Peak Watts, cycling vs. stair climbing

Awl --

I fool around calc'g max cal burns of various activities, and was always
intrigued by the incredible peak Watts of cycling. I just googled highes
cycling wattage, and saw refs to 1,100 W, 1300 W, altho I seem to recall
reading about wattages of 2,500, 2,750.

It turns out that measuring wattage in a stair climb is super-easy, a simple
height, time measurement and calculation.
With decidedly un-athletic gifts, I readily achieved 1,000+ W in a stair
climb, yet am barely able to peak at 300 W in a generator/light bulb
stationary bike I built.
The problem there is that I can't vouch for the generator efficiency, so the
peak 300 W would actually be a minimum. But even at 50% losses (and
unlikely at that), my peak would be 600 W, still a far cry from the 1,074 I
measured climbing stairs, or even the near-steady state 875 W averaged over
four floors worth of stair sprinting.

I'm guessing that an elite sprinter or stair climber could easily double or
triple my wattages, given that my current running ability is 2 miles at 12
min miles.... and actually, not even THAT any more!!!

So a couple of Qs arise from all this, bearing in my mind that I have no
vested interest or bia in how this comparison plays out.

1. In comparing the average elite stair climber with the avg elite cyclist,
who could generate the more peak watts?
Based on my own performance, I'd say stair climbing, but a cyclist with
rat-traps is able to use both legs simultaneously, whereas the power stroke
for running/stairs is one leg. I too use rat-traps on my stationary cycle,
but the whole setup is a bit rickety, so that is probably a factor as well.

2. Are cycle watt meters truly accurate? It seems to me that a
generator/light bulb system (with a calibrated generator) would be a more
"fundamental" measurement for power, as is measuring height vs. time for
power.

Appreciate all input.
--
EA

On Sep 5, 2:49*pm, "Existential Angst" wrote:
Awl --

I fool around calc'g max cal burns of various activities, and was always
intrigued by the incredible peak Watts of cycling. *I just googled * highes
cycling wattage, and saw refs to 1,100 W, 1300 W, altho I seem to recall
reading about wattages of 2,500, 2,750.

It turns out that measuring wattage in a stair climb is super-easy, a simple
height, time measurement and calculation.
With decidedly un-athletic gifts, I readily achieved 1,000+ W in a stair
climb, yet am barely able to peak at 300 W in a generator/light bulb
stationary bike I built.
The problem there is that I can't vouch for the generator efficiency, so the
peak 300 W would actually be a minimum. *But even at 50% losses (and
unlikely at that), my peak would be 600 W, still a far cry from the 1,074 I
measured climbing stairs, or even the near-steady state 875 W averaged over
four floors worth of stair sprinting.

I'm guessing that an elite sprinter or stair climber could easily double or
triple my wattages, given that my current running ability is 2 miles at 12
min miles.... and actually, not even THAT any more!!!

So a couple of Qs arise from all this, bearing in my mind that I have no
vested interest or bia in how this comparison plays out.

1. *In comparing the average elite stair climber with the avg elite cyclist,
who could generate the more peak watts?
* Based on my own performance, I'd say stair climbing, but a cyclist with
rat-traps is able to use both legs simultaneously, whereas the power stroke
for running/stairs is one leg. *I too use rat-traps on my stationary cycle,
but the whole setup is a bit rickety, so that is probably a factor as well.

2. *Are cycle watt meters truly accurate? *It seems to me that a
generator/light bulb system (with a calibrated generator) would be a more
"fundamental" measurement for power, as is measuring height vs. time for
power.

Appreciate all input.
--
EA

The following is general in scope.
I would guess that your measurements from your stationary bike are
inaccurate.
1000 watts in a brief burst is within the realm of feasibility for a
typical cyclist. Operative word - "brief"
Commercial power meters for bikes are pretty accurate. For the most
part they use strain gauges to measure force coupled with speed
measurement.

Between cyclists and stair racers I don't know who could generate more
peak watts, but I suspect it's fairly close.

