I’ve seen two separate online descriptions of how to use Andy Coggan’s power tables (the ones which rate power output over various times as “good”, “excellent”, etc). One suggests a 20min test is used for the FT column; the other suggests at test of ~1 hour. The tables that each article links to do seem to be different such that, as you might expect, the wattages are lower for the 1 hour FT.
My question is this: which (20min or 1h) is more useful as an indicator of performance for a guy like me, who races 10k/40k/5k duathlons? At the moment I am relatively untrained on the bike, but I can probably hit around the bottom end of the “excellent” category for the 20min test, but only in the “very good” cat for the 1h test. Obviously I have poor endurance, but what would be a good way to address it?
Thanks guys. That’s what I was afraid of! I suppose I have lots of scope for improvement on the hour test, so I should see some steady results over the next while.
If you are doing the test on your own and not as part of a race, I would tend towards doing a 20-30 minute test. It’s easier to focus for those 20-30 minutes than for a full hour. There’s a learning curve in time trials, and it might take more than 1 60 minute test to get a “good” or “realistic” number. In reality, you are probably going to start too hard on the first one and taper off and have a lower wattage number. Or, you are going to start to conservative and sprint to the finish and have a lower average wattage number. I don’t know about you, but I only want to take one of my weeks to attempt such a test since a lot of the material out there suggests that you be relatively fresh for your test.
So, I’d limit yourself to 30 minutes and reduce the wattage by about 5% as an estimate for the 1 hour FT. There are several other resources that advocate a similar test or one that involves a series of tests between 2 and 30 minutes, I believe that Friel is one of them.
I’ve also read that a 2x20 minute test with 5 minutes in between is another good approximation, but I’ve no experience with this one.
The main purpose of the chart is to give an individual an idea of where their strengths and weaknesses lie in regards to the different aspects of cycling.
As this profile is designed for cyclists, it is not a good indicator or predictor of performance for duathlon (and only when interpreted very narrowly is it even a decent predictor of performance for cycling…). The best indicator of performance is your performance. Presumably you’ve done some races, so you have an idea of your level.
In regards to improving your sustainable power, you can use either your 20minute or your 60 minute power as a benchmark. They are intimately related. Unless you have a phenomenal anaerobic capacity (which is unlikely for a duathlete), they will be very close (within 5-7% or so) to each other, and predictably so. Whatever you decide to use, the way to improve sustainable power is to work on it. Long (12-60 minute) intervals at intensities near your FTP. You would probably also benefit from some dedicated vo2max level intervals. In any event, there;s a lot of info easily had to guide your training, and a slew of good coaches that can help on a more personal level.
Yeah, I think my problem is just that I’m pretty untrained on the bike. I’ve only been training on the bike for 9 months, 2.5 of which I couldn’t ride while waiting for a bike to replace the one I crashed. I’ve never ridden more than 4.5 hours in a week. I’ve also never raced a duathlon, but I’m doing 5 this year. I’ve run a bit in the past and my 10k PB is 35:30. I’m probably in shape for sub-35 at the moment.
so let me get this straight, you think you have poor endurance and yet you are rating near the top of the chart at somewhere around 4.7 to 5.0 w/kg (excellent compares to CAT1 and very good puts you at the top of CAT2). Boo-Hoo want to trade with my numbers?
I want to be relatively untrained on the bike as well
<< I want to be relatively untrained on the bike as well >>
Me too! Me too!! I’ve been riding for years and years and I’m “only” at the Cat3 level. Wish I could be more untrained…
All joking aside, what I read into the #'s is, this guy is a naturally strong cyclist, whether he’s been doing a long time or not, and apparently he’s also built like a POW, uh, excuse me, an endurance runner ;-), so he has great power to weight ratio #'s.
It’s not quite as exciting as it might seem. I’m down at the border of excellent/very good for the 20min test and at the border of very good/good for the hour test. I’m no POW though: 6’ 170lbs.
The 2x20 version of the test is with 2’ of rest. Then you create an interval that includes the full 42’ and look at your normalized power for the entire time. That gives an approximation to your CP60. I did a test yesterday.
There’s another test protocol in the book Training and Racing with a Power Meter, which I think is an invaluable resource for anyone training with power. The other test protocol has some warmup, some very high intensity for a short time, and then ends with a sincle 20’ bout at FT, and then CP60 is estimated to be 95% of the normalized power for that last interval.
But like everyone said, the chart is for pure cyclists, and a 40K is closest to a one hour thing, so I’d go with the CP60 number. CP20 is interesting, but triathletes/duathletes don’t typically train like pure cyclists.
I’m sure down the road there will be a book or something that addresses more of the needs of triathletes/duathletes with respect to power training.
Woo-hoo. I’m a Cat 3 according to the female CP60 numbers myself.
