Am I at elite level? Break down my data/ power data
05-24-20, 07:09 AM
#26
Full Member
Nice ride, no matter how you look at it. How old are you? For reference, I'm 56, 6"4", 165lbs, and rode 67 yesterday solo, with 3800 feet at 188 avg and 216 np, and wasn't particularly pushing it. I'm a good recreational rider, nowhere near elite. You'd do much better to focus on weight loss rather than increasing power. Pic from yesterday's ride, just because.
Likes For jwalther:
05-24-20, 08:24 AM
#27
Advocatus Diaboli
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Wherever I am
Posts: 8,850
Bikes: Merlin Cyrene, Nashbar steel CX
Liked 1,611 Times
in
1,059 Posts
FWIW, the ride route metrics aren't much different than the GFNY route that you somewhat replicated.. results during the 2018 ride below
https://results.chronotrack.com/even...nt/event-40017
Route:
https://ridewithgps.com/trips/23351968
https://results.chronotrack.com/even...nt/event-40017
Route:
https://ridewithgps.com/trips/23351968
05-24-20, 12:10 PM
#28
Senior Member
170 watts at 200lbs even on a relatively long ride is probably not elite level.
Your NP is way higher than your average and you seem to be able to output serious watts over short times - maybe you are close to elite at crits, but for long endurance rides, I would say no way.
Your NP is way higher than your average and you seem to be able to output serious watts over short times - maybe you are close to elite at crits, but for long endurance rides, I would say no way.
Likes For Clipped_in:
05-24-20, 05:55 PM
#30
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Music City, USA
Posts: 4,444
Bikes: bikes
Liked 1,429 Times
in
711 Posts
Sup everyone. I completed a century ride the other day. I've been going over my data and I wanted some data junkies to breakdown my numbers and tell me what they think. Tear it apart if you will, I'm looking for honest feedback if I should be pacing better, taking it easier on my climbs etc. A little bit about the route... It was mainly climbing and rolling hills. Looking forward to building a conversation around this. Let me know if you need more info.
No, no, you're not.
Likes For rubiksoval:
05-24-20, 06:02 PM
#31
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Music City, USA
Posts: 4,444
Bikes: bikes
Liked 1,429 Times
in
711 Posts
No hard feelings, it's all good. Was just looking for some insight and being transparent with my data. I watched a 1 hour video on how to become an elite cyclist and wanted to have a few people help crunch some numbers from a ride. I know 1 ride won't cut it but I figured I put my numbers out there. I also haven't been riding as much due to the pandemic here, I also don't ride indoors because I don't own a Zwift. I've been putting in 100 to 130-mile weeks. I'm looking to increase that to 200 soon.
The only thing that matters in regards to "elite cycling" is your racing ability.
But never fret, sign up for a race and give it a go. A few years down the road you'll have a better idea.
05-24-20, 07:04 PM
#32
Non omnino gravis
As a committed non-racer, I love that W/kg chart. For the five second and one minute, I'm off the bottom of the chart. Nowhere close. Then I'm in the middle of Cat5 for 5-minute, and smack in the middle of Cat4 for FTP. I think all four are accurate, if not generous.
Luckily I'm only racing against one guy. Sometimes I beat him.
Luckily I'm only racing against one guy. Sometimes I beat him.
__________________
Likes For DrIsotope:
05-24-20, 07:49 PM
#33
just another gosling
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Everett, WA
Posts: 19,758
Bikes: CoMo Speedster 2003, Trek 5200, CAAD 9, Fred 2004
Liked 2,097 Times
in
1,484 Posts
I'm only a recreational rider, one who gets dropped on every hill by the fast people. My best effort was to do approximately 1.5 X your ride, miles and gain, at 58 y.o., averaging 16. I came in toward the bottom of the first 100 riders out of 800. I've only barely broken 12 hours elapsed for a double century. Elite times are in the 8+ hour range for this ride. I don't suck, but I'm not fast either. I used to ride with a fast, though not elite guy, who was 6' and weighed 145. He'd been a good runner in his youth, 4:17 miler. I'm fat for a cyclist, BMI 23.5. Just more data.
