Watts Per Kilo is a Cruel Witch...
I have been reading a lot of books on cycling lately. Some "how to" and some biographical. They are all good, some really good, but they all talk about the same thing with reverence. Watts Per Kilo. The holly Grail. It seems like not only an important number, but it seems to be THE number. And, what a devilish little number it is.
It's so black and white. It's so simple. Its sooo fooking hard!
The amount of power you can make divided by your body weight in kilos produces a value so clear, so cut and dry. 2.4; 2.8; 3.1; 3.6. Amazingly simple. I have been familiar with this little ratio for a long while, but I never really stewed on it. I never sat down and said let me look at the formula and run some scenarios… Until today.
Here is where I am today:
Not bad for a 40 year old former couch potato, but not where I want to be. Not the magic age group line of FOUR. I am not even sure why FOUR is the number except that it is a round number, its an even number and it seems to just roll off the tongue - FOUR. I guess FOUR is the number that separates one group from another.
So, how do I get to FOUR? Three choices - Make a lot more power, lose a ton of weight or do both. I think the best I could ever HOPE to manage is do a lot of both.
Here is what I think FOUR could look like for me:
Tough, eh? I gotta lose 9 kilos and gain 32 watts? For real? Shoot! That seems right hard, but it also seems like a real noble goal.
165 is probably the most doable, but it's a tall order. This Summer, before CDA, I weighed 173. That means I gotta shave 8 pounds off that weight and be lower than I have weighed since middle school.
The watts piece seems wild as well. My best test ever was 275. Currently, I can do 20 minute power of about 286. 300 is gonna be crazy.
So while I am at, I start thinking about the big boys. Michele Ferrari, yes, that Dr. Michele Ferrari, said that Watts Per Kilo is the MOST important number. He said that to win THE TOUR, a rider would need to have a watts per kilo number of 6.7.
6.7 watts per kilo! That's what Ferrari said it would take to slay the contenders in the mountains. Less then 6.7 watts per kilo and you couldn't crush your rivals in the Alps. Fortunately for some, Michele had the rocket fuel required to jack you up! With EPO and a rider that had a body that responded well to it, he could jack your power number up and ensure you wouldn't fade in the final week of a three week grand tour. But, the weight was still a challenge. Everything I read talks about the Pro Peloton being obsessed with their weight.
So what would I look like in Tour Contender shape - 6.7 watts per kilo:
Yup, lost 30 more pounds from my super skinny 165 goal and added a few watts. Just 111 watts more than my ambitious 300 watt goal. That's right, get your fat ass down to 135 while cranking 411 watts and you too can spank fools while flying up the side of Mt Ventoux in the big ring.
I gotta go chew some ice cubes for dinner while doing spinnervals…..
Comments
Cyclist know these numbers very intimately. 300 watts and/or 4.0 and above is rarified air for most cyclist. I doubt there are very few tri folks that push these numbers. Ironically as you loose weight you will likely loose power because you aren't towing around as much. Some guys I know that can crank big power numbers are also huge guys. Great power for short distance but die say on any climb. I posted a chart similar to the one below a couple weeks ago- interesting stuff. Personally I can break 1 hour for a 40ktt consistently but seem to be stuck at 297 watts and 3.76 w/k. I agree with you it is tough. What is remarkable is to see the 135 pound guys cranking power numbers that you think they couldn't possibly do with their skinny builds! Sorry the chart is not formatted well it doesn't want to paste correctly.
6.40
5.69
6.31
5.61
6.22
5.53
6.13
5.44
World class
6.04
5.36
(e.g., international pro)
5.96
5.28
5.87
5.20
5.78
5.12
5.69
5.03
5.60
4.95
Exceptional
5.51
4.87
(e.g., domestic pro)
5.42
4.79
5.33
4.70
5.24
4.62
5.15
4.54
5.07
4.46
Excellent
4.98
4.38
(e.g., cat. 1)
4.89
4.29
4.80
4.21
4.71
4.13
4.62
4.05
4.53
3.97
Very good
4.44
3.88
(e.g., cat. 2)
4.35
3.80
4.27
3.72
4.18
3.64
4.09
3.55
4.00
3.47
3.91
3.39
Good
3.82
3.31
(e.g., cat. 3)
3.73
3.23
3.64
3.14
3.55
3.06
3.47
2.98
3.38
2.90
Moderate
3.29
2.82
(e.g., cat. 4)
3.20
2.73
3.11
2.65
3.02
2.57
2.93
2.49
2.84
2.40
Fair
2.75
2.32
(e.g., cat. 5)
2.66
2.24
2.58
2.16
2.49
2.08
2.40
1.99
2.31
1.91
Untrained
2.22
1.83
(e.g., non-racer)
2.13
1.75
2.04
1.67
1.95
1.58
1.86
1.50
This is from the cycling god Andrew Coogan. It is the same table I made below but cleaner and easier to read. You are right Dino it is fun to play with this stuff.
