# Want to ride like a pro? Concentrate on watts, not weight



## nickyboy (22 Sep 2014)

I happened upon a Strava file uploaded yesterday by top pro, Ben Swift. He has subsequently deleted it but the numbers were frightening.
He rode around the Peak District; about 250km at an average speed of 37.9km/hr with about 3,500m of climbing.

What I found amazing was that he averaged about 350W. Now he weighs (according to Wikipedia) a shade under 11 stones. He probably weighs less than most cyclists, but not massively so. He's only 25% lighter than me. But the big difference between him and regular cyclists is the Watts he can sustain. 350W is about *double *what I can do and if you look on Strava (I know this is not very accurate), few club riders can sustain more than 200W.

37.9km/hr is so wildly more than anyone else it is worth thinking about the fact that this is mainly down to his Watts, not his weight. So if there is an objective to get quicker, even on hilly rides, it is training up the power output that needs concentrating on, not getting the weight down. Too many folk worry about saving a few hundred grams here and there. The big gains are to be had in training to get the Watts up. Hill intervals anyone?


----------



## Joshua Plumtree (22 Sep 2014)

I know this might sound like a daft observation but, if you're riding faster than most people, then surely your power power output as measured in watts is going to be greater. 

I suspect that people like Ben Swift are physically superior to the rest of us and can therefore produce better figuress - that's why they're professional sportsman!


----------



## BigonaBianchi (22 Sep 2014)

he may be just lighter stronger and younger than most of us ......little git


----------



## Dogtrousers (22 Sep 2014)

This is a restatement of the saying "Don't buy upgrades - ride up grades". Which is commonly attributed to Eddy Merckx. 

However seeing that he is (was?) in the business of _selling _upgrades, I somewhat doubt that he actually said it.


----------



## zizou (22 Sep 2014)

Watts per kg is the important figure and if someone is a bit overweight but is already 'trained' then its far easier for them to lose a couple of stone than it is to add an extra 50 watts.


----------



## nickyboy (22 Sep 2014)

zizou said:


> Watts per kg is the important figure and if someone is a bit overweight but is already 'trained' then its far easier for them to lose a couple of stone than it is to add an extra 50 watts.


I wonder if that is actually true or not though?
I could lose a couple of stone I guess if I really tried hard. This would reduce my weight by 15%. Increasing my power from 175W to 206W would have the same effect. So what's easier, 2 stone off in weight, or 31W watts on in power.
Based on the pro's stats, there is a lot more "headroom" for improving Watts than reducing weight.

FYI, increasing Watts from 175 to 225 as per your example would be the same as going from 13.5 stones to 10.5 stones.

Sounds to me that whilst losing weight is of course a good thing, we have much greater performance gains to be achieved by finding ways to push up the Watts


----------



## Rob3rt (22 Sep 2014)

nickyboy said:


> I wonder if that is actually true or not though?
> I could lose a couple of stone I guess if I really tried hard. This would reduce my weight by 15%. Increasing my power from 175W to 206W would have the same effect. So what's easier, 2 stone off in weight, or 31W watts on in power.
> Based on the pro's stats, there is a lot more "headroom" for improving Watts than reducing weight.
> 
> ...



If you are reasonably well trained, it would be hugely more difficult to gain power than to drop weight. By dropping weight, you may also reduce your CdA since you will become smaller and/or won't have a fat gut getting in the way of riding in the drops properly.


----------



## nickyboy (22 Sep 2014)

Joshua Plumtree said:


> I know this might sound like a daft observation but, if you're riding faster than most people, then surely your power power output as measured in watts is going to be greater.
> 
> I suspect that people like Ben Swift are physically superior to the rest of us and can therefore produce better figuress - that's why they're professional sportsman!



Yes they are physically superior and the vast majority couldn't aspire to even get close to sustaining 350W. My point is that maybe 250W is possible if an "ordinary" cyclist works hard at it. And for the vast majority of cyclists, you can't lose enough weight to get the same performance improvement so maybe we should be spending more effort on training to get the watts up and less time worrying about the odd kg of "comfort" around the waistline


----------



## nickyboy (22 Sep 2014)

Rob3rt said:


> If you are reasonably well trained, it would be hugely more difficult to gain power than to drop weight. By dropping weight, you may also reduce your CdA since you will become smaller and/or won't have a fat gut getting in the way of riding in the drops properly.



Sorry I missed the "reasonably well trained" bit. Large majority of cyclists are not, I would suspect, "reasonably well trained" and so have plenty of Watts headroom. In your experience, what sort of Wattage improvement could be expected by going from normal social cycling to a program to improve performance?