Best training in your situation was competitive group rides, but that's out for a long time. There are many ways to train solo. You don't need a fancy trainer. For now, your best bet might be a set of resistance rollers, some sort of plan, and of course the hard part, weight loss. It's pretty hard not to get faster if one makes an effort. Correct effort, that is effort which does not result in injury, is rewarded. I've found it really helps to have an indoor training device and two 24" box fans with which to do intervals. Saves time.
Best training in your situation was competitive group rides, but that's out for a long time. There are many ways to train solo. You don't need a fancy trainer. For now, your best bet might be a set of resistance rollers, some sort of plan, and of course the hard part, weight loss. It's pretty hard not to get faster if one makes an effort. Correct effort, that is effort which does not result in injury, is rewarded. I've found it really helps to have an indoor training device and two 24" box fans with which to do intervals. Saves time.
__________________
Results matter
Results matter
05-25-20, 05:38 AM
#36
Senior Member
As a committed non-racer, I love that W/kg chart. For the five second and one minute, I'm off the bottom of the chart. Nowhere close. Then I'm in the middle of Cat5 for 5-minute, and smack in the middle of Cat4 for FTP. I think all four are accurate, if not generous.
Luckily I'm only racing against one guy. Sometimes I beat him.
Luckily I'm only racing against one guy. Sometimes I beat him.
05-25-20, 09:29 AM
#38
Non omnino gravis
Something's not input right. We know the OP hasn't put in an FTP number, because a training load of 184 for a 90 minute ride? 112% intensity? Yikes. I mean, 100% intensity is an FTP effort. It can't last longer than an hour.
I have an issue with how close the kJ is to the kCal. I say this because Wahoo uses HR-only for calories. That calorie number should be through the roof on a ride of that intensity-- over 1000kcal/hr-- according to Wahoo, anyway. My weekly 50k loop is easily 1,500 "HR based calories" from the Wahoo algorithm, when going at like 60% intensity, doing 1100-1200kJ of total work.
I'm an amateur Strava sleuth at best, but none of those numbers look right to me. It's all over the place. Link to the activity?
I have an issue with how close the kJ is to the kCal. I say this because Wahoo uses HR-only for calories. That calorie number should be through the roof on a ride of that intensity-- over 1000kcal/hr-- according to Wahoo, anyway. My weekly 50k loop is easily 1,500 "HR based calories" from the Wahoo algorithm, when going at like 60% intensity, doing 1100-1200kJ of total work.
I'm an amateur Strava sleuth at best, but none of those numbers look right to me. It's all over the place. Link to the activity?
__________________
05-25-20, 09:45 AM
#39
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: TC, MN
Posts: 39,521
Bikes: R3 Disc, Haanjo
Liked 9,462 Times
in
4,673 Posts
I have an issue with how close the kJ is to the kCal. I say this because Wahoo uses HR-only for calories. That calorie number should be through the roof on a ride of that intensity-- over 1000kcal/hr-- according to Wahoo, anyway. My weekly 50k loop is easily 1,500 "HR based calories" from the Wahoo algorithm, when going at like 60% intensity, doing 1100-1200kJ of total work.
05-25-20, 10:13 AM
#40
serious cyclist
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Austin
Posts: 21,147
Bikes: S1, R2, P2
Liked 3,685 Times
in
2,028 Posts
"Training load" is not (necessarily) the same as TSS; I don't know if it's at all equivalent to Garmin's "exercise load" but I can easily ("easily" being loosely interpreted) knock out an exercise load of 272 in 75 minutes. That same session got a TSS of 103. Just because it's a number assigned to a workout doesn't mean it's relabeled TSS. Most such numbers are engineered to output a higher scale than TSS to salve our egos.
05-25-20, 10:16 AM
#41
serious cyclist
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Austin
Posts: 21,147
Bikes: S1, R2, P2
Liked 3,685 Times
in
2,028 Posts
Though based on a quick calculation, their "training load" is the same as TSS, just unlicensed. Yeah, OP, if you're really curious, please run a real FTP test and get back to us with the result. That'll at least give us something to go on. An intensity of 112% for 88 minutes is a flat-out impossibility, by the definition of the term.