One thing to mention , we all know about it , but nobody every says it or talks about it..... You must factor in the weight of your bike....
Hypothetical situation... 3 guys all with w/kg 4.0...... one at 120lbs , one at 140lbs , and one at 160lbs ..... factor in the weight of a bike (20lbs to make it easy) and now the true w/kg ratio is 3.43 for the 120lb guy , 3.5 for the 140 lb guy , and 3.55 for the 160lb guy ......
I started EN a little over 3 years ago @ 126lbs and FTP of 175 , w/kg of 3.0...... earlier this year peaked at w/kg of 4.4 with a weight of 118 and FTP of 235..... right now I am at 3.8 w/kg 128lbs and 220FTP...... when I add 2 water bottles to my frame it drops my w/kg down by .06..... And ironically my best performances have been on flat courses .....
Dino everyone is different but I believe most people are capable of reaching 4.0.....As you know after the 1st year FTP gains become very hard to achieve but losing weight is always easy with discipline... Having read all those cycling books you know how fanatical they all are about getting skinny... That said its nice to have FTP/weight/ w/kg targets but I think its important to just do the work get lean and let the numbers land where they do.... Just like executing your IM and let the time take care of itself...
Time to hit the bike I'd say!
So my Goal for this yr is to get my FTP back up to that high point and actually keep it close to there through IM training (big stretch). If I can maintain 325W as my weight comes down and race at 178lbs, then I'll hit that magical number at 4.01W/Kg.
There are a few bigger issues to consider... I think it's even more important what your ~5 or 6 hr power number is. Said a different way, what IF can you actually maintain for 5 or 6 hours and still run effectively off of it. There are a couple ways to have a faster IM bike leg. Getting your FTP number as high as possible always helps, but being able to maintain a higher percentage of that FTP number for longer gets you there also. And I don't mean overcooking your legs. I have underperformed with this in the past and realy want to work on that this yr as well (racing at a 0.72IF instead of a 0.67IF). We all have a power curve over time. For sprinters, 10s or 20s Max power might be more important. Most people look at 1 min or 5 min or 20 min power. Some even think out as far as 1hr power on the max curve (i.e. FTP). That's why Coggan uses those in his table. But what about 3hr max power or 6hr max power? Those are likely more important for IM racing (and nearly impossible to test).
Also there is the common thought that Absolute Watts are more important on flat courses and that W/Kg is more important on hilly courses. My dudes like Coach P showed this at IMTX. But nothing is absolute as Tim Cronk also showed. I think Tim's relative strength is running well in the extreme heat, but he also shows that fast dudes are fast dudes, period. Bike position and aerodynamics are also extremely important because I'll take someone with 3.0W/Kg with great position on a tri bike in a 112mi TT any day over some 4.0W/Kg dude sitting upright on a Mtn Bike.
Dino,
You have the build to get under 170lb easily, IMO. And you live at the bottom of the best training venue in LA. That hill is all about motivation, caffiene, rabbit (chase on or be one) and tunes.
Best bike fitness I've ever had was 2010 training for Everest Challenge. 4x rides per week as 2x intervals and 2x climbing rides. No running. I got to 158lb and 315w FTP, 4.38w/kg. Sooooo glad there was no Strava back then because it would suck being stalked daily by that fookin guy and his "My Results" on every local segment.
4.0w/kg is just a number that means something to triathletes. That is, once you get north of 4.0, you're the guy that's putting up top 5 in your AG bike splits, etc. This is just something we've all observed over the years.
JW Is a big guy with big numbers (probably one hell of a sprinter) and it seems he has determined his weakness to be riding longer distances at a higher percentages of his FTP... I would imagine he is going to have a good focus on those longrides at RPP this year???
I'm the opposite of JW.... little guy with little numbers but I can hold a higher percentage for long periods of time... A diesel engine.... My weakness is once is V02 relative to FTP somewhere around 115%..... So this year I am going to do a lot of work above FTP in the OS....
Ah yes, love these metrics and I have the Coggan table Andrew references pinned up in my pain cave. Honestly though, I think I need to move it to the fridge… currently sitting at 3.5 but get down to my realistic goal weight without losing any power and I’m at 4.0. Sheesh, sounds so easy…
Strength moving the mass is just as valuable on the run as it is on the bike, too.
As I take 2014 off from any huge race plans, my goal is to keep the crosshairs on this very point. And, though it's a long ways down the road, it's geared for Sept of 2015.
That gives me 2 years of listening to everyone telling me that I'm sick, losing too much weight, eat a burger, etc. As long as my W is going up and I don't feel worn down, the kg's will be dropping.