Rate of vertical ascent has been recognized as a performance indicator
for cyclists.
I also suspect that relative efficiencies come into play.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mean_ascent_velocity.
But that's sustained output, not peak. (also see Ferrari's articles at
http://www.53x12.com/do/show?page=articles)

Although it's a bit of an apples and oranges comparison, look at:
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-0...-new-york.html

Note that a 1050 foot climb in 9-1/2 minutes is an ascent rate of
~2020 m/hr.

DR

"DirtRoadie" wrote in message
...
On Sep 5, 2:49 pm, "Existential Angst" wrote:
Awl --

I fool around calc'g max cal burns of various activities, and was always
intrigued by the incredible peak Watts of cycling. I just googled highes
cycling wattage, and saw refs to 1,100 W, 1300 W, altho I seem to recall
reading about wattages of 2,500, 2,750.

It turns out that measuring wattage in a stair climb is super-easy, a
simple
height, time measurement and calculation.
With decidedly un-athletic gifts, I readily achieved 1,000+ W in a stair
climb, yet am barely able to peak at 300 W in a generator/light bulb
stationary bike I built.
The problem there is that I can't vouch for the generator efficiency, so
the
peak 300 W would actually be a minimum. But even at 50% losses (and
unlikely at that), my peak would be 600 W, still a far cry from the 1,074
I
measured climbing stairs, or even the near-steady state 875 W averaged
over
four floors worth of stair sprinting.

I'm guessing that an elite sprinter or stair climber could easily double
or
triple my wattages, given that my current running ability is 2 miles at 12
min miles.... and actually, not even THAT any more!!!

So a couple of Qs arise from all this, bearing in my mind that I have no
vested interest or bia in how this comparison plays out.

1. In comparing the average elite stair climber with the avg elite
cyclist,
who could generate the more peak watts?
Based on my own performance, I'd say stair climbing, but a cyclist with
rat-traps is able to use both legs simultaneously, whereas the power
stroke
for running/stairs is one leg. I too use rat-traps on my stationary cycle,
but the whole setup is a bit rickety, so that is probably a factor as
well.

2. Are cycle watt meters truly accurate? It seems to me that a
generator/light bulb system (with a calibrated generator) would be a more
"fundamental" measurement for power, as is measuring height vs. time for
power.

Appreciate all input.
--
EA

The following is general in scope.
I would guess that your measurements from your stationary bike are
inaccurate.
1000 watts in a brief burst is within the realm of feasibility for a
typical cyclist. Operative word - "brief"
Commercial power meters for bikes are pretty accurate. For the most
part they use strain gauges to measure force coupled with speed
measurement.

Between cyclists and stair racers I don't know who could generate more
peak watts, but I suspect it's fairly close.

Rate of vertical ascent has been recognized as a performance indicator
for cyclists.
I also suspect that relative efficiencies come into play.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mean_ascent_velocity.
But that's sustained output, not peak. (also see Ferrari's articles at
http://www.53x12.com/do/show?page=articles)

Although it's a bit of an apples and oranges comparison, look at:
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-0...-new-york.html

Note that a 1050 foot climb in 9-1/2 minutes is an ascent rate of
~2020 m/hr.
=================================================

The bloomberg article cited 10 min 28 sec.
Assuming a bw of 154 #, his mechanical power calcs out to 350 W, whch is
pretty substantial on a sustained baiss. mega-substantial??

His calorie burn is somewhere between 25-31 cal/min, with a total burn of
between 275 and 325 cals.
In mph, his speed is only 1.14 mph vertically, but about 1.14/.707 = 1.47
mph linearly.
I managed 2.14 mph up 4 flights (53.5 ft)...

From your comment on performance indicator, I take it competitive cyclists
will cross-train on stairs, as part of their regimen? Makes sense to me.