05-25-20, 10:27 AM
#42
Senior Member
For the record, people don't just become elite at pretty much anything. Think about what the word means.
Likes For Seattle Forrest:
05-25-20, 10:33 AM
#43
05-25-20, 10:38 AM
#44
Junior Member
Join Date: Jun 2019
Location: Round Rock, Texas
Posts: 189
Bikes: Giant Contend SL 1 Disc
Liked 78 Times
in
52 Posts
As a committed non-racer, I love that W/kg chart. For the five second and one minute, I'm off the bottom of the chart. Nowhere close. Then I'm in the middle of Cat5 for 5-minute, and smack in the middle of Cat4 for FTP. I think all four are accurate, if not generous.
Luckily I'm only racing against one guy. Sometimes I beat him.
Luckily I'm only racing against one guy. Sometimes I beat him.
Hello Dr.,
Can you explain this chart to me?
JAG
05-25-20, 10:47 AM
#45
Junior Member
Thread Starter
Something's not input right. We know the OP hasn't put in an FTP number, because a training load of 184 for a 90 minute ride? 112% intensity? Yikes. I mean, 100% intensity is an FTP effort. It can't last longer than an hour.
I have an issue with how close the kJ is to the kCal. I say this because Wahoo uses HR-only for calories. That calorie number should be through the roof on a ride of that intensity-- over 1000kcal/hr-- according to Wahoo, anyway. My weekly 50k loop is easily 1,500 "HR based calories" from the Wahoo algorithm, when going at like 60% intensity, doing 1100-1200kJ of total work.
I'm an amateur Strava sleuth at best, but none of those numbers look right to me. It's all over the place. Link to the activity?
I have an issue with how close the kJ is to the kCal. I say this because Wahoo uses HR-only for calories. That calorie number should be through the roof on a ride of that intensity-- over 1000kcal/hr-- according to Wahoo, anyway. My weekly 50k loop is easily 1,500 "HR based calories" from the Wahoo algorithm, when going at like 60% intensity, doing 1100-1200kJ of total work.
I'm an amateur Strava sleuth at best, but none of those numbers look right to me. It's all over the place. Link to the activity?
Likes For illjustride:
05-25-20, 10:52 AM
#47
Junior Member
Thread Starter
Though based on a quick calculation, their "training load" is the same as TSS, just unlicensed. Yeah, OP, if you're really curious, please run a real FTP test and get back to us with the result. That'll at least give us something to go on. An intensity of 112% for 88 minutes is a flat-out impossibility, by the definition of the term.
05-25-20, 11:08 AM
#49
pan y agua
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Jacksonville
Posts: 31,475
Bikes: Willier Zero 7; Merlin Extralight; Calfee Dragonfly tandem, Calfee Adventure tandem; Cervelo P2; Motebecane Ti Fly 29er; Motebecanne Phantom Cross; Schwinn Paramount Track bike
Liked 893 Times
in
458 Posts
Those precise numbers fit me almost to a T, and I would be about 4 full tiers below elite.
__________________
You could fall off a cliff and die.
You could get lost and die.
You could hit a tree and die.
OR YOU COULD STAY HOME AND FALL OFF THE COUCH AND DIE.
You could fall off a cliff and die.
You could get lost and die.
You could hit a tree and die.
OR YOU COULD STAY HOME AND FALL OFF THE COUCH AND DIE.
05-25-20, 11:09 AM
#50
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Sacramento, California, USA
Posts: 40,863
Bikes: Specialized Tarmac, Canyon Exceed, Specialized Transition, Ellsworth Roots, Ridley Excalibur
Liked 3,111 Times
in
1,418 Posts
The inflated tss has been addressed, but another thing that caught my eye is the NP v AP. Usually in a ride that long you’d expect to see those numbers closer together, unless it was a punchy race with lots of attacking or rolling hills. Or both (see Turlock Lake RR).
Likes For caloso:
