Results 1 to 34 of 34
  1. #1
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    762

    Does the rider with the best 20 min power to weight ratio win the race?

    When first getting involved with mtb racing an expert/elite told me that the racer with the best 20 min power/weight ratio (ftp/weight) wins the race.

    I guess that makes sense to me, event though mtb racing is not a steady 'push' like a time trial, and there are skills involved, etc. that could make a difference - that you want a 'big engine'.

    I guess my question is, has anyone with access to multiple power profiles seen where this is not true - OR that 1m or 5m power makes more of a difference? (putting things aside like a seasoned roadie's first mtb season where it would be an obvious case of lack of skills)
    https://www.google.com/search?q=powe...35%3B567%3B714

    IF it is true, shouldn't we spend majority of our training trying to raise our ftp?

  2. #2
    Formerly of Kent
    Reputation: Le Duke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    6,813
    Generally speaking, raising your FTP also helps with shorter efforts, to a point. You will have more repeatability with shorter efforts.

    Essentially, the fitter you are, the faster you'll recover from the shorter efforts. You might not be the first guy up the first 1-2min hill, but you'll be able to hit the next 10 of them at the same pace, and drive hard on the flats, instead of fading away.
    Death from Below.
    RLTW!

  3. #3
    mtbr member
    Reputation: wetpaint's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    313
    It probably depends on your terrain, but here in Michigan that's generally true. The people with that have big FTPs usually win. Based on my data files, You need to be able to ride at nearly your FTP for the whole race with lots of 400+ watt pushes

  4. #4
    Relentless forward motion
    Reputation: strat819's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    353
    I am going with "yes"... with a few assumptions.

    >>> Every racer in the race has the same descending skills
    >>> Every racer is on the same weight bike with the same tires

    An XC race is a time trial I suppose. If we were talking road racing or a crit, as Lee Corso would say... not so fast...
    "Racing cyclocross exposes the truth, it's the biggest reason many people do not race it"

  5. #5
    mtbr member
    Reputation: WR304's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    4,796

    Does the rider with the best 20 min power to weight ratio win the race?

    .
    Last edited by WR304; 05-18-2013 at 07:58 AM.

  6. #6
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Poncharelli's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    2,372
    I would say no within .5 W/kg. Another words, a rider with 3.5 w/kg can match a rider with 4.0 W/kg due to other factors: skills, repeatability, punch power, course efficiency, mental toughness, superior endurance, course knowledgability, etc., etc., etc.

    But 1.0 w/kg difference becomes a bit insurmountable (4.5 vs. 3.5 for example).

    I'm one of those guys who does pretty decent despite pretty low P/W (3.4-3.7, depending on time of year) for a Cat 1. I believe that my repeatability, punch, course efficiency (no brakes!!), and endurance is usually better than most others with similar P/W.
    Head Coach, Ben Lomond HS MTB Team
    www.utahmtb.org
    Cycling Team and local Club:
    http://www.roostersbikersedge.com/

  7. #7
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    116
    On the twisty, woodland singletracks I generally race on, I'd say bike handling skills and course knowledge are a major deciding factor. I'm a good climber on steady hills but get dropped rapidly on the flat/descents.
    I'm training my ability to ride fast down rooty, loamy tracks at the moment and hope it makes a significant improvement in my placings. Am also running a Dirty Dan 2.0 up front even in the dry to give me more grip on soft corners.
    If it was totally about power then I'd just do time trials instead!

  8. #8
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    506
    There were a couple races where I beat a Cat 2 roadie just starting out in mountain biking. I had seen pictures that he podiumed in road racing last year in fairly big races. I am just a lowly mid-pack CAT 2 mountain biker and when in the non-technical sectioned flats he just flew by. On the downhills I would pass him up and the rooty uphills had him stumped as well.

    So yes, given all things equal. The person who has the best 20 minute power is going to win. However, a good chunk of it is technical ability and flow.

    I have a belief that most beginner mountain bikers go as slow as they do mostly because they ride their brakes the whole time and not because of their w/kg.