Indeed, a power meter that measures force, velocity should be accurate, as
the technology of these measurements is pretty high and well-established.
And a lot less cumbersome than a 1,000++ W generator!
--
EA











DR

"Existential Angst" wrote in message
...
"DirtRoadie" wrote in message
...
On Sep 5, 2:49 pm, "Existential Angst" wrote:
Awl --

I fool around calc'g max cal burns of various activities, and was always
intrigued by the incredible peak Watts of cycling. I just googled highes
cycling wattage, and saw refs to 1,100 W, 1300 W, altho I seem to recall
reading about wattages of 2,500, 2,750.

It turns out that measuring wattage in a stair climb is super-easy, a
simple
height, time measurement and calculation.
With decidedly un-athletic gifts, I readily achieved 1,000+ W in a stair
climb, yet am barely able to peak at 300 W in a generator/light bulb
stationary bike I built.
The problem there is that I can't vouch for the generator efficiency, so
the
peak 300 W would actually be a minimum. But even at 50% losses (and
unlikely at that), my peak would be 600 W, still a far cry from the 1,074
I
measured climbing stairs, or even the near-steady state 875 W averaged
over
four floors worth of stair sprinting.

I'm guessing that an elite sprinter or stair climber could easily double
or
triple my wattages, given that my current running ability is 2 miles at
12
min miles.... and actually, not even THAT any more!!!

So a couple of Qs arise from all this, bearing in my mind that I have no
vested interest or bia in how this comparison plays out.

1. In comparing the average elite stair climber with the avg elite
cyclist,
who could generate the more peak watts?
Based on my own performance, I'd say stair climbing, but a cyclist with
rat-traps is able to use both legs simultaneously, whereas the power
stroke
for running/stairs is one leg. I too use rat-traps on my stationary
cycle,
but the whole setup is a bit rickety, so that is probably a factor as
well.

2. Are cycle watt meters truly accurate? It seems to me that a
generator/light bulb system (with a calibrated generator) would be a more
"fundamental" measurement for power, as is measuring height vs. time for
power.

Appreciate all input.
--
EA

The following is general in scope.
I would guess that your measurements from your stationary bike are
inaccurate.
1000 watts in a brief burst is within the realm of feasibility for a
typical cyclist. Operative word - "brief"
Commercial power meters for bikes are pretty accurate. For the most
part they use strain gauges to measure force coupled with speed
measurement.

Between cyclists and stair racers I don't know who could generate more
peak watts, but I suspect it's fairly close.

Rate of vertical ascent has been recognized as a performance indicator
for cyclists.
I also suspect that relative efficiencies come into play.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mean_ascent_velocity.
But that's sustained output, not peak. (also see Ferrari's articles at
http://www.53x12.com/do/show?page=articles)

Although it's a bit of an apples and oranges comparison, look at:
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-0...-new-york.html

Note that a 1050 foot climb in 9-1/2 minutes is an ascent rate of
~2020 m/hr.
=================================================

The bloomberg article cited 10 min 28 sec.
Assuming a bw of 154 #, his mechanical power calcs out to 350 W, whch is
pretty substantial on a sustained baiss. mega-substantial??

His calorie burn is somewhere between 25-31 cal/min, with a total burn of
between 275 and 325 cals.
In mph, his speed is only 1.14 mph vertically, but about 1.14/.707 = 1.47
mph linearly.
I managed 2.14 mph up 4 flights (53.5 ft)...

From your comment on performance indicator, I take it competitive cyclists
will cross-train on stairs, as part of their regimen? Makes sense to me.

Indeed, a power meter that measures force, velocity should be accurate, as
the technology of these measurements is pretty high and well-established.
And a lot less cumbersome than a 1,000++ W generator!

Just calc'd the power in a 5K run, which has approx. the same time frame,
and came up with a range of 335-405 W, depending on what one chooses for
muscular efficiency.
These calcs are not the same as force x velocity or mgh-type calcs, but it
does seem that a variety of max efforts involving the legs seem to be in the
same ballpark. I seem to recall 350 W as a sustainable biking power level,
as well.
--
EA


--
EA











DR

Existential Angst wrote:

It turns out that measuring wattage in a stair climb is super-easy, a
simple height, time measurement and calculation.

Sure, E=mgh, power = E/t.

