Great post Ben
You keep replying to people countering shit that they never said… You repeat yourself in an argumentative tone to people who agree with you.
You are being overly defensive and can’t even keep it straight if 7% BF is Kenyans, the normal population for the last 25k years or only for elite athletes.
It would probably be best for both discussions on weight right now if you backed off you are taking it way way way too personally and barely anyone is even talking to you.
1 Like
Quite the contrary - it’s very relevant to this thread. It’s much more complex than maths and perpetuates the myth that thin = better.
How many times do we see threads such as “How to I get to 4w/kg?” or “will 4w/kg be enough for this race?”? The comments usually will consist follow the theme of it’s easier to lose weight.
If the answer to the maths question turns out to be 1kg is better, it furthers pressure to lose weight, which for some becomes an unhealthy obsession.
1 Like
Sorry, I maybe didn’t make the point well enough. It’s the obsession with losing weight that can often become unhealthy.
Brother,
Sorry you feel that way. I’m sure if we sat down and had a beer and talked about it in person we’d get along and understand each other just fine.
I wouldn’t call you fat and you wouldn’t call me skinny.
Sometimes text gets messed up.
I was in the middle of a VO2 workout and wanted to finish before I answered. Glad I did as I wanted to think about my response.
Even if you don’t believe me, I read and enjoy your responses and comments (maybe not the last one)
In certain contexts, all of those things may or may not be considered disordered eating. You have to look at the bigger picture.
1 Like
No, it really isn’t relevant to this thread. The original poster asked:
"Hi Guys
I’ve watched a few GCN tech videos and they’ve said the following a few times…
‘5 watts gained is better than losing 1kg in weight even on climbs’
I agree, but what is your opinion?"
The OP is just wondering what the ‘tipping point’ is for weight and power. The only thing ‘complex’ about this question is what your weight and power actually is, and in what situation makes the most sense to have more power vs less weight. eg. flats, up hill (and at what gradient), and descending.
Your response is typical with forums where one person wants to place a feeling or issue into a topic for your own reasons. It’s really not needed.
This is like me asking, what is better: Me training 5 hour per week with lots of intensity, or 10 hours with less intensity? And then you introduce an issue where if you train too much you will be putting strain on your family and you may get divorced. Sure, that could happen (and does!), but there is no need for that to be part of the conversation.
1 Like
This is a forum where debate has been welcomed. The thread has not been moderated with my comments being removed for not being in context. It’s my view that these points are relevant to the thread.
Alright, cool. Carry on then.
Thank you for your approval.
Whilst I disagree with your perspective I absolutely support you continuing to be part of the conversation.
The answer to this question is a math problem. @maxim809 solved it correctly. For riders under 5w/kg, gaining 5w and holding kg constant will increase rider w/kg to a greater extent than losing 1kg body weight and holding watts constant. This holds true for any body weight and power level (obviously because we are talking in w/kg).
It is also true that while holding w/kg constant, the athlete with higher absolute power will always climb faster. For example, the 5w/kg rider at 75 kg will always out climb (at any gradient) the 5w/kg rider at 60 kg. See Climbing and W/Kg
So the interesting (and better) question is: at what absolute power level is it better to either lose 1 kg or add 5w (holding other metric constant) in order to climb faster?
6 Likes
I welcome your discussion here, and I hope I would never tell someone to not post, but I disagree with your assessment here.
The original post asked the question if it really holds true that 5w is better than losing 1kg. Plenty of following math showed that yes, it is true that if you are under 5w/kg then more power is better than a kg of weight loss.
The conversation then veered into weight vs power and all of the discussion and unfortunately arguments that went with it.
But anyway, I just wanted to point out that the original question and answer suggested power OVER weight loss, not the other way around.
1 Like
If threads were not allowed to naturally go down the path into related topics, there wouldn’t be much discussion on these forums. Like any conversion, things branch off.
While the weight vs. watts topic seems to bring out passion from many parties, it’s pretty core to cycling performance and weight is always a touchy subject for some valid (and not so valid) reasons. My personal opinion is that BF % is a much more relevant/valuable focus area rather than weight, but I think I’m in the minority and it’s probably because you can’t tie BF% directly to w/KG and FTP (the be-all, end-all metric for cycling performance 
).
While the 5w vs. 1Kg discussion is interesting, I think topics like this perpetuate the idea that there is some kind of mutually exclusive decision to be made between the 2. Until you get into extreme ends of the scale, adding or losing power has minimal affect on body weight and adding/losing weight has minimal affect on power. Strive to optimize both aspects of the w/KG equation you’ll be a fast rider and healthy human.
3 Likes
Careful brother, as you noted people get pretty heated regarding body fat percentage as well! 
People seem to take things as a personal attack.
But agreed that it is a great metric to use for optimization of fitness on the bike.
What we’ve seen is sums and “Bro-science”. In the real world, there are so many more variables at play than power and weight. There’s wind resistance, wind direction, aerodynamics, souplesse, height, rolling resistance etc, etc, etc. Even in the world of Zwift, there’s a lot more to winning a race than w/kg. It’s an impossible question to answer with sums.
Yep, and I’d go one further and argue that it’s a very good metric for health (regardless of whether you ride a bike or not). No personal attacks here, we all struggle with lots of stuff and I certainly carry some donuts around the mid section. Everyone picks their battles.
1 Like
You aren’t wrong, but that wasn’t the original question or answer.
In any case, sometimes it does boil down to the numbers. Ceteris paribus, someone with 5w/kg will smoke someone with 4w/kg in overall cycling. Yes I know that a TT will be different than a hillclimb, I get that pure watts means more on a flat course than w/kg. But overall as a cyclist? Night and day.
Its the basic go-fast recipe in any racing sport. Increase power, decrease weight, profit. Ignore that reality at your own peril.
The argument can be convoluted. We can talk tires or myriad other variables. Doesn’t change the underlying point.
1 Like
Thanks for the nod! Was really starting to feel like everyone was talking over me even after having laid out the data to address the specific question.
5 Likes
Yeah, I disagree with a lot of what’s been said since you and I went back and forth, but I know I’m not going to change minds and I keep reminding myself that the original question has been clearly answered. Thanks for clearing it up earlier. You taught me something!
2 Likes