I was on the bike a few days ago and turning over a big gear (for me) at 75-80 rpm. There is usually a significant headwind on the out and a tailwind on the back, but that day was relatively calm and I was flying. I don’t have a working powermeter, so no idea of the actual wattage numbers. I kept my heart rate on the flats below 150 for the 2h30 ride, which is an easy-moderate effort. Between this ride and some other tests that I run myself through I know that I’m definitely putting out more watts than ever before, which is somewhat surprising because I’m 4 weeks back into training after a 3 month layoff. My weight is also up; at 147 pounds I’m quite the heifer compared to 140 pounds in June.
So, the question is: Do bigger athletes have the capability to sustain more watts simply because they have more overall mass? Can I count my recreational eating as training??
So, the question is: Do bigger athletes have the capability to sustain more watts simply because they have more overall mass? Can I count my recreational eating as training??
An athlete having more muscle mass should be able to produce greater force. Sustaining that force is more a function of training and genetic gift. I think. Of course, my left thigh weighs more than you so I’ve always secretly hoped that bigger would someday magically mean faster. Basically, larger riders are typically penalized by an increased frontal surface area (less aerodynamic) and by gravitational forces when going uphill.
Keep up the good work!
edit: There’s also increased rolling resistance thanks to the extra compression on the wheels due to the added weight. But, that’s probably splitting hairs.
So, the question is: Do bigger athletes have the capability to sustain more watts simply because they have more overall mass?
First, it’s only lean mass that counts.
But, generally speaking, the bigger athlete has the potential to generate more watts. None of that matters, of course, if one doesn’t train.
The power profiling tables at cyclingpeakssoftware.com can give you a sense of where you fall fitness-wise. The tables are stated in terms of watts per kilogram because, well, size matters. In road racing, watts/kilo wins races. In triathlon biking, it’s not that simple, but the profiling tables are a wake-up call about how fit we could get if we were serious about biking.
I find myself in the section of the tables two steps below “Good” and in the first level above “Untrained.” About where you might find a teenage girl at a local bike club race. Amazingly, that’s all it takes to ride 5:30-5:40 in a flattish IM bike course.
I find myself in the section of the tables two steps below “Good” and in the first level above “Untrained.” About where you might find a teenage girl at a local bike club race. Amazingly, that’s all it takes to ride 5:30-5:40 in a flattish IM bike course.
Gravity I’ll give ya, but from a mass/power to frontal area ratio I think the smaller folks get screwed.
As the size goes up the mass increases faster than the area. IOW a 200lb guy may be 25% heavier than a 150lb guy, but doesn’t have nearly 25% larger frontal area.
So assuming the same power to weight ratio the smaller guy has a higher frontal area to power ratio. So in essence teh smaller you are the larger the penality…at least that’s my story…I might be convinced to not stick to it though.
As the size goes up the mass increases faster than the area. IOW a 200lb guy may be 25% heavier than a 150lb guy, but doesn’t have nearly 25% larger frontal area.
So assuming the same power to weight ratio the smaller guy has a higher frontal area to power ratio. So in essence teh smaller you are the larger the penality…at least that’s my story…I might be convinced to not stick to it though.
~Matt
You’re probably correct. Unfortunately, the heavier guy does have more frontal area to overcome and thus doesn’t get the full advantage of the extra muscle mass. And, yep. Gravity sucks. But, I like to remind myself (and others as I go by) that gravity is my friend on the way downhill (even if it doesn’t last as long as the ride up).
Given the uneven power to weight ratio and frontal area issue, big guys have an advantage in the wind.
On a hilly course big guys will likely have their ass’s handed to them, on a flat windy course the little dudes are in trouble.
~Matt
Truer words have never been spoken. Thank you. You should see what happens with a 30 mph tailwind - aero my ass - try sitting up and opening your jersey. That’s when a XXL comes in handy.
Anyway we were comparing equal power to weight ratios. I’m guessing equal power to weight ratios would result in similar uphill climbs but the bigger guy woudl have the advantage on the flats and definately in the wind due to a lower power to frontal area ratio.
I think what typically happens is we end up riding with people of similar speed in the flats. So a small guy ends up riding with a big guy that really has a lower power to weight ratio or else the small guy probably wouldn’t be able to keep up with him on the flats.
So when you hit the hills that smaller ratio kills the big dude and the little guy is quicker up the hill.
I would suggest your power-to-weight ratio is more important that your raw power output. At least when my coach discusses my power goals, he is usually talking in terms of the power-to-weight ratio.
I find myself in the section of the tables two steps below “Good” and in the first level above “Untrained.” About where you might find a teenage girl at a local bike club race. Amazingly, that’s all it takes to ride 5:30-5:40 in a flattish IM bike course.
Is that for your FT only or all 4 values? For what it’s worth, I was shocked when plugged in my numbers. I thought for sure that Coggan had made a mistake in his tables.
Thankfully, after riding with some fast roadies, my numbers started improving.
While it’s true that ‘bigger atheletes can sustain more watts’, that’s due to larger cardiovascular systems more than more muscle mass–so gaining weight isn’t going to really help YOU put out more wattage…
FIWIW, my peak wattages (raw, not W/KG), from 5 sec. to 60 minutes have all come when I’m at my at my leanest.
I’ve found the chart to be pretty accurate. However, bear in mind that the top values to the left (5 sec and 1 min) are extremely high even for road cyclists, let alone triathletes–they’re for elite track cyclists and kilo riders–very few road cyclists will be doing 11W/kg for a minute.
This kinda skews the chart when an endurance racer is looking at it!
I’ve found the chart to be pretty accurate. However, bear in mind that the top values to the left (5 sec and 1 min) are extremely high even for road cyclists, let alone triathletes–they’re for elite track cyclists and kilo riders–very few road cyclists will be doing 11W/kg for a minute.
This kinda skews the chart when an endurance racer is looking at it!
Interesting. Seems to me that all the Top Values are extremely high and extremely rare.
Regarding 1 minute value, I’ve wondered about that. Mine is a paltry 6.10 but my 5s value is a 15.06. I would have thought they would be closer. Here are my numbers:
So, my power profile has a V shape which, if memory servers, is indicative of all-rounder but what, phsiologically speaking, makes my 1 minute power so low? Could this be the reason that I can’t stay with a surging field during a climb?