  9. #9
    mnoutain bkie rdier
    Reputation: rydbyk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    2,822
    Yes and no. I ride road with guys with higher ftp's than me on occasion, but they are not necessarily always faster than me on mtb race day. This is only true if we have similar ftps, yet my bike handling skills is superior to theirs.

    Some guys lose a ton of time because they can't descend well..

    Having said this, I would trade a some of my bike handling skills for a little more ftp...haha.

    **Oops...looks like tooclose just said this..

  10. #10
    LMN
    LMN is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    4,313
    I think what you are try to ask is if CP20 is the best predictor of race performance. Obviously technical, mental, tactical, and equipment choice(although to a rather limited extent) is going to play a significant component in race results.

    Ultimately for the fitness side of racing the person with greatest aerobic engine is going to be fastest. It doesn't take 20 minutes to find out who has biggest aerobic engine, 6 minutes is enough.

    EDIT:

    BTW from my experience with elite racer the fastest racers have the highest FTP. The guy with an FTP of 5.3 beats the guy with an FTP 5.2, who solidly beats the guy with an FTP 5.0. At an elite level everybody has similar technical skills, generally it comes down the who can sustain the highest power output.
    "The best pace is suicide pace, and today is a good day to die." Steve Prefontaine

  11. #11
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    762
    Quote Originally Posted by LMN View Post
    I think what you are try to ask is if CP20 is the best predictor of race performance. Obviously technical, mental, tactical, and equipment choice(although to a rather limited extent) is going to play a significant component in race results.

    Ultimately for the fitness side of racing the person with greatest aerobic engine is going to be fastest. It doesn't take 20 minutes to find out who has biggest aerobic engine, 6 minutes is enough.

    EDIT:

    BTW from my experience with elite racer the fastest racers have the highest FTP. The guy with an FTP of 5.3 beats the guy with an FTP 5.2, who solidly beats the guy with an FTP 5.0. At an elite level everybody has similar technical skills, generally it comes down the who can sustain the highest power output.
    Thanks! That is exactly the kind of answer I was looking for, with all other things being equal (technical skills, bike, etc).

  12. #12
    mtbr member
    Reputation: WR304's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    4,796

    Does the rider with the best 20 min power to weight ratio win the race?

    Quote Originally Posted by scottz123 View Post
    When first getting involved with mtb racing an expert/elite told me that the racer with the best 20 min power/weight ratio (ftp/weight) wins the race.
    ...
    IF it is true, shouldn't we spend majority of our training trying to raise our ftp?
    FTP (Functional Threshold Power) is defined as your best power output for 1 hour. It isn't your best 20 minute power output.

    Your best 20 minute power output (multiplied by 0.95) is one method of estimating what your best 1 hour power output could be. It's often used because a 20 minute hard effort is easier to do and recover from than a full 1 hour time trial if you're testing regularly.

    The big danger with overly focusing on the Training Peaks power profile chart and its emphasis on shorter durations (5 seconds, 1 minute, 5 minutes, 20 minutes) is that you can get sucked into "chasing numbers". If you train for a particular test then you tend to get better at that test, sometimes at the expense of other aspects of your training. Repeatability (being able to do the same effort multiple times), recovery, endurance and mental toughness are all factors that come into play also.

    I'm sure you've seen this chart on the subject by Andrew Coggan that was posted on Cyclingforums.com already.

    "FTP can be used to predict someone's power to w/in (on average) +/- 5% from 2 minutes onward:" Andrew Coggan


    Andrew Coggan Power Chart

    http://www.cyclingforums.com/t/49449...obic-endurance

    .

  13. #13
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    762
    Thanks for the detailed answer WR!

  14. #14

  15. #15
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    1,026
    I think that should be true, but in cat1 masters and below there's a lot of exceptions. I do well in my age group cat1 mtb, but I get dropped in cat1/2 cyclocross, by the same guys I often beat by minutes in mtb! It may be that the trails I train on are by coincidence very similar to the trails we race in the spring series, - I'm thinking that has quite a bit to do with it (wait for Kosmos training book to come out ).