----------



## ColinJ (22 Sep 2014)

I have been really struggling on the power side (for well-documented reasons!) but have improved my cycling a lot over the past couple of years by losing nearly 5 stone in weight. There isn't a lot of scope for much more (sensible) weight loss - maybe another 7-10 pounds - so most of any future improvements in my cycling performance will have to made by increasing my power output. There is plenty of room for improvement since I can only sustain about 225W for 30 minutes at the moment.

Actually, there is another factor which nickyboy hasn't mentioned and it is one that affects me badly on hilly rides - a lack of flexibility and core strength. My back muscles get very painful after a couple of hours on the hills, and that prevents me using what power I do have. I can ride up some hills twice as fast at the start of a long ride as I can at the end, and it is not fatigue which is the problem. I just end up with my back muscles torturing me and forcing me to slow down. I have started doing some stretches and it should become evident pretty quickly if they help. (I have placed a pile of books against my bedroom wall and adjusted its height so that I can just get the knuckles of my clenched fists down onto the top of the pile when I stretch down as far as I can. I was shocked at how bad the problem is - I can only get my knuckles down to 32 cm above the floor! When I am comfortable with stretching to that degree, I will remove one book from the pile and spend another few days stretching down to the lower book. I'll report any progress at a later date.)


----------



## Rob3rt (22 Sep 2014)

nickyboy said:


> Sorry I missed the "reasonably well trained" bit. Large majority of cyclists are not, I would suspect, "reasonably well trained" and so have plenty of Watts headroom. In your experience, what sort of Wattage improvement could be expected by going from normal social cycling to a program to improve performance?



I increased my FTP by around 18% in 2013, this year (2014) I increased it by about 9% through highly structured and specific training.

I reduced my CdA by approx 14% this year as well, so my performances were much quicker than would be predicted based on the increase in FTP alone.


----------



## GrasB (22 Sep 2014)

Light weight feels fast, aero is fast. This is why my best 1hour effort makes me like a pro but I'm no where near that level if you look at my watts & my bike - UCI banned it in... 1934


----------



## ColinJ (22 Sep 2014)

ColinJ said:


> Actually, there is another factor which nickyboy hasn't mentioned and it is one that affects me badly on hilly rides - a lack of flexibility and core strength. My back muscles get very painful after a couple of hours on the hills, and that prevents me using what power I do have. I can ride up some hills twice as fast at the start of a long ride as I can at the end, *and it is not fatigue which is the problem*.


I meant it is not due to tired legs, and my heart and lungs are also ok. It is the back muscles which get fatigued and go into spasm.


----------



## Rob3rt (22 Sep 2014)

I think the reality is, most cyclists could benefit from doing both and quite frankly, both would tend to go hand in hand i.e. training hard to increase power, would likely incur weight loss. When I say this, training hard needn't mean smashing it on the turbo 10 hours a week, it could simply mean riding your bike more.

Once you are a reasonably good cyclist, what will elevate your performance will be more and more individual. For example, I am not of optimal racing weight (even though many people on this forum would regard me as very skinny), I am pretty sure of this, yet loosing more weight would not really elicit a gain in performance in my choosen discipline to any meaningful degree, increasing my power would, but because I am reasonably well trained, more power is harder and harder to come by, for ME, the greatest gains to be made are improved aerodynamics. For someone else, the greatest gains could come from something else entirely.


----------



## Hacienda71 (22 Sep 2014)

Don't rely on Strava power estimates, they are not accurate. Weighted Average Power shown will be with a power meter of some sort.


----------



## Rob3rt (22 Sep 2014)

Hacienda71 said:


> Don't rely on Strava power estimates, they are not accurate. *Weighted Average Power* shown will be with a power meter of some sort.



Weighted average power is also not a true average power, it is not the average power produced, it is an estimate of what the athlete would have done, had they held a constant (steady state) power and is based on the Normalised Power concept afaik.


----------



## 50000tears (22 Sep 2014)

Depending on who you are listening too it takes anything from 5 to 7 years to reach the physical peak of your powers in cycling. This is not just 7 years of cycling but 7 years of sustained and continual improvement. After that you can still improve for a few years by developing better race craft etc. 

The reality is that Ben Swift and the other top pros have both the genetic physical traits that make up top performers and also the drive and structure around them to allow them to truly maximize their potential. Most of us, no matter how determined, will lack in some of the areas needed. Things like everyday work and family life will be a huge limiter, as will age for many, myself included. Having said that, whilst I have no idea what the power numbers would be, most guys given sufficient drive and commitment should be able to reach a very good level of cycling ability just by following some basic tried and tested training methods. As Robert said, it is the last few % of improvement that will always be hardest to attain.