So - just to clarify:
1) derive FTP (test)
2) ride long rides at estimated xIF (% of FTP @ estimated IM pace).
3) Look at 4-6 hour max power number and correlate to RPE.
4) Ride IM to wattage of 4-6 hour sustained power number.
If the 2 numbers (% of FTP, and 4-6 power) are congruent, I would feel confident in applying those numbers.
However, what if they aren't? I am hearing that it is preferable to default to the long ride power number over riding to a percentage of FTP. Isn't there a risk of having this 4-6hr power number be too high for IM sustainability such that it seems possible (even likely) in training to be able to ride to a higher 4-6 hr power by not swimming before, and running after. This might falsely elevate goal watts and encourage riding the IM too hard.
What am I missing?
Thanks,
Ok, I think we're getting away from the original intent of this thread and beginning to steer towards how to race the IM with power.
W/kg @ FTP is a good number to reference because you pretty much always know what your FTP, you know what you weigh = you can assign yourself a number today that reflects where you are, today, against your goals. You can also compare your current w/kg @ FTP to that same number pretty much anywhere in the season across a number of seasons.
You won't start to accumulate 3-5hr power numbers until you start doing rides of that length...and then the issue of specificity comes up -- road bike vs tri bike, 5hr climbing ride vs 5hr flat ride, etc, etc.
In other words, looking at, tracking, and making race day pacing decisions as a function of accumulated long ride data is a Race Prep conversation and exercise.
Ian I am absolutely in agreement with you versus the consensus here. I have done many 200 mile races and relied on my one hour FTP number. It has never even crossed my mind to use anything else.
I think there are too many variables in relying on a 4 to 5 hour time. Particularly if the course is not a consistent route from an elevation standpoint or wind or heat or.......I know 70% of my FTP will be more of a predictor.
But I must qualify my comments because I ride A LOT. Typically 10,000-12,000 miles per year.
I will say though I am going to try what Tim is saying for the hell of it and see how close I am.
Last years peak FTP was 237, just off my best FTP of 240 in 2012. My final A race last year I was 142 lbs = 64.4kg. I'm pretty lean and 142-143 is about my normal race weight although in 2008 I was around 140.
Last year watt/kg = 3.68
To get to 4 watt/kg I'd have to either increase my FTP to about 260 at my current race weight.
If i could somehow race at 135 lbs or so, I only have to get my FTP to about 245.
I can't imagine being able to drop to 135 lbs and slightly increase my power output. Plus at 135 people might start wondering if I was sick or something.
Mark
Btw to the comments about longer power averages being critical are spot on for long-course triathlon.
For everyone: our complete Ironman execution guidance is here.
IM pace by the math (ie, FTP x goal IF per our guidance in ^that^ doc above) is a starting point but could/should be refined through the data you see on long rides and especially on your race rehearsals. In other words:
For me the FTP number is just a bench mark to develop an IF that feels like the magic NP number. The absolute target 5 hour watt number is what I really want to define. Meaning, I could choose 300w as an FTP and then ride IM at .60 IF, or I could choose 225 as an FTP and then ride IM 0.90 IF. The number for me is what NP number over 5-6 hours leaves me running well without leaving any watts on the table "unused". That is just how I wrap my head around IM planning and then ride in 15 minute boxes targeting that sweet NP number.
My current fascination with W/Kg is based on the Outseason riding I am doing. In the past three months since IMTahoe, I have been riding 3-4 times per week, always outside and never alone. I go out of my way to find strong riders and then try and either hang with them or slay them. I have been riding with anything from 1-2 training partners, to 20-30 on a tri club ride to 100 roadies on a standing Saturday Tour of the San Gabriel Valley called The Montrose Ride. Montrose is a roller coaster 2 hour suffer fest in legit peloton.
I want more W/kg to smash intense road rides and climbs. I will do extended climbs as 1-2 hour efforts where I am either racing to stay away from or trying to catch a trainer partner(s). During the big Montrose or club ride I am either sitting in, pace lining or on the attack. That means briefer more intense efforts where I am looking for more 5 and 20 critical power numbers.
In group rides and climbing sessions, raw power to weight is what I seeking. This is December, I just want to use my fitness to test my mettle and that of my friends 3-4 times per week. I then want to carry that into Spring with some 70.3 racing and then ultimately toe the line in Chattanooga lighter and faster with 12-14 weeks of 5-6 hour rides under my belt at a sustained power that sets up a sub-4 hour run.
And with that approach, you are going to shred the course at IMCHOO!!!
(with that said, I'll race you to 4.0W/Kg)
I'm will try to reduce body weight this year as you benefit A LOT of that on the run which is the most important part.