    I was talking to a guy (Mike G) I regularly race with, he dominated the spring series 3 years ago (cat1 35-49), most wins were by about 5 minutes (100 to 120 minute races), he experiences the same thing in cyclocross, the same guys he crushes in mtb often slowly pull away in cx. This guy is really good in the tight twisties, I've passed him on the climbs the past 2 years, but he's quite good in the woods, I think he has a lot of moto experience, - I also rode a whole lot of hours on trails on small dirt bikes with crappy suspension as a kid, I think that has helped me a lot.

    I think the 'stronger' road guys, or guys who don't mtb as much, maybe lack some upper body conditioning that you get from more mtb?, as well as the ability to maintain smooth power through the woods. Could it also be trail concentration fatigue that builds up? Chasing these guys in cyclocross, even in woods, it doesn't completely make sense, but there are quite a few 'of us' who seem to lack power but do well at mtb.

    The moral is; identify our weaknesses, that's probably where most of our improvements will come from. For me it seems clear, since I'm fast in the woods but not on the road, there's room to improve my 'road power', which would be easier if I were younger than 49, but there's still improvements I need to figure out how to make. I'll start with getting a modern road bike, there's plenty of guys I know who can work me over on the road once a week for starters.

  16. #16
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Posts
    44
    Quote Originally Posted by jimPacNW View Post
    The moral is; identify our weaknesses, that's probably where most of our improvements will come from.
    That's exactly what I take away from it. Studies and discussions help refine my understanding of what, exactly, 'weakness' is - sort of like moving from 'man, that sucked...' to, 'man, those quick bursts of power end up draining my reserves pretty quick'. So helpful on that front.

  17. #17
    Dirty triathlete
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Posts
    457
    There is a guy I raced with last season in Cat 1. While I routinely beat him, it wasn't by much most of the time. I produce more power/longer, but he has more skill. So basically I have gap him, or make up time in the climbs and hold him off in the tech.

    Another guy who I believe produces more power (no numbers, just comparing) I routinely beat also because he burns out early trying to hold too fast of a pace. I haven't raced CX with him yet, but his lap times were much faster then mine.

    Nice thing about XC racing, there is no one predictor of who will win. Things are never equal. Someone has more skill, someone has better pacing, someone has more power. One bike is great for one course, but not great on another course. Things are never equal.

  18. #18
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    762
    Quote Originally Posted by Sidewalk View Post
    Nice thing about XC racing, there is no one predictor of who will win. Things are never equal. Someone has more skill, someone has better pacing, someone has more power. One bike is great for one course, but not great on another course. Things are never equal.
    Quote Originally Posted by LMN View Post
    BTW from my experience with elite racer the fastest racers have the highest FTP. The guy with an FTP of 5.3 beats the guy with an FTP 5.2, who solidly beats the guy with an FTP 5.0. At an elite level everybody has similar technical skills, generally it comes down the who can sustain the highest power output.
    Quote Originally Posted by scottz123 View Post
    Thanks! That is exactly the kind of answer I was looking for, with all other things being equal (technical skills, bike, etc).
    I should have clearly stated in my opening question that "with all things being equal". As LMN stated and other coaches who PM'd me,,,FTP is the #1 difference maker.

    FTP is the maximum wattage an athlete can sustain for 60 minutes and according to Dr. Andrew Coggan, “the single greatest determinant of cycling performance”

  19. #19
    Dirty triathlete
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Posts
    457
    Quote Originally Posted by scottz123 View Post
    IF it is true, shouldn't we spend majority of our training trying to raise our ftp?
    Quote Originally Posted by scottz123 View Post
    I should have clearly stated in my opening question that "with all things being equal".
    That's just it, not all things are equal.

  20. #20
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Posts
    44
    Quote Originally Posted by Sidewalk View Post
    That's just it, not all things are equal.
    Right, I'm in agreement here. I think what is useful about identifying 'single-greatest' predictors and such is that it helps prioritize in training. I only have about 15 hours per week to give to cycling, and that's not enough to cover all the bases. If I know that FTP drives success relatively more than other factors, I'll put most of that 15 hours toward raising it.

