What's the running equivalent of Tadej Pogacar riding ~7 W/kg for 40 min?

clickbaittastic wrote:

even easier to answer wrote:

You clearly don't understand what the numbers mean.

Its watts per kilo. Pogacar is 5'9" and weighs about 65kgs. His FTP is likely well over 400. That's the theoretical watts you can push for an hour. His peak watts are likely over 1200. The sprinters are heavier and way stronger.

A recreational cyclist may have an FTP 280 - 320. If they are hardcore. A competitive cyclist will be over 350.

7 wkg is probably less than his FTP. What makes these guys super is their ability to do this day after day. They sleep in the peloton, then blast when it matters.

As a 65 year old my FTP was 300. My wpkg was 3.

Its math

Your math sucks. You can't even do basic arithmetic. Where the heck are you people getting 7 watts per kilo from?

Get with the times wrote:

Here’s the guys actual calculations. Jorgensen was at 7 W/kg for almost 15 min. Makes Lance look like a scrub.

Link:x.com/naichacacycling/status/181293060...

clickbaittastic wrote:

kjkjkjlklk wrote:

The watts is dead on. It's not an estimation. They're using either cranks or pedals that measure their watts.

So 7 watts/kg is the real deal. It's a mind blowing number.

It's not 7 watts per kilo. That would be 462 watts. Froome's FTP was 415 watts at 3 kilos heavier than Pogacar. Use a bit of common sense. He later claimed to have climbed at 470 watts for 30 minutes.

These super high numbers are just badly calibrated computers.

bobnfloyd wrote:

Get with the times wrote:

Here’s the guys actual calculations. Jorgensen was at 7 W/kg for almost 15 min. Makes Lance look like a scrub.

Link:x.com/naichacacycling/status/181293060...

We know he is wrong because he uses the same weight for everyone:

Link:x.com/NaichacaCycling/status/181294346...

Get with the times wrote:

clickbaittastic wrote:

Your math sucks. You can't even do basic arithmetic. Where the heck are you people getting 7 watts per kilo from?

It’s what the modeling guys have come up with - accuracy basically confirmed by teams. Cycling is pretty easy to model and work backwards from speed.

Link:x.com/cyclinggraphs/status/18129398371...

Get with the times wrote:

Cycling is the best sport in terms of power data vs speed vs roads vs conditions. These models are testable.
If your premise is the models AND everyone’s power meters are miscalibrated … now you’re just getting conspiratorial.
The best guys are operating on an entirely new level. Fueling and training breakthrough. Get used to it.

clickbaittastic wrote:

Get with the times wrote:

Cycling is the best sport in terms of power data vs speed vs roads vs conditions. These models are testable.
If your premise is the models AND everyone’s power meters are miscalibrated … now you’re just getting conspiratorial.
The best guys are operating on an entirely new level. Fueling and training breakthrough. Get used to it.

Have you ever done any bike racing?

Get with the times wrote:

clickbaittastic wrote:

It's not 7 watts per kilo. That would be 462 watts. Froome's FTP was 415 watts at 3 kilos heavier than Pogacar. Use a bit of common sense. He later claimed to have climbed at 470 watts for 30 minutes.

These super high numbers are just badly calibrated computers.

They are riding for 30 minutes far faster than Froome ever did. Seems like you just proved that it’s ~7 W/kg.
Both the power meters and the models agree.

running is archaic wrote:

Anyone who follows cycling closely understands that the all the small improvements in training and technology (tires/pressure ALONE, for example) has led to massive speed increases overall.

But the training science is where things have changed the most.

If you follow both sports it's obvious that running is laughably behind when it comes to modern training theory. (This "oh, look at the pros checking lactate levels" stuff is hilarious. Cyclists have been doing that since the 90s. ) The ONE TIME a running group/brand put the kind of effort into the sport as cycling teams do every day was the Breaking 2 project. Go back and read about that.

The time/energy/money that went into the science of that is about the equivalent of a bottom-tier TDF team.

Runners have no idea how much more advanced cycling is at the top levels.

Get with the times wrote:

clickbaittastic wrote:

Have you ever done any bike racing?

I can do 5 W/kg as a scrub ex-runner.

7 W/kg is otherworldly but the times they are riding check out. What’s your explanation for 3 min faster than Pantani? Good wind?

clickbaittastic wrote:

Get with the times wrote:

I can do 5 W/kg as a scrub ex-runner.

7 W/kg is otherworldly but the times they are riding check out. What’s your explanation for 3 min faster than Pantani? Good wind?

What's your explanation for Armstrong climbing slpe d'huez more than 3 minutes slower in 2003 than he did in 2001?

Do some critical thinking please.