Note that you can measure wattage for a hill climb on a bike the same
way, as long as your max speed and tyre pressure is low enough to ignore air
drag and rolling resistance (as you have ignored various losses in your
stair climb).

That'll also allow you to put more work through the bike without
troubling your power measuring setup. Try to start and stop timing at
roughly the same speed if you've only got a short climb available.
Remember you get more /power/ with a high cadence, even when it feels
like you're not pushing as hard. Test that yourself if you like.


You can also calculate your air drag in various postures down a slope
and use that data with any top-speed flat runs to find useful power.

--
tussock

On Sep 5, 4:43*pm, "Existential Angst" wrote:
"DirtRoadie" wrote in message

...
On Sep 5, 2:49 pm, "Existential Angst" wrote:









Awl --

I fool around calc'g max cal burns of various activities, and was always
intrigued by the incredible peak Watts of cycling. I just googled highes
cycling wattage, and saw refs to 1,100 W, 1300 W, altho I seem to recall
reading about wattages of 2,500, 2,750.

It turns out that measuring wattage in a stair climb is super-easy, a
simple
height, time measurement and calculation.
With decidedly un-athletic gifts, I readily achieved 1,000+ W in a stair
climb, yet am barely able to peak at 300 W in a generator/light bulb
stationary bike I built.
The problem there is that I can't vouch for the generator efficiency, so
the
peak 300 W would actually be a minimum. But even at 50% losses (and
unlikely at that), my peak would be 600 W, still a far cry from the 1,074
I
measured climbing stairs, or even the near-steady state 875 W averaged
over
four floors worth of stair sprinting.

I'm guessing that an elite sprinter or stair climber could easily double
or
triple my wattages, given that my current running ability is 2 miles at 12
min miles.... and actually, not even THAT any more!!!

So a couple of Qs arise from all this, bearing in my mind that I have no
vested interest or bia in how this comparison plays out.

1. In comparing the average elite stair climber with the avg elite
cyclist,
who could generate the more peak watts?
Based on my own performance, I'd say stair climbing, but a cyclist with
rat-traps is able to use both legs simultaneously, whereas the power
stroke
for running/stairs is one leg. I too use rat-traps on my stationary cycle,
but the whole setup is a bit rickety, so that is probably a factor as
well.

2. Are cycle watt meters truly accurate? It seems to me that a
generator/light bulb system (with a calibrated generator) would be a more
"fundamental" measurement for power, as is measuring height vs. time for
power.

Appreciate all input.
--
EA

The following is general in scope.
I would guess that your measurements from your stationary bike are
inaccurate.
1000 watts in a brief burst is within the realm of feasibility for a
typical cyclist. Operative word - "brief"
Commercial power meters for bikes are pretty accurate. For the most
part they use strain gauges to measure force coupled with speed
measurement.

Between cyclists and stair racers I don't know who could generate more
peak watts, but I suspect it's fairly close.

Rate of vertical ascent has been recognized as a performance indicator
for cyclists.
I also suspect that relative efficiencies come into play.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mean_ascent_velocity.
But that's sustained output, not peak. (also see Ferrari's articles athttp://www.53x12.com/do/show?page=articles)

Although it's a bit of an apples and oranges comparison, look at:http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-0...ns-seventh-str...

Note that a 1050 foot climb in 9-1/2 minutes is an ascent rate of
~2020 m/hr.
=================================================

The bloomberg article cited 10 min 28 sec.
Assuming a bw of 154 #, his mechanical power calcs out to 350 W, whch is
pretty substantial on a sustained baiss. * mega-substantial??

The record is cited as 9:33. 350W is good figure, not great, but less
than 10 minutes is not "sustained" when compared with bike races.
Go poke around here to see some actual data files for racers:
http://home.trainingpeaks.com/races.aspx

His calorie burn is somewhere between 25-31 cal/min, with a total burn of
between 275 and 325 cals.
In mph, his speed is only 1.14 mph vertically, but about 1.14/.707 = 1.47
mph linearly.
I managed 2.14 mph up 4 flights (53.5 ft)... * *

From your comment on performance indicator, I take it competitive cyclists
will cross-train on stairs, as part of their regimen? *Makes sense to me.