  21. #21
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    762
    Quote Originally Posted by winters.benjamin View Post
    Right, I'm in agreement here. I think what is useful about identifying 'single-greatest' predictors and such is that it helps prioritize in training. I only have about 15 hours per week to give to cycling, and that's not enough to cover all the bases. If I know that FTP drives success relatively more than other factors, I'll put most of that 15 hours toward raising it.
    I would think with 15 hrs being available and you are able to handle training load...you'd be able to cover quite a few bases

    To dig deeper into meaning of my post (though I didn't state it - I was "still trying to figure it out"), with XC MTB'ing "appearing" to be anaerobic with all the short bursty efforts (especially in my area in midwest with short steep climbs), what is the "best" training. At the surface it would appear 15s/15s, 30s/30s, tabata's, etc. But you can't (shouldn't be the only thing you do) do that constantly.

    This was the simplest explanation I could find on why to raise FTP:

    "Let’s say that over 8-10 weeks that athlete works with a combination of primarily tempo, sweet spot and threshold training (perhaps topped off with a small amount of neuromuscular and VO2 max work to ensure no limiting systems) and drives the aerobic threshold power output up by 25 watts. This would be expected to raise all of the other thresholds (pushing it up from the bottom) by a roughly equivalent amounts. The old and new numbers are shown below."

    Threshold Start Finish
    Aerobic 175 watts 200 watts
    Tempo 200 watts 225 watts
    Functional 240 watts 265 watts
    VO2 Max. 300 watts 325 watts
    Anaerobic Capacity 330 watts 355 watts

    "So initially this athlete can hold 240 watts (working, mind you) for an hour. If the pace requires him to put out say 275 watts up to about 300 watts, he’ll be working near VO2 max. He’ll have 3-8 minutes before he’s blown. If the event is longer than that…..He’ll have even less time to exhaustion at higher power outputs. If the race requires say 330 watts or more, he’ll get maybe 60-90 seconds and that’s all she wrote.
    But after training, this has changed. Now the athlete can hold 265 watts for an hour. A pace that might have fatigued him in 8 minutes previously is sustainable. And the same 330 watts that would have shut him down after 60-90 seconds (because it was so anaerobic) is now nearer to VO2 max. He’ll still only have 3-8 minutes there but that’s a lot better than 60-90 seconds. But all of this translates to improved performance at pretty much all levels by pushing things up from the bottom. Improving performance at the ‘slow’ end ends up pushing everything up to some degree.
    Of course, driving up the functional threshold and/or VO2 max wattages will probably take some specific training at those intensities which is why all endurance athletes do some of it. You can think of the increase with the other methods as providing the potential for an increase with the specific higher intensity training causing it to occur. Basically, the high volume, predominantly aerobic training improves the performance potential while the specific high-intensity work realizes it." Lyle McDonald

  22. #22
    Dirty triathlete
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Posts
    457
    15 hours is quite a lot. I typically ride 15-20 hours a week, which gives me roughly 250 miles a week, depending on how much MTB and hill climbing I do. My bike commute is about 90 miles of that. I am not following a plan, just "seam of the pants", and mostly for pleasure. Usually 9but not limited to) a couple hours of intense XC style riding with burst of climbing and technical descending, couple hours of pleasure MTB riding with mostly fast descending (in a group setting). 2 x 30 minutes of intense commuting 5 days a week (I have a thing about leaving at the last minute), and usually two long road rides per week (Tuesday is typically a 100 mile day).

    I should be scheduling more swim, run, and weight training. But with my combined training and chores, I can only spare so much more time and energy. If it wasn't for my wreck Wednesday, I wouldn't be on the internet now

  23. #23
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Posts
    44
    Quote Originally Posted by scottz123 View Post
    Basically, the high volume, predominantly aerobic training improves the performance potential while the specific high-intensity work realizes it." Lyle McDonald
    I'm a big fan of Lyle's work.