----------



## nickyboy (22 Sep 2014)

Hacienda71 said:


> Don't rely on Strava power estimates, they are not accurate. Weighted Average Power shown will be with a power meter of some sort.


Agree. But average 350W for 6 hours is a heck of a lot of watts, even allowing for rubbish Strava algorithms. I presume it is the same algorithm that gives me 175W so I guess he is pushing out double what I do. Either that or he was actually riding a moped.
I still suspect that there is a lot of relatively easy gain in terms of Watts output with a bit of structured training. Certainly easier than giving up beer and pies.


----------



## Rob3rt (22 Sep 2014)

Of course he is putting out impressive values, he is a pro tour rider.

That said, any comparison between measured and estimated power is utterly futile. Even comparison between 2 riders using power meters is more often than not misleading, due to calibration errors, type of power meter etc.

If he was riding with a power meter (likely) his weighted average power value is derived from measured data. The data estimated by Strava in absence of power data can easily be off by over 100W IME.


----------



## Hacienda71 (22 Sep 2014)

One of the guys I ride with from here has just started using a power meter and he reckons Strava on average is about 25% to 30% out as a general rule. In terms of max efforts it is a joke. I did a ride the other day and Strava said I was putting out 850w for a minute plus. I wasn't.......


----------



## zizou (22 Sep 2014)

Of course it was ionly estimated by strava at 350 watts rather than measured then he might have been doing some motorpacing work before the world champs next week.


----------



## Joshua Plumtree (22 Sep 2014)

Robert - I know you mentioned in an earlier post that increases in performance are very much an individual thing, but, without asking you to give away any 'trade secrets', how exactly were you able to increase your FTP figures so dramatically?


----------



## GrasB (22 Sep 2014)

Hacienda71 said:


> One of the guys I ride with from here has just started using a power meter and he reckons Strava on average is about 25% to 30% out as a general rule. In terms of max efforts it is a joke. I did a ride the other day and Strava said I was putting out 850w for a minute plus. I wasn't.......


If you want a real giggle do a recumbent ride. At one point I was maintaining something like 3.9kW for a good 3-4 min. Only an order of magnitude out, I was in the high 300s.


----------



## Rob3rt (22 Sep 2014)

Joshua Plumtree said:


> Robert - I know you mentioned in an earlier post that increases in performance are very much an individual thing, but, without asking you to give away any 'trade secrets', how exactly were you able to increase your FTP figures so dramatically?



I didn't do anything beyond employ traditional and well known sessions. Last year I just made sure I did 1 x Vo2 max session, 1 x Threshold Session & 1 x Tempo Session per week. I would also race ~2 times per week, a club 10 on a Monday and an Open event on a Saturday. On the remaining day's I'd either rest or do some relatively easy aerobic session, just riding on the turbo for 90 mins or so. This year my training was more structured and my individual training sessions different to last year, since I started working with a coach, however the basic premise remained the same.

I don't skip training sessions and when I train, I train, I don't piss about and if it is a hard session, I completely bury myself to hit the numbers, if it is an easy session, I take it nice and easy and don't let myself get carried away. I think this makes all the difference!


----------



## jdtate101 (22 Sep 2014)

Hardest I ridden for a sustained period was 245W avg for 3hrs (recorded with a PM), so it's not impossible to put out good wattage as a "club" rider. However once you have reached a certain level it's much harder to improve without really targeted training and probably a coach. It is however easier to lose a few lbs which can make a MASSIVE difference to your speed especially in climbing and accelerations. The holy grail is of course to do both, lose weight and gain power.


----------



## nickyboy (23 Sep 2014)

jdtate101 said:


> Hardest I ridden for a sustained period was 245W avg for 3hrs (recorded with a PM), so it's not impossible to put out good wattage as a "club" rider. However once you have reached a certain level it's much harder to improve without really targeted training and probably a coach. It is however easier to lose a few lbs which can make a MASSIVE difference to your speed especially in climbing and accelerations. The holy grail is of course to do both, lose weight and gain power.



I wonder does a few lbs really make much difference? If you use the online calculators it suggests not. Of course if you're a hill climb competitor, then a second here or there really counts. But I still have the feeling that most cyclists (not the "well trained" ones") could gain most speed by focusing on improving Watts rather than reducing Lbs. Both is best of course, but I am talking about focus.

http://www.analyticcycling.com/ForcesSpeed_Page.html


----------



## albion (23 Sep 2014)

Hacienda71 said:


> Don't rely on Strava power estimates, they are not accurate. Weighted Average Power shown will be with a power meter of some sort.



