Seconds Per Pound
I am somewhat of a data weenie. Now, probably not as bad as Boyd Johnson, but I do like pouring over my power files and ride data. This interest got me thinking of my ride up Paris Mountain the other day.
There are two ways to go faster up the mountain. 1) increase power and 2) decrease weight. Of course, the more weight you have to pull up the mountain, the more power you will need to do it. The less amount of weight, the less power you need to reach a goal.
Taking the power out of the picture and just looking at time and weight, I came up with my Seconds Per Pound ratio for my personal best time. Basically, at 170 pounds, it took me 4.09 seconds per pound to make it to the top in 11 minutes and 35 seconds.
So, right off the bat, that tells me that by losing 5 pounds, I should be able to turn out the same average power (346 watts in this case) and reach the top in 11 minutes and 15 seconds. Of course, the SPP goes out the window unless I maintain that same power.
What I need to do is build a formula that incorporates 1) weight, 2) power, and 3) time. I can then change the variables to see what would happen if say I lost five pounds and increased my average wattage by 10 watts. Then it is just a matter of finding out how to put that data into practice.
I’m just a tad under 6’2″. I weigh in on average around 170. Sometimes I dip down to 168 and when I’m really fat, I might reach 175. Mostly, I’m between 168 and 172.
It wasn’t always that way. In junior high I was 5’11″ and weighed 145. I was a stick! Even in college I was 6’1″ and 155.
I remember one summer working at a camp located on a ridge above Lake Jocassee. I was a cook. One of my fellow cooks was quite the exercise nut. We would do over 150 push ups each night and a number of pull ups. I would then run each day to a water fall near by. Then on the weekends, I would run down to Lake Jocassee and back.
It took me nearly the whole summer to be able to run all the way down and all the way back up. However, I did it. Did I mention I was a cook? Well, by the end of that summer I was a pretty hard 165 pounds. I thought I was a big dude!
What that tells me is that I probably have some weight to give. Before I started riding again in 2006, I had reached 180 pounds. Much of the 170 I now carry is the muscle I have built up in my legs (= where my power comes from). There is one spot I think I definitely have some to give. It’s that hardest spot to lose – my, as Steve Sperry would say, “budda belly.”
So, could a 2010 goal be a five pound weight loss along with some increase in power for the end result of a sub-eleven minute personal best up Paris Mountain? I’ll find out what my new coach has to say about it. Sure is a tempting target!
8 days left to help me raise $5000.
|
Tags: Goals, Paris Mountain, Power, Training, Weight
You can do it Jonathan. You don’t drink beer, so half the battle is already won.
My best guess is that for you on that climb every pound is about 1.8 watts and every watt is about 1.7 seconds for you, so to get under 11:00 minutes you need to add about 20 watts or lose about 11 pounds or some combination of both. In your example, 5 pounds = 9 watts plus your anticipated increase of 10 watts for a total of 19 watts would get you awfully close to 11:00, maybe you’ll get stuck at 11:04
Although your data seems to help you make the decision we all need to make: lose a few pounds… you might look into some research done for wrestlers. In high school a number of guys would drop 10-15 lbs to wrestle in lower weight classes, because even at a slightly weakened state, they were much stronger than thier full stomach counterparts.
However, the advantage fell out quickly when they would get in the 15-20 lbs of weight loss. Now they were lighter, but much much weaker. In most cases this type of weight loss is also very dangerous for health, particularly in adolescents who still have some growing to do.
Most States mandated a body fat percentage to weight loss scale that shows you where sucking to much weight. Testing is done by taking a urinalasis to ensure that you are sufficiently hydrated, then testing body fat with a height to weight ratio, and some additional tests. Also, the tests can be done in a water tank, to get the most accurate body fat percentage.
http://www.buffalo.edu/reporter/vol29/vol29n16/n8.html
If you were to get below a 7% body fat in most cases, this is the cutoff. There are some variations included for females, and some for extra tall or extra short individuals.
Now how to translate this to cycling? Make sure your weight loss is not just water weight… we all know you need water to bike. Giving it away would be really foolish. Then, figure out your body fat percentage, and decide how much you have to give. I know I am not near ly at the 7% body fat mark, but you are fairly tall, and you might be…
I’m interested in what data you crunch to work all this out, because in the end if you are comparing two better than average amateur cyclists, doesn’t it come down to how much oxygen your lungs can get into the blood stream, in relation to the lactic acid build up? I could drag my budda belly up the hill in a sprint if it weren’t for my legs threatening to cramp, and my chest threatening to explode.
Any way you slice it, a 10:30 goal is an intimidating target!
Milo,
Good thoughts. Obviously, there is a point where you lose power if you lose too much weight. However, there is no doubt in my mind that I can lose a few pounds AND increase my wattage. It will just come down to proper training.
My plan is to sit down with my coach and discuss what we think it is reasonable to attempt with weight loss and what is a reasonable goal for power increase. We’ll then set my Paris Mountain goal based on that obtainable performance based goal.
No way will it be 10:30! I’m guessing 11:00 to 11:15. Of course, I’ll be sharing it all here.