    So all of the math makes sense to me here to an extent. Basically by working at the aerobic end of the spectrum, you stand to improve performance by transitioning what used to be zone 3 work into, say, zone 2. Which theoretically saves gas, which theoretically means you've got more gas for later. All of that makes sense until you hit the anaerobic end of things, which if I've got my physiology correct, requires different energy systems. And since these things are always a little fuzzy outside of a laboratory, probably what we would consider the upper end of VO2 work in a race actually uses the anaerobic energy systems as well. So to carry on the last iteration of inquiry here: if we're trying to improve performance with these short, bursty efforts, I would think that we'd need more than aerobic conditioning to get there. And with apologies to Lyle, I don't think that creating bigger aerobic zones would do it. What we're trying to do is increase the body's ability to tap out the W' factor, then get back to aerobic energy systems for recovery, then back to tapping out W', etc. I'm not an expert in physiology or any of this, just trying to follow the logic and piece all of this together so we get max efficiency out of workouts.....

  24. #24
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    82
    Quote Originally Posted by winters.benjamin View Post
    I'm a big fan of Lyle's work.

    So all of the math makes sense to me here to an extent.

    You need to work ALL areas of fitness, but FTP is the most advantageous. Is that a simple conclusion? I certainly see it in my athletes!

  25. #25
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    762
    Quote Originally Posted by winters.benjamin View Post
    So all of the math makes sense to me here to an extent. Basically by working at the aerobic end of the spectrum, you stand to improve performance by transitioning what used to be zone 3 work into, say, zone 2. Which theoretically saves gas, which theoretically means you've got more gas for later. All of that makes sense until you hit the anaerobic end of things, which if I've got my physiology correct, requires different energy systems. And since these things are always a little fuzzy outside of a laboratory, probably what we would consider the upper end of VO2 work in a race actually uses the anaerobic energy systems as well. So to carry on the last iteration of inquiry here: if we're trying to improve performance with these short, bursty efforts, I would think that we'd need more than aerobic conditioning to get there. And with apologies to Lyle, I don't think that creating bigger aerobic zones would do it. What we're trying to do is increase the body's ability to tap out the W' factor, then get back to aerobic energy systems for recovery, then back to tapping out W', etc. I'm not an expert in physiology or any of this, just trying to follow the logic and piece all of this together so we get max efficiency out of workouts.....
    Quote Originally Posted by scottz123 View Post
    Of course, driving up the functional threshold and/or VO2 max wattages will probably take some specific training at those intensities which is why all endurance athletes do some of it. You can think of the increase with the other methods as providing the potential for an increase with the specific higher intensity training causing it to occur. " Lyle McDonald
    An example I read before (basically): Rider A had a FTP of 300, Rider B FTP of 250. Both equal weight. Multiple 1min climbs @ 450 watts = 150% of FTP for Rider A - 180% of FTP for Rider B. All things being equal, Rider A has the potential to recover from those efforts better than Rider B.

    Coggan says that doing SST (ex: 20m intervals @ 88-92% of FTP) work will raise 5m power also, he claims 1m too. I have a hard time seeing it, but how can I argue with someone of that stature.

    "That was my rationale when I tested (on myself) the effect of focusing heavily on what is now known as level 5 back in the mid/late 1990s.

    That is, I reasoned that since my LT was quite high relative to my VO2max (I was able to sustain 88% of VO2max for 75 min in this study: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3403447), to make further significant improvements I had to "raise my ceiling." After many weeks of torturing myself on the ergometer doing 6 x 5 min @ 95-100% of VO2max for 3d/wk, I recorded my highest VO2max (in L/min) ever (albeit only 0.05-0.10 L/min higher than I had been on other occasions). I then went and did the Texas state TT, and had a disappointing performance.

    Jump forward a few years, and I and my then-new PowerTap fell into the habit of doing 2 x ~20 min (actually, 2 x 4 laps "hot", one easy) around an office park in Columbia, MD. Lo and behold, I saw that the power I could sustain during such efforts began to steadily increase. At that point I went back to my roots of doing lots of what is now known as "sweetspot", and the only time I have done a dedicated block of level 5 training since was when preparing for a 3 km pursuit.