Probably wouldn't hurt, but I suspect the weight room is more common
for strength type training. Otherwise most training is probably more
specific and done on a bike or trainer.

Indeed, a power meter that measures force, velocity should be accurate, as
the technology of these measurements is pretty high and well-established.
And a lot less cumbersome than a 1,000++ W generator!
--
EA


DR

"tussock" wrote in message
...
Existential Angst wrote:

It turns out that measuring wattage in a stair climb is super-easy, a
simple height, time measurement and calculation.

Sure, E=mgh, power = E/t.


If your measurements are metric, you can calc as is, above.
If using lbs, feet, use ft-lbs/sec, multiply by 1.36 for watts.

This is a very accurate measurement of power, at least for the vertical
component, altho it is in fact an underestimate of total power, as it omits
"intrabody motion" as well as the forward component, but which is a very
small amount, on the order of a couple of percent, if that.

A cycling watt meter on a stationary bike would seem to be even more
accurate for "total" power.

Note that you can measure wattage for a hill climb on a bike the same
way, as long as your max speed and tyre pressure is low enough to ignore
air
drag and rolling resistance (as you have ignored various losses in your
stair climb).

That'll also allow you to put more work through the bike without
troubling your power measuring setup. Try to start and stop timing at
roughly the same speed if you've only got a short climb available.
Remember you get more /power/ with a high cadence, even when it feels
like you're not pushing as hard. Test that yourself if you like.

Agreed, and this comes straight from the force-velocity curve of virtually
all muscle.
Maximizing load (resistance) is a sure way to *minimize power*. Max power
occurs at a kind of "sweet spot" that muscle "likes" to operate at. This is
true for weight lifting, as well, if the goal is calorie burn.
--
EA



You can also calculate your air drag in various postures down a slope
and use that data with any top-speed flat runs to find useful power.

--
tussock

On 9/5/2012 5:43 PM, Existential Angst wrote:
The bloomberg article cited 10 min 28 sec.
Assuming a bw of 154 #, his mechanical power calcs out to 350 W, whch is
pretty substantial on a sustained baiss. mega-substantial??

During his first UCI hour record run (superman position bike) it was
calculated that Chris Boardman produced an average of 440 W.

--
Tºm Shermªn - 42.435731°N, 83.985007°W
Post Free or Die!

On Wednesday, September 5, 2012 4:49:35 PM UTC-4, Existential Angst wrote:
Awl --



I fool around calc'g max cal burns of various activities, and was always

intrigued by the incredible peak Watts of cycling. I just googled highes

cycling wattage, and saw refs to 1,100 W, 1300 W, altho I seem to recall

reading about wattages of 2,500, 2,750.



It turns out that measuring wattage in a stair climb is super-easy, a simple

height, time measurement and calculation.

With decidedly un-athletic gifts, I readily achieved 1,000+ W in a stair

climb, yet am barely able to peak at 300 W in a generator/light bulb

stationary bike I built.

The problem there is that I can't vouch for the generator efficiency, so the

peak 300 W would actually be a minimum. But even at 50% losses (and

unlikely at that), my peak would be 600 W, still a far cry from the 1,074 I

measured climbing stairs, or even the near-steady state 875 W averaged over

four floors worth of stair sprinting.



I'm guessing that an elite sprinter or stair climber could easily double or

triple my wattages, given that my current running ability is 2 miles at 12

min miles.... and actually, not even THAT any more!!!



So a couple of Qs arise from all this, bearing in my mind that I have no

vested interest or bia in how this comparison plays out.



1. In comparing the average elite stair climber with the avg elite cyclist,

who could generate the more peak watts?

Based on my own performance, I'd say stair climbing, but a cyclist with

rat-traps is able to use both legs simultaneously, whereas the power stroke

for running/stairs is one leg. I too use rat-traps on my stationary cycle,

but the whole setup is a bit rickety, so that is probably a factor as well.