I quite imagine it was an estimate. It would have ignored any 30% gain slipstreaming and the same for tailwind. Strave might have even ignored his weight too.

For all we know the reality could have been 200 watts average.


----------



## Rob3rt (23 Sep 2014)

albion said:


> I quite imagine it was an estimate. It would have ignored any 30% gain slipstreaming and the same for tailwind. Strave might have even ignored his weight too.
> 
> For all we know the reality could have been 200 watts average.



Strava is explicit about what is, and what is not an estimate.


----------



## Drago (23 Sep 2014)

I think Nickyboy is wise. Too many eejuts obsess about component weight when it has zero impact on their performance, mainly because most riders themselves aren't themselves the prime weight for power and performance. If performance is your bag there are more important things to obsess over.


----------



## 50000tears (23 Sep 2014)

Rob3rt said:


> I didn't do anything beyond employ traditional and well known sessions. Last year I just made sure I did 1 x Vo2 max session, 1 x Threshold Session & 1 x Tempo Session per week. I would also race ~2 times per week, a club 10 on a Monday and an Open event on a Saturday. On the remaining day's I'd either rest or do some relatively easy aerobic session, just riding on the turbo for 90 mins or so. This year my training was more structured and my individual training sessions different to last year, since I started working with a coach, however the basic premise remained the same.
> 
> I don't skip training sessions and when I train, I train, I don't **** about and if it is a hard session, I completely bury myself to hit the numbers, if it is an easy session, I take it nice and easy and don't let myself get carried away. I think this makes all the difference!



Looks like this equates to 5 hard sessions a week given that the two races you would presumably count as additional threshold sessions. If that is the case how did you prevent burnout?


----------



## Rob3rt (23 Sep 2014)

50000tears said:


> Looks like this equates to 5 hard sessions a week given that the two races you would presumably count as additional threshold sessions. *If that is the case how did you prevent burnout?*



By not being a big jessy!


----------



## 50000tears (23 Sep 2014)

Rob3rt said:


> By not being a big jessy!





I do wonder how much is due to you doing so much turbo work. I find that when I do turbo intervals they are the hard as hell to get through and burying yourself is certainly the name of the game, but they do not seem to generate the same leg fatigue as a longer but less intense road session would. The day after a turbo session I can very often go to the well again, but 2-3 hours on the road and I tend to need more recovery to feel sharp again.


----------



## Rob3rt (23 Sep 2014)

50000tears said:


> I do wonder how much is due to you doing so much turbo work. I find that when I do turbo intervals they are the hard as hell to get through and burying yourself is certainly the name of the game, but they do not seem to generate the same leg fatigue as a longer but less intense road session would. The day after a turbo session I can very often go to the well again, but 2-3 hours on the road and I tend to need more recovery to feel sharp again.



I would say your experience is not typical. If one was to generate 100 TSS by training hard on the turbo(or road) in 90 minutes, you would expect the resulting fatigue to be greater than if you were to take 3 hours to generate the same TSS, i.e. lower intensity factor.


----------



## ColinJ (23 Sep 2014)

50000tears said:


> I do wonder how much is due to you doing so much turbo work. I find that when I do turbo intervals they are the hard as hell to get through and burying yourself is certainly the name of the game, but they do not seem to generate the same leg fatigue as a longer but less intense road session would. The day after a turbo session I can very often go to the well again, but 2-3 hours on the road and I tend to need more recovery to feel sharp again.


You are not trying hard enough on the turbo then! When I did my 'winter of pain' on the turbo, I couldn't walk upstairs after a session. I would sometimes lose 2-3 kgs in 90 minutes, implying that I was sweating out about a litre every 30 minutes.


----------



## jdtate101 (23 Sep 2014)

nickyboy said:


> I wonder does a few lbs really make much difference? If you use the online calculators it suggests not. Of course if you're a hill climb competitor, then a second here or there really counts. But I still have the feeling that most cyclists (not the "well trained" ones") could gain most speed by focusing on improving Watts rather than reducing Lbs. Both is best of course, but I am talking about focus.
> 
> http://www.analyticcycling.com/ForcesSpeed_Page.html


I some respects, yes. Probably more cyclists could make gains from increased cardio base rather than just pure power. Round where I live there is hardly any flat and weight is a large part of keeping pace in a group, the larger lads find it tough going on rolling courses as they have to expend much more energy whenever the road goes up.
Skinny or muscly, I know which I'd rather be on the bike... (which is why I'm currently on a plan to reduce my weight to 75kg). I've yoyo'd between 86kg and 80kg and whilst my avg pwr has remained roughly constant, I can notice the difference the weight makes in avg speed.