    ETA: I think that it is also important to realize that inducing the physiological adaptations that contribute to an increase in VO2max doesn't necessarily require training at that intensity - that is, it is possible that factors such as, e.g., cardiac hypertrophy may be maximized by higher volumes of lower intensity training. This is something I have thought about for a couple of decades, ever since the experiences described above." Andrew Coggan

    Thoughts about raising 5 min power to increase FTP (Page 2): Triathlon Forum: Slowtwitch Forums

  26. #26
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Posts
    44
    Quote Originally Posted by scottz123 View Post
    ETA: I think that it is also important to realize that inducing the physiological adaptations that contribute to an increase in VO2max doesn't necessarily require training at that intensity - that is, it is possible that factors such as, e.g., cardiac hypertrophy may be maximized by higher volumes of lower intensity training. This is something I have thought about for a couple of decades, ever since the experiences described above." Andrew Coggan

    Thoughts about raising 5 min power to increase FTP (Page 2): Triathlon Forum: Slowtwitch Forums
    It seems to me that the bulk of Coggan's quote in your post describes a different scenario than the power-burst adaptations we're looking to induce. He was trying to increase FTP, and thought that raising his 'ceiling' through 6x5s would get him there, and it turns out that sweet spot work got him there with less torture (presumably). The last bit of the quote, which I've pasted above, is him speculating about cardiac hypertrophy, methods to induce it, and its possible impact on VO2 max. And this chain of speculation may or may not end in fitness for repeated power-burst scenarios (i.e., if we have a monstrous VO2 max, does that mean we'll be power-burst monsters?). I'm not using 'speculation' in a derogatory sense, just indicating that he's exploring a theory without the benefit of lab or other trials. So I'm not sure that he is getting us any closer to an answer of how to best prepare for repeated power-burst scenarios.

  27. #27
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    762
    Quote Originally Posted by winters.benjamin View Post
    It seems to me that the bulk of Coggan's quote in your post describes a different scenario than the power-burst adaptations we're looking to induce. He was trying to increase FTP, and thought that raising his 'ceiling' through 6x5s would get him there, and it turns out that sweet spot work got him there with less torture (presumably). The last bit of the quote, which I've pasted above, is him speculating about cardiac hypertrophy, methods to induce it, and its possible impact on VO2 max. And this chain of speculation may or may not end in fitness for repeated power-burst scenarios (i.e., if we have a monstroSo I'm not sure that he is getting us any closer to an answer of how to best prepare for repeated power-burst scenarios.
    Sorry you are disappointed.

    I think you are looking to far into it (how to prepare for anaerobic bursts).

    1) Push-up FTP with SST work to get a "big engine"

    2)Closer to race day's you get - train more like the demand's of your race (like Coggan did with Level 5 work for 3K Pursuit). EX: Tempo w/burst's, 15/15's, 30/30's, MTB 20m Hot Lap Race Simulation's

    I see your point about him "speculating" and "exploring theories without the benefit of lab or other trials". You can question him. I won't.

    Dr. Andrew Coggan, Training and Racing with a Power Meter

  28. #28
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    762
    Quote Originally Posted by winters.benjamin View Post
    What we're trying to do is increase the body's ability to tap out the W' factor, then get back to aerobic energy systems for recovery, then back to tapping out W', etc.
    I think you will like this article

    Summary
    "Anaerobic level efforts, those twenty to one hundred and twenty second efforts that hurt so much, can be viewed as the crucible in which results are derived. While functional threshold power gets you to the party, ability to deliver supra-threshold efforts during crunch time keeps you in for the win.

    Unfortunately, each of us possess a relatively small amount of W’ and the reconstitution of it takes a very long time. On average, in the Skiba study, participants had less than 25 Kilojoules of available anaerobic capacity, and a 30 second all out sprint took an average of 333 seconds to recover from even when power was exceptionally low (20 watts). Higher recovery power took even longer.

    The practical applications of this are notable when you begin to look at your performance in events like cyclocross, with a high anaerobic demand profile. Train the systems you need in a manner that will maximize your return, and don’t neglect your threshold power." Matt McNamara

    Toolbox: W' and Anaerobic Capacity - PezCycling News

  29. #29
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    1,026
    That's a good article, and explains to me why my 10x10s sprints and short hill repeats (roughly 10x10s) that I focused on through summer didn't have much of a benefit when cyclocross season came. And why my training trails have been good for quite a few racers; roughly 6 minutes of recovery (flat or descent) between the 40 to 60 second climbs.