2. Are cycle watt meters truly accurate? It seems to me that a

generator/light bulb system (with a calibrated generator) would be a more

"fundamental" measurement for power, as is measuring height vs. time for

power.



Appreciate all input.

I'd like to know more about your "generator/light bulb stationary bike" you built. I suspect your efficiency losses there are much greater than you imagine. Care to give details?

- Frank Krygowski

On Sep 5, 9:49*pm, "Existential Angst" wrote:
Awl --

I fool around calc'g max cal burns of various activities, and was always
intrigued by the incredible peak Watts of cycling. *I just googled * highes
cycling wattage, and saw refs to 1,100 W, 1300 W, altho I seem to recall
reading about wattages of 2,500, 2,750.

It turns out that measuring wattage in a stair climb is super-easy, a simple
height, time measurement and calculation.
With decidedly un-athletic gifts, I readily achieved 1,000+ W in a stair
climb, yet am barely able to peak at 300 W in a generator/light bulb
stationary bike I built.
The problem there is that I can't vouch for the generator efficiency, so the
peak 300 W would actually be a minimum. *But even at 50% losses (and
unlikely at that), my peak would be 600 W, still a far cry from the 1,074 I
measured climbing stairs, or even the near-steady state 875 W averaged over
four floors worth of stair sprinting.

I'm guessing that an elite sprinter or stair climber could easily double or
triple my wattages, given that my current running ability is 2 miles at 12
min miles.... and actually, not even THAT any more!!!

So a couple of Qs arise from all this, bearing in my mind that I have no
vested interest or bia in how this comparison plays out.

1. *In comparing the average elite stair climber with the avg elite cyclist,
who could generate the more peak watts?

I suspect the cyclist, because the resting period for the muscle is
longer and he has the advantage of a relatively stable muscle
temperature due to a faster airflow over his legs. This wont make any
difference in the first couple of minutes so the stair climber
will .likely be able to put out more power due to being able to use
his whole body and a more easily aquired simpler skill.

* Based on my own performance, I'd say stair climbing, but a cyclist with
rat-traps is able to use both legs simultaneously, whereas the power stroke
for running/stairs is one leg. *I too use rat-traps on my stationary cycle,
but the whole setup is a bit rickety, so that is probably a factor as well.

Considering one leg; When running up stairs there is one important
muscle actuation phase which is active for perhaps 45% of time or 162
deg and the rest of the time is available for the muscle to recover.
with a bicycle there are four phases (forward, down, back and up) each
phase may be around 90 deg more or less resulting in a longer time for
the muscle to relax and recover. The muscle return speed and active
phase of the muscle is the basic reason why peak power cycling cadence
doubles that of peak power running cadence.

as a teenager i had an exceptional stair-climbing speed which also
translated to running speed but not cycling speed. Even with a good
few years of riding a bicycle competitively, I did not aquire the same
level of sprint ability. After a while off the bike due to injury and
illness, I reconsidered my cycling technique and after putting
together all the information I could find on muscle physiology and
some fortunate pre-ride meal selections, i quickly gained an ability
in cycle sprinting at a higher level in fewer weeks than I'd
previously taken years to develop. In six weeks I had gone from
struggling to cover 14 miles in an hour to riding easily at an average
of 22mph for 2 hours and being able to sprint in excess of 50mph. Leg
technique, breathing technique, good positioning and choice food all
combine to give desired results. Sun exposure is also important to
generate vitD so as to mobilize the excess calcium which otherwise
forms painful acid depoits in the muscles a longer muscle relaxation
phase and possibly cramping, although this is more specically likely
due to lack of magnesium or sulphur in the muscles.

2. *Are cycle watt meters truly accurate? *It seems to me that a
generator/light bulb system (with a calibrated generator) would be a more
"fundamental" measurement for power, as is measuring height vs. time for
power.

Appreciate all input.

Don't try and run four steps at a time. Apart from not firmly footing
the step and risking smashing your teeth, it's slower than rising
three steps at a time. It is as well to loosen oneself uo first with
two steps at a time before challenging a record .