I read it, and it gives perspective. Weighing what I weigh and doing what I’ve done for each of those it shows me where I am and gives a hint at my rider “type”. It also tells me I probably haven’t had the focus in training on a couple things.
I just can’t believe, for me as a person, the correlation between the numbers I see and the brackets on the left (be it Categories or “fair/good/excellent”). I can do what it says, but don’t think if you plopped me into a race of that Cat, that I could do it.
We’ll find out this year I guess, first race ever is in March.
" the best measure of a rider’s competitive ability relative to that of others is their actual race performance, not their power output."
You’re being deliberatively obtuse. You know very well that the $200 gateway is a barrier to wide adoption, while the basic free concept will continue to have value forever. You should consider that something of a complement. Your chart will never go away, like it or not. Might as well update (if you agree with the OP that such an update is warranted, which you may not.). And you can add on some subtext on the bottom that says something to the effect, of “Disclaimer: achieving these W/kg numbers does not mean you can actually win damned bike race of any kind, so don’t come to me and complain that you’re getting dropped from a Cat 5 crit. That’s your problem, not mine.”
No, I’m not being obtuse. I simply stated the truth with respect to the tools that are presently available for analyzing cycling data. Power duration profiling has made power profiling obsolete. Whether people are willing to pay TrainingPeaks for the privilege of using the former tool is irrelevant.
As for updating the tables or providing explanatory material, you (and Zwift) seem to be well behind the times. The 8th (and final) version of the tables came out several years ago, and the logic behind their construction has been available since their genesis back in 2003.
I disagree. Adoption of a new thing is what determines whether something is obsolete.
So to take a different example: Google has a calendar that one can use that syncs across devices. But many if not the majority still use a paper calendar book in their personal despite all the selling points behind google’s calendar program that should hypothetically put the other calendars out to pasture.
It’s similar with WKO4. Technically it might be better, no doubt. But there are hurdles to it being mass adopted. Thus what it intends to replace is not obsolete because part of what makes the 20 minute FTP test (or whatever variant) useful is that people can actually use it, thus WKO4 doesn’t supplant it due to cost.
You’re being deliberatively obtuse. You know very well that the $200 gateway is a barrier to wide adoption, while the basic free concept will continue to have value forever. You should consider that something of a complement. Your chart will never go away, like it or not. Might as well update (if you agree with the OP that such an update is warranted, which you may not.). And you can add on some subtext on the bottom that says something to the effect, of “Disclaimer: achieving these W/kg numbers does not mean you can actually win damned bike race of any kind, so don’t come to me and complain that you’re getting dropped from a Cat 5 crit. That’s your problem, not mine.”
**No, I’m not being obtuse. I simply stated the truth with respect to the tools that are presently available for analyzing cycling data. Power duration profiling has made power profiling obsolete. Whether people are willing to pay TrainingPeaks for the privilege of using the former tool is irrelevant. **
As for updating the tables or providing explanatory material, you (and Zwift) seem to be well behind the times. The 8th (and final) version of the tables came out several years ago, and the logic behind their construction has been available since their genesis back in 2003.
Most definitions of obsolete are along the lines:
no longer in use
replaced by something newer
Since only a minority of those who may be interested use power duration profiling, the earlier tables are still of interest and use. That is unlikely to change anytime soon, partly due to simplicity for quick comparison to historical data and largely, because of the cost. Those looking at these tables do so primarily out of curiosity not necessity and will not even consider paying for a newer tool. So the tables are still in use. NOT Obsolete.
The tables have not been replaced by something newer and comparable. There is now a new source that provides superior information in the same subject area, for a price. That does not replace the existing material, except for those willing/able to access it. So the existing material is NOT obsolete.
Whether people are willing to pay for the tool is far from irrelevant. A tool is no good to someone if they don’t have access to it.