----------



## 50000tears (23 Sep 2014)

Rob3rt said:


> I would say your experience is not typical. If one was to generate 100 TSS by training hard on the turbo(or road) in 90 minutes, you would expect the resulting fatigue to be greater than if you were to take 3 hours to generate the same TSS, i.e. lower intensity factor.



I should have qualified to point out that I was not comparing a 1 hour turbo session to a 3 hour easy ride but to a tempo+ type of ride over a lumpy course. Which the only type around my way. 

Even so your point is taken, as is Colin's, as I have never done an interval session so hard that I couldn't even climb a few steps! Despite that I cannot see how I could make my intervals much tougher as they are already brutal enough.


----------



## Rob3rt (23 Sep 2014)

You are not equating like for like, which is where you are going wrong I think.


----------



## 50000tears (23 Sep 2014)

Rob3rt said:


> You are not equating like for like, which is where you are going wrong I think.



No arguments from me on that one. I know a little about TSS scores but not nearly enough to be able to work them out.


----------



## poynedexter (24 Sep 2014)

last year i dropped my weight down to about 9st 8lbs in dec from 10st 4lbs in aug. i trained away and come race time i sucked. i realised that i had lost some power and paid the price in top speed. so i changed my diet, gained all the weight back and kept training. my results improved and i enjoyed my racing!
this year the focus is on training and quality nutrition, not losing a few pounds. with the style of courses we ride here in n.i, its about power first, then endurance.

i think if you need to shift a LOT of weight in fat, then do it, but if you are fairly slim, focus on hard training, not calories. those last few lbs arent the problem, imho. however, i can feel the fat slipping away as my jeans are getting loose, but the scales dont show much, and that, i'm pleased with.


----------



## ColinJ (24 Sep 2014)

I take your original point @nickyboy, but having met you back in May, I would say that you are still built more like a chunky rugby player than your typical cyclist. That's not a bad thing unless you want to go uphill faster on your bike, but you _do_, so I reckon you should consider losing a stone or two. In your case, quite a lot of that would be upper body muscle rather than fat, but those muscles aren't going to be doing much for your cycling.


----------



## nickyboy (24 Sep 2014)

ColinJ said:


> I take your original point @nickyboy, but having met you back in May, I would say that you are still built more like a chunky rugby player than your typical cyclist. That's not a bad thing unless you want to go uphill faster on your bike, but you _do_, so I reckon you should consider losing a stone or two. In your case, quite a lot of that would be upper body muscle rather than fat, but those muscles aren't going to be doing much for your cycling.



I've been that chunky rugby player build since I was about 15 and weigh about the same as I did twenty odd years ago. I wouldn't know how to get rid of some of the muscle mass, although I would love to do so to help my climbing. I don't do any exercise to maintain the upper body muscles at all. I've done thousands of miles on the bike over the past 2-3 years but I stay exactly the same shape. Bit frustrating really.


----------



## ColinJ (24 Sep 2014)

nickyboy said:


> I've been that chunky rugby player build since I was about 15 and weigh about the same as I did twenty odd years ago. I wouldn't know how to get rid of some of the muscle mass, although I would love to do so to help my climbing. I don't do any exercise to maintain the upper body muscles at all. I've done thousands of miles on the bike over the past 2-3 years but I stay exactly the same shape. Bit frustrating really.


Wow - I assumed that you lived in the gym!

I have been telling people for years that I am not naturally a big build but they didn't believe me but now that I have lost a lot of weight they can see that I am actually more of a medium build. I am scrawny at 11 st 7 lbs and start to look fat above 13 st 7 lbs. The last time I was 11 st 7 lbs, I could climb a lot better on the bike, but I felt a bit weedy. Just under 12 st will do me, and any climbing improvements after that will have to come from increased power.

I would have to do an awful lot of work to develop big muscles. I noticed today that my legs are getting slimmer as they get stronger - they have lost more fat bulk then they gained in muscle bulk.


----------



## cyberknight (25 Sep 2014)

BigonaBianchi said:


> he may be just lighter stronger and younger than most of us ......little git


Bet he aint lumping steel about all night then trying to ride home on pitch black roads dodging badgers either .


----------

