spend like a millionaire and you're destined to become one...

---

I talk a lot - Give it a listen: http://www.fasttalklabs.com/category/fast-talk
I also give Training Advice via http://www.ForeverEndurance.com

The above poster has eschewed traditional employment and is currently undertaking the ill-conceived task of launching his own hardgoods company. Statements are not made on behalf of nor reflective of anything in any manner... unless they're good, then they count.
http://www.AGNCYINNOVATION.com