You can argue further about the semantics of the word obsolete if you like, but as far as I can see, the tables are still of interest to many and power duration profiling has not supplanted them as a general reference. You may think it should have replaced them. It may be preferable for you if that were the case. However, that does not make it so.
I’m referring to the part highlighted in the post I quoted from Andrew where he has asserted that the tables are obsolete due to power duration profiles. I personally do not agree, since I think they’re different things and which is best will depend on your purposes. So Andrew can answer your query!
Because they leverage all of the available data to help identify relative strengths and weaknesses across the entire spectrum of performance. That makes them both more convenient and more robust than just testing at 4 designated points.
As well, the use of a mathematical model instead of simple look-up tables allows use of an objective statistical approach instead of subjective judgement to determine your phenotype (i.e., shape your power-duration relationship). Again, this almost entirely eliminates the possibility of bias/error. (Auto-phenotyping is about 98% accurate.)
TL;DR: The original power profiling tables were just my initial stab at the question. Power-duration profiling is the result of an additional decade of thinking/learning.
(Note that the same can be said for almost all other aspects of “power-based training 2.0” found in WKO4. In fact, early on I advocated not even including legacy analytics like TSS, but that idea was quickly shot down by those with actual skin in the game.)
Out of curiosity, Do you need to do a single test - or do i load all my historical rides into WKO4 and I get the power profile?
How does one talk about their power profile to others? FTP / 10 second power is easy to discuss … maybe just because I’ve been doing it so long it just is simple
It is sometimes possible to get a good “read” on someone from just a single file (e.g., a criterium), but it generally takes more than that. The default is therefore to base things on the last 90 d, although that is adjustable in all of the charts or reports.
The knowledge gleaned from such an analysis is best conveyed graphically, but you can still state your mean maximal power at various durations, perhaps along with your phenotype:
“Hi, I’m Andy. I couldn’t sprint my way out of a wet paper bag, as my maximal 1 s power is only 10 W/kg. WKO4 says that I am a TTer.”
I have drawn phenotype maps and played with more detailed descriptors - e.g., Pursuiter-TTer for “hybrids” - but those approaches never really caught on with others. There is, however, a phenotype map chart in the WKO4 library… it’s rather uninformative if you plot data from only one time range, but can be interesting when comparing across, e.g., seasons. For example, while I never really budge even with changes in training focus (i.e., pursuit vs. TT), Hunter seems to be so adaptable that he dubbed himself as having a Chameleon phenotype.
The original power profile chart serves two purposes: providing an indication of relative strengths/weaknesses wrt duration (phenotype) as well as an indication of where one is positioned relative to other cyclists.
Despite the caveats on its use I think chart is more commonly used to address the latter question. It’s not clear that WKO4 satisfies that need.
The second “need” you mention represents a misuse of the original tables.
There is therefore no point in perpetuating that misuse, but if you have used WKO4 at all it should be obvious how to do it: just point to durations at which your data exceeds the standards and say, e.g., “hey, I am as good as a Pro at short durations - somebody send me my entry to Track World’s.”
as well as an indication of where one is positioned relative to other cyclists.
Despite the caveats on its use I think chart is more commonly used to address the latter question.
I’m trying to avoid the relevance and “what is better” argument from the other threads the best I can.
This quote gets at what I was really after…I don’t think any of them are a good measuring stick of “can you hang with these guys”.
He’s right, real world performance will judge that. I’m just amazed how far off some of it is. You couldn’t keep up in a Cat 5 race with a 2.x w/kg. You’d be done at the first roller.
If we were looking at the blue/pink chart, I would scrunch all the categories closer and upward with having Cat 5 start at a 3.0 for 20min.
As I stated from the outset, from my perspective the power profile tables have been made obsolete by power duration profiling. That’s doubly-true when you are looking at an outdated version of the former.
More importantly, the conclusion you have drawn is PRECISELY the sort of thing that I have always told people NOT to do.
If you want to know how good you are at racing a bicycle, go race your bike.