  30. #30
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Posts
    44
    Quote Originally Posted by scottz123 View Post
    Sorry you are disappointed.

    You can question him. I won't.
    Sorry all, been traveling for the past few days and haven't gotten back to this thread. Catching up a bit now. First, I agree that Coggan is a giant and should be respected. I am cautious to not extrapolate too far, however (making sure we're comparing apples to apples) but my ability to determine what is an extrapolation and what is a direct application largely rests on my understanding of the science - how is that for a catch-22?? - and so I may be getting the wrong angle here. But it seems to me that Coggan's quote is basically describing how to push the tipping point further out (which I agree holds a heck of a lot of benefits) and not necessarily how to play better in the tipping point itself. The concept of intermittent power (IP) and its predictive ability in XCO events seems to be more of the latter - breaching CP, coming back, breaching CP, etc. And if
    IP is in fact the better predictor, then it would seem that we need training regimens that pattern the sequence of breach-recover-breach-recover instead of just pushing the breach point further and further out.

    BTW I do like that PezCycling article. Lyle McDonald commented on sprint recovery times during training as well, noting that the Aussie track cycling team would sit around for long periods of time playing cards, drinking coke etc. between sprint sets...all to make sure the systems were fully recovered between efforts.

  31. #31
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    762
    Quote Originally Posted by jimPacNW View Post
    That's a good article, and explains to me why my 10x10s sprints and short hill repeats (roughly 10x10s) that I focused on through summer didn't have much of a benefit when cyclocross season came. And why my training trails have been good for quite a few racers; roughly 6 minutes of recovery (flat or descent) between the 40 to 60 second climbs.
    Maybe this article will help with transition from creating "peak power" to "repeatability".

    "Peak power and repeatability require different types of training, and the order in which you train them is also critical. Peak power should be developed first, as it will allow you to transition to repeatability later in the week, month, or season. Once you have those peak numbers, repeatability will be a little easier to deal with, and you’ll have higher power numbers to begin with." Hunter Allen

    Hunter Allen Power Blog: Power Up: Increasing Repeatability and Peak Power

  32. #32
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Posts
    44
    Quote Originally Posted by scottz123 View Post
    Maybe this article will help with transition from creating "peak power" to "repeatability".

    Hunter Allen Power Blog: Power Up: Increasing Repeatability and Peak Power
    Man, that was a great article. I am curious as to why he recommends full recovery between intervals for developing peak power. It must be something to do with the different energy systems and how they adapt to strain, because I think it is pretty well established that consistent pressure on FTP through intervals with less-than-sufficient recovery time between does wonders to improve lactate clearance etc. So perhaps anaerobic systems don't respond well to repeated pressure without sufficient recovery time. Just thinking out loud.

  33. #33
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    166
    Long recovery is for "Anearobic Power". (Think of power lifting - max effort with long recovery).
    Versus "Anearobic Endurance", the ability to do multiple efforts and recover (like mtb'ing).

    https://fascatcoaching.com/tips/mountain-bike-power/

  34. #34
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    24
    Quote Originally Posted by winters.benjamin View Post
    I am curious as to why he recommends full recovery between intervals for developing peak power.
    If you want to go even further into the analysis rabbit hole on this ...
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D3eQQrURC7s&t=0s

Similar Threads

  1. Best price to weight saving ratio parts ?
    By David C in forum Weight Weenies
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 08-23-2011, 03:28 AM
  2. Bad power-to-weight ratio = BUMMER.
    By SWriverstone in forum Clydesdales/Tall Riders
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 04-13-2011, 08:04 AM
  3. Next best price to weight ratio upgrade?
    By alphaqforever247 in forum Weight Weenies
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 02-24-2011, 08:30 AM
  4. Best $ to weight ratio upgrades
    By GVSS in forum Weight Weenies
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: 02-05-2011, 10:35 AM
  5. Best Weight to Dollar ratio bike build?
    By ron m. in forum Weight Weenies
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 01-25-2011, 09:34 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •