# How do i get to 400w 20 minute threshold?



## soulfly_nyc

I've just started using wattage for training at a local bike studio. After some getting used to on the computrainer, i did the following: 300w for 20 minutes, 278w average at 1-hour, and 255w average at 2.5 hours (HR average was 160).

Most of the off season i ran and used my stationary trainer for base-type workouts, Lately I've changed to this on a weekly basis:



2 x 2hr+ computrainers on the weekend (various courses or base-training workouts)

Squats once per week (3 sets of 4x20 reps - behind neck/infront of neck/across shoulders/in crook of elbow)

3-4 sessions x 60 minutes on the trainer doing 3 or 4 minute intervals at 53-11 gearing.

Should i spend more time with weights, or another type of strength-building workout?

Thank you!


----------



## function

The 278W is your FTP (functional threshold power) and you'll need to work on increasing that in order to get your 20minute power to 400W. I recommend the book "Training and Racing with a Power Meter" by Allen & Coggan, it covers lots of training exercises to raise your FTP. 278W -> approx 380W (which will yield about 400W for 20minutes) is a long way to go, but maybe you'll get there. How big are you (height, weight, body fat, muscle composition) and how long have you been training?


----------



## Circlip

soulfly_nyc said:


> I've just started using wattage for training at a local bike studio. After some getting used to on the computrainer, i did the following: 300w for 20 minutes, 278w average at 1-hour, and 255w average at 2.5 hours (HR average was 160).


1. If you want to find your best average power for either 20 minutes, or else 1 hour (which is the most common definition of FTP) then you'll need to structure a session specifically to max out wattage for that target duration. If you can ride for 255w for another 1.5 hours, then you certainly didn't go as hard as you could have in the first hour.

2. Depending on your weight, 400w for 20 minutes or 380w for 1 hour may be a very large number to aim for. Of course, we'd all like to improve our power output, but what has lead you to believe that 400w for 20 minutes is what you should be capable of? Not saying you can't do it, just interested in knowing whether this is some arbitrary round figure?

3. With the very large current gap between your current output and your end goal, perhaps it's better to simply implement a program to train to the best of your ability and resources, and measure progression over 1-2 years? If you start to see yourself creeping steadily up then maybe set goals from there that will have some rational basis instead of just an arbitrary number? Remember that after a certain point, law of diminishing returns starts to come into play.


----------



## soulfly_nyc

Thanks for this info. 

I'm 32, 5'10" and 177lbs and pretty low body fat %. I started racing road bikes in August of last year but have ridden bikes for fun for much of my life. Racing is a new challenge, so creating more power just seemed a logical goal in pursuit of racing success.

As far as setting such a lofty goal, i'm just aiming high. However i was quite a good swimmer for 12 years and was all-american and ranked nationally in high school.

I've participated in 6 computrainer sessions in the past 2 months. I've seen power improvements since then (20 minute was 280w at the beginning) and some of the improvement may be from improving my pedalstroke/form. In other words, i think there are lots of places that I can improve, whether it is strength, cardio, or pedaling mechanics.


----------



## Circlip

soulfly_nyc said:


> 177lbs


Both raw power (independent of size/weight) and power in watts/kilogram of body weight over durations such as 20 minutes or 1 hour are both important measures, although not a strict measure of potential success in any discipline other than perhaps time trials. Power output over other (shorter) durations, and ability to execute strategy and tactics to best effect with your given physical resources is just as important in many events if you want to see the podium.

On to your original topic though, you are aiming for FTP of approx. 4.7-4.8 watts/kg. While this is certainly an achievable figure for amateur cyclists, you should be aware that is a relatively high figure and there are many racers with many years of quality training, lots of miles in their legs, and are decent athletes to boot who will never hit that level of watts/kg.

By all means go for it, but perhaps consider that your goal isn't trivial, and unless you are genetically gifted (beyond the level of a decent competitve racer) or are extremely dedicated in your training, then you may be better served by backing off that goal and work on some smaller incremental progression first with consistent riding, and sound training. After some time, you'll be able to chart out goals with a better basis for doing so.

There are many methodologies to choose from, and it would be difficult to aruge that any of them are strictly "right" or "wrong". All will have a few common characteristics that are the underpinnings of any training for any sport. Browse through this forum, and the Racing, Training forum, read some threads, pick up some terminology and acquire some reading materials. Also consider joining a club to learn from other experienced cyclists or perhaps even consulting with a coach recommended by same experienced cyclists.


----------



## STARNUT

Circlip has it right. At ~80 kg a 400 watt 20 min power puts you in the 360-388 range for FTP which is roughly 4.85 ish W/kg. That's not undoable but won't be easy unless you unusually gifted, unusually dedicated, or both.

I can tell you that you can lift all the weights you want but it's not going to increase your FTP that much. It takes more "wattage" to get up off the couch or climb a few stairs than it does climb with the leaders group in the Tour. Force is not the answer............ in fact you should lift weights for injury prevention but not as a way to increase your power. 

To give you a frame of reference, I coach a pretty successful Cat2/masters racer with a 20 min power of 415 ish. However, he weights 198 pounds, packs a wicked sprint, and looks like a linebacker.

You need to get a PM and a coach assuming you haven't already done so.

Starnut


----------



## iliveonnitro

Are you sure you are low on bf% at 5'10" and 177lbs? Hell, even the big sprinter Tom Boonen weighs that much...at 6'4"

Although a very rough measure, it puts you at a BMI of 25.1, which is "overweight." Even if you had a lot of muscle, it seems like you could still stand to lose weight.

Hitting 4.8w/kg is easier than reaching 400w at threshold. Unfortunately, there's 2 parts to that equation -- power and weight. The latter is the one that will get you the results you are looking for.

Also, if you are aiming that high, it's time to get a good coach. Or, at the very least, start reading. A lot.


----------



## function

BMI is a useless metric, soulfy_nyc probably has a swimmer's physique which means a lot more upper body bulk, also there are some pro level riders at that weight; 6'0 and 175lbs (Hushovd), 6'1 176 (Cancellara). So i can definitely see him having a low BF at 177 and 5'10. To give you another frame of reference, when i started seriously riding 2 years i had an FTP of 230W (at 191lbs), now it's at 340W and i'm 6'0 176lbs (8% BF). I was a regional level athlete at best in my university days and i think 360W+ is attainable if i continue training, so if you were a highlevel endurance athlete you probably have a high chance of getting there with dedication. Don't worry about weight until later, usually it'll take care of itself in the process. I don't have a coach. Good luck and be patient.


----------



## wfrogge

soulfly_nyc said:


> Thanks for this info.
> 
> *I'm 32, 5'10" and 177lbs and pretty low body fat %.* I started racing road bikes in August of last year but have ridden bikes for fun for much of my life. Racing is a new challenge, so creating more power just seemed a logical goal in pursuit of racing success.
> 
> As far as setting such a lofty goal, i'm just aiming high. However i was quite a good swimmer for 12 years and was all-american and ranked nationally in high school.
> 
> I've participated in 6 computrainer sessions in the past 2 months. I've seen power improvements since then (20 minute was 280w at the beginning) and some of the improvement may be from improving my pedalstroke/form. In other words, i think there are lots of places that I can improve, whether it is strength, cardio, or pedaling mechanics.



Incorrect


----------



## tommyrod74

wfrogge said:


> Incorrect


Wrong. I'm a dietitian, working primarily with high school students. Athletes with a significant amount of muscle almost always end up with a BMI in the high "normal"/ low "overweight" range. I had a football player I saw last week who was 6'0", 200 lbs. His shoulders were roughly a foot wider than his waist, and he had very, very little bodyfat. BMI is a bad metric for power athletes in particular.

Now, overweight for cycling is another matter. The OP may need to lose a significant amount of lean upper body mass (as an ex-swimmer) in order to have a desirable power-to-weight ratio.


----------



## Andrea138

tommyrod74 said:


> Wrong. I'm a dietitian, working primarily with high school students. Athletes with a significant amount of muscle almost always end up with a BMI in the high "normal"/ low "overweight" range. I had a football player I saw last week who was 6'0", 200 lbs. His shoulders were roughly a foot wider than his waist, and he had very, very little bodyfat. BMI is a bad metric for power athletes in particular.


Either of you could be correct, but my prediction is that it's Frogge.


----------



## tommyrod74

Andrea138 said:


> Either of you could be correct, but my prediction is that it's Frogge.


I'm not saying the OP has low body fat. I'm saying that it's entirely possible for someone to have low body fat at his weight and height. You're not arguing that this isn't possible, right?

Now if the OP has an erroneous concept of his own body composition, that's another issue.


----------



## Andrea138

I'm not arguing that it's not possible in the least, I'm just saying it's not as probable.


----------



## tommyrod74

Andrea138 said:


> I'm not arguing that it's not possible in the least, I'm just saying it's not as probable.


It's not as probable among the general population, but if you think a BMI of 25.3 (what the OP works out to) with a low body fat percentage is unusual among athletes, you've only been hanging around endurance athletes too much. Swimmers, Olympic lifters, wrestlers, track sprinters, throwers, and vaulters, soccer players... any sport where a little more muscle and strength is a positive.


----------



## Wookiebiker

tommyrod74 said:


> It's not as probable among the general population, but if you think a BMI of 25.3 (what the OP works out to) with a low body fat percentage is unusual among athletes, you've only been hanging around endurance athletes too much. Swimmers, Olympic lifters, wrestlers, track sprinters, throwers, and vaulters, soccer players... any sport where a little more muscle and strength is a positive.


Not saying the OP has a lot left to lose or not...however, cyclists in general tend to have a skewed version of what a body is supposed to look like. At group rides all you ever hear is...I need to drop another 10 pounds...regardless of what they look like. Some need to...some can't.

Looking at some of the best cyclists (especially the climbers) in the world is like looking at an anorexia convention.

As far as the BMI goes...It's OK for the average person as far as a weight predictor, but for those on the fringe it honestly sucks. My self for instance...It says I should weigh 178 pounds at the highest to be considered "Normal"...I'm 199 right now and running about 14% body fat. So getting down to 6% I would need to loose 16 pounds. That puts me at 183 pounds and I'd still be considered obese at 6% body fat :idea: 

However, I'm on the fringe...A former collegiate hammer thrower, I carry lots of muscle, even on the upper body and don't lift weights other than some minor core work. I look like The Hulk on a bike compared to others around me....For me BMI is a horrible way to compare my body to others. If I went by that I would be anorexic.


----------



## Circlip

To the OP (soulfly_nyc) I take back everything I said before. If you stay in cycling the majority of your fellow riders will be more focused with wagering odds on whether you look good in lycra without ever having seen you, than they will be about providing any useful information.  Maybe best to find another sport without so many wankers?


----------



## wfrogge

Wookiebiker said:


> Not saying the OP has a lot left to lose or not...however, cyclists in general tend to have a skewed version of what a body is supposed to look like. At group rides all you ever hear is...I need to drop another 10 pounds...regardless of what they look like. Some need to...some can't.
> 
> Looking at some of the best cyclists (especially the climbers) in the world is like looking at an anorexia convention.
> 
> As far as the BMI goes...It's OK for the average person as far as a weight predictor, but for those on the fringe it honestly sucks. My self for instance...It says I should weigh 178 pounds at the highest to be considered "Normal"...I'm 199 right now and running about 14% body fat. So getting down to 6% I would need to loose 16 pounds. That puts me at 183 pounds and I'd still be considered obese at 6% body fat :idea:
> 
> However, I'm on the fringe...A former collegiate hammer thrower, I carry lots of muscle, even on the upper body and don't lift weights other than some minor core work. I look like The Hulk on a bike compared to others around me....For me BMI is a horrible way to compare my body to others. If I went by that I would be anorexic.



The OP has a lot to lose regardless if its fat or muscle were talking about. Weight is weight and in this sport watts to kilograms is the key...... It would be damn hard for the OP to get a 400 watt FTP without a little EPO help but its possible he could get to 350-360. Combine that with a 30lb drop in weight and he would be damn quick pro.... Keep the weight and he would be a mid pack CAT 3.

This is an aerobic sport where V02max and FTP are king. That extra weight holds both back more than you think even if its weight from muscle. Drop more weight and your w/kg numbers go up... Drop the weight and your V02max will raise.


----------



## tommyrod74

wfrogge said:


> The OP has a lot to lose regardless if its fat or muscle were talking about. Weight is weight and in this sport watts to kilograms is the key...... It would be damn hard for the OP to get a 400 watt FTP without a little EPO help but its possible he could get to 350-360. Combine that with a 30lb drop in weight and he would be damn quick pro.... Keep the weight and he would be a mid pack CAT 3.
> 
> This is an aerobic sport where V02max and FTP are king. That extra weight holds both back more than you think even if its weight from muscle. Drop more weight and your w/kg numbers go up... Drop the weight and your V02max will raise.


True... though the extra weight would matter a lot less in most races around here (flat crits). I see many Cat 3 and 2 guys around here who are very crit-competitive at higher weights. 

Relative VO2 max increases with weight loss (assuming power stays the same or increases). Absolute VO2 max is unaffected.


----------



## soulfly_nyc

Hey guys (and gals?),

Thanks for the info and debate. I'm a Cat 5 racer, had great success on my first few races...and just want to keep progressing.

I understand your points on the power/weight (emphasis on weight) argument, and while I agree that I should lose some weight, I have to realize that I will probably never be chicken-boned-skinny. After so many years of swimming, and then a brief stint in serious weight-lifting (PB in benchpress of 415lbs while weighing 182lbs), i don't think i'll ever be 140lbs of ultra-endurance climber...i'm a sprinter - at least I was in swimming and have been so far in my very short bike racing career.

I think 7-10lbs might be a good target for weight loss.

*Do you have some tips on making more power? I have heard a lot of "off topic" recommendations about how or why I should lose weight...* I agree on the power/weight ratio thing and I'll do my best on losing the weight (lost 10lbs since last season), but what I really have no clue about is what I should to do make more power.


----------



## tommyrod74

Well, as a dietitian, I'm better qualified to help with weight loss  

But, all kidding aside- buy a power meter and get a coach. Well worth the investment.


----------



## CFBlue

i seriously doubt the computrainer readings are even realistically accurate 278w for 60min is rather high for an untrained cat 5. 5'10 177 is rather heavy for any cyclist sprinter or not. unless you have big bones etc you should be around 155lbs. 400w for 20 min is a seriously hard effort. its also pretty meaningless on a stationary trainer, holding 400 watts on rolling terrain, not to mention actually dealing with aerodynamic drag from a moving bicycle, is going to be much much harder.


----------



## soulfly_nyc

kenyonCycleist said:


> i seriously doubt the computrainer readings are even realistically accurate 278w for 60min is rather high for an untrained cat 5.


Seems accurate to me... had several supervised workouts with similar results. Cat 5 doesn't mean first time on a bicycle or first time in competitive sports. I've ridden bikes for years and competed in the pool for many more.

I have several riding buddies who rate about the same, and who are also Cat 5. I've podiumed in my last 5 of 6 races...but who knows!


----------



## tommyrod74

kenyonCycleist said:


> its also pretty meaningless on a stationary trainer, holding 400 watts on rolling terrain, not to mention actually dealing with aerodynamic drag from a moving bicycle, is going to be much much harder.


Oddly enough, watts are watts. They're not any better or worse indoors or out.

They're also strangely unaffected by wind drag.

Now, rolling terrain poses some challenge due to the tendency to mentally ease up on a downhill and work harder on a climb. But if you can average 400 watts for a given time period indoors, you should be able to do it outside.


----------



## SilasCL

soulfly_nyc said:


> *Do you have some tips on making more power? I have heard a lot of "off topic" recommendations about how or why I should lose weight...* I agree on the power/weight ratio thing and I'll do my best on losing the weight (lost 10lbs since last season), but what I really have no clue about is what I should to do make more power.


If you want poor advice, I'll give it to you.

First, ditch the weights. Next time a bike race includes squats, call me and I'll admit I was wrong. Also, you're doing so many reps that I can't imagine any strength gains. Are you really doing 240 reps per session? You'd be better off going up a few flights of stairs.

Next, get serious about your cycling workouts. Right now you're doing one kind of interval, and you're not doing it by power, HR, or perceived exertion, just gearing. That's not a recipe for success. Since it's early in the season, I would focus on base mileage (as much as you can get outside and do it) and 2x20 and 3x20 minute intervals around 290 watts, with 5 minutes of recovery. If you can't get power on your home trainer, go by feel or HR, you'll get pretty close.

If you want better advice, buy a book on training, or get a powermeter and a coach who knows how to work with power. Oh, and last thing, I am 6'1" 180, with some muscle and a decent little gut. Racing weight would be 165 for me. So 10 pounds of weight loss would be a good start for you.


----------



## function

soulfly_nyc said:


> *Do you have some tips on making more power? I have heard a lot of "off topic" recommendations about how or why I should lose weight...* I agree on the power/weight ratio thing and I'll do my best on losing the weight (lost 10lbs since last season), but what I really have no clue about is what I should to do make more power.


It's sort of interesting how everyone knows what your ideal weight should be and whether you even desire to be that skinny. Anyway, apart from getting "Training and Racing with power" i'd also recommend reading the following;

http://www.fascatcoaching.com/sweetspottraining.html

http://biketechreview.com/performance/stripped_down.htm

And finally, find some local training races or fast paced group rides with cat1,2s

Good luck!


----------



## wfrogge

function said:


> It's sort of interesting how everyone knows what your ideal weight should be and whether you even desire to be that skinny.



Thats because its all about w/kg.. At his size getting to 400 watts for 20 minutes would be near impossible and still put him mid pack on the e-wang chart. Add on top of that that he would climb like a anchor and his V02max would suffer greatly. 

Trying to force a square peg into a round hole.....:mad2:

Agree that the articles you mention are a good starting place. They will also back up what im saying.


----------



## function

wfrogge said:


> Thats because its all about w/kg.. At his size getting to 400 watts for 20 minutes would be near impossible and still put him mid pack on the e-wang chart. Add on top of that that he would climb like a anchor and his V02max would suffer greatly.
> 
> Agree that the articles you mention are a good starting place. They will also back up what im saying.


None of the articles say that to increase wattage output you have to lose weight, furthermore 5W/kg for 20minutes is hardly "boat anchor" climbing, it'd be competitive (might not always win but definitely up there) in most cat 1/2 hilly races.


----------



## wfrogge

function said:


> None of the articles say that to increase wattage output you have to lose weight, furthermore 5W/kg for 20minutes is hardly "boat anchor" climbing, it'd be competitive (might not always win but definitely up there) in most cat 1/2 hilly races.



Its all about w/kg...... And at his weight it would be easier to drop 20lbs and maintain his current FTP than to hit 400w for 20 minutes... In other words hes barking up the wrong tree.

Lets say he gets his FTP to 380. That will put him at 4.7 w/kg with no V02max gains. He will still climb like an anchor because those lighter guys that can put out 380 watts for an hour will be working much less going up hills (or even the lighter guys that have a much lower FTP.. They will beat him too). He will get shelled if the race goes uphill for a good amount of time.

If he can drop 20lbs that would put him at 5.3 w/kg. His V02max will go up and he will have less weight to carry uphill..... He would get the most bang for the buck by dropping the weight (I dont care if its fat or muscle.. weight is weight).


----------



## Andrea138

Slow day at work, Frogge?


----------



## wfrogge

yep..


----------



## Wookiebiker

wfrogge said:


> Its all about w/kg...... And at his weight it would be easier to drop 20lbs and maintain his current FTP than to hit 400w for 20 minutes... In other words hes barking up the wrong tree.
> 
> Lets say he gets his FTP to 380. That will put him at 4.7 w/kg with no V02max gains. He will still climb like an anchor because those lighter guys that can put out 380 watts for an hour will be working much less going up hills (or even the lighter guys that have a much lower FTP.. They will beat him too). He will get shelled if the race goes uphill for a good amount of time.
> 
> If he can drop 20lbs that would put him at 5.3 w/kg. His V02max will go up and he will have less weight to carry uphill..... He would get the most bang for the buck by dropping the weight (I dont care if its fat or muscle.. weight is weight).


Just curious how many non pro 157 pound riders do you think are out there that have an FTP of 380 watts for an hour? My guess...not that many, which means unless he wants to be a CAT 1/2 or a national level pro he's not going to get shelled with a 4.7 w/kg power out put.

To stay competitive in most CAT 3 races he's only going to need to put out around 4.1 w/kg - 4.5 w/kg. Good strength with a lot of smarts....goes much farther than great strength and no smarts


----------



## CFBlue

tommyrod74 said:


> Oddly enough, watts are watts. They're not any better or worse indoors or out.
> 
> They're also strangely unaffected by wind drag.
> 
> Now, rolling terrain poses some challenge due to the tendency to mentally ease up on a downhill and work harder on a climb. But if you can average 400 watts for a given time period indoors, you should be able to do it outside.


Do you have an srm? Watts are not just watts, you can hit 400 watts grinding up a steep hill or doing high rpms on the flats. Both ways hit 400 watts, but use entirely different ways of getting there. Dare i say doing 400 watts up a 14% hill is gonna use more strength, while doing 400 watts on the flats is a combination on strength and aerobic capacity. Its torque x rpm so....steep hill = fewer rpm but greater torque.....flats = higher rpm less torque. My point is that it works your muscles differently even though its still 400 watts.


----------



## wfrogge

Wookiebiker said:


> Just curious how many non pro 157 pound riders do you think are out there that have an FTP of 380 watts for an hour? My guess...not that many, which means unless he wants to be a CAT 1/2 or a national level pro he's not going to get shelled with a 4.7 w/kg power out put.
> 
> To stay competitive in most CAT 3 races he's only going to need to put out around 4.1 w/kg - 4.5 w/kg. Good strength with a lot of smarts....goes much farther than great strength and no smarts




Dude asked how to get to 400 watts.... Its unrealistic that he will hit that target but I used those numbers as an example of what he was asking for..... 4.1-4.5 w/kg wont do him much good in a hilly race with that extra weight. Not when you will have lighter guys running around (or even less) w/kg with less mass (higher VO2max).... They will smoke him up the hill due to gravity. Unless he does flat races all the time.


----------



## chase196126

Why hasn't anyone mentioned that maybe the OP can achieve 400 watts WHILE losing weight? The amount of training required to reach that goal will almost certainly shed at least a bit of weight off of him. It seems like a lot of people in this thread (especially wfrogge) seem to think that power increase and weight loss are mutually exclusive and they certainly are not (IF you train and eat intelligently).


----------



## Wookiebiker

wfrogge said:


> Dude asked how to get to 400 watts.... Its unrealistic that he will hit that target but I used those numbers as an example of what he was asking for..... 4.1-4.5 w/kg wont do him much good in a hilly race with that extra weight. Not when you will have lighter guys running around (or even less) w/kg with less mass (higher VO2max).... They will smoke him up the hill due to gravity. Unless he does flat races all the time.


Weight for the most part is irrelevant as long as the watts are there. If you have two riders and one is 90kg and puts out 370 w/kg and the other is 65kg and puts out 270 w/kg they are going to climb at roughly the same speed regardless of length because they have very similar power to weight ratios....even though one is 25kg lighter than the other.

You have basically been saying unless he's putting out over 5 w/kg he's going to get smoked on climbs, which honestly...isn't true unless you are talking about CAT 1/2 or domestic pro level racing. The guy never said what catagory he would be racing in...just that he wanted to get to 400 watts FTP. 

Realistically the OP needs to get into the 330-365 watts at FTP to "not get smoked" on the climbs into the CAT 3 class at his current weight. If he loses weight, then he has to put out less power to reach the same w/kg.

In most CAT 5, 4, 3 races a racer can more than get by putting out 4.1 w/kg - 4.5 w/kg and not get "smoked" on the climbs regardless of who is around him. He's not likely to win, but he's not going to get "smoked" either...chances are it would put him at mid, to upper mid pack in the CAT 3's.


----------



## Wookiebiker

chase196126 said:


> Why hasn't anyone mentioned that maybe the OP can achieve 400 watts WHILE losing weight? The amount of training required to reach that goal will almost certainly shed at least a bit of weight off of him. It seems like a lot of people in this thread (especially wfrogge) seem to think that power increase and weight loss are mutually exclusive and they certainly are not (IF you train and eat intelligently).


I'd agree with both of you here...weight loss and power gain are not mutually exclusive, I for one can attest to that. 

However achieving 400 watts FTP is not easy by any stretch, even for bigger guys. It requires a whole lot of training, and some natural talent on top of that to get to that level. This level of power output is generally only seen in your CAT 1/2 guys or higher and maybe some up and coming lower CAT guys that haven't worked their way through the system, but will quickly.


----------



## wfrogge

Repeat after me.... FTP is not the same as w/kg..... One is absolute and one is relative.


Increasing w/kg may or MAY NOT (in this case) have anything to do with increasing your FTP. ..... And the chances of the OP hitting 400 watts for a threshold are slim to none. Not knocking the ability of the OP There are pro riders that would kill to have an FTP that high.

If his current weight is mostly muscle as he thinks than dropping that weight will not lower his FTP that much thus making his w/kg numbers rise. Also his VO2max (broken record) would go up because of several reasons.. one being he would have less mass to fuel with oxygen rich blood... This would drive up his FTP thus pushing his w/kg numbers up while also giving him a higher top end.

It dosent matter what CAT the OP is racing in if he is where he needs to be (no sandbagging lower CATs). My comparison was him at his current weight with a 20 min power of 400 (1 hour power of 380) going against other cyclists that would be lighter by 20lbs with the same or even lower FTP. Even if these lighter riders had a 20-30 watt LOWER FTP than the OP they would beat him in any hilly road race or TT... How is that???? 1. Gravity pulling him down. 2. Those lighter riders would have a higher w/kg even with a lower FTP.


As I and others have stated hitting 400 watts for an FTP is a pipe dream for us mortals. The OP should not be concerned with FTP as much as getting his w/kg up.... Losing body weight is the first step.

The powermeter is not a speedometer!


----------



## chase196126

Wfrogge, 

No disrespect, but what you are arguing is pretty redundant... Obviously if the OP's weight goes down he will climb better. 

On another note, what VO2 level (in theory) would be required to hit a 20 minute power of 400 watts?


----------



## wfrogge

chase196126 said:


> Wfrogge,
> 
> No disrespect, but what you are arguing is pretty redundant... Obviously if the OP's weight goes down he will climb better.
> 
> On another note, what VO2 level (in theory) would be required to hit a 20 minute power of 400 watts?


I was addressing the "why" as to him climbing better with a lower weight. Most in this thread are hung up on FTP when that if anything will go down with weight loss. 

VO2max and power are not connected like that...



OP you may want to ask your question here.
http://www.cyclingforums.com/f88-power-training.html


----------



## Wookiebiker

wfrogge said:


> I was addressing the "why" as to him climbing better with a lower weight. Most in this thread are hung up on FTP when that if anything will go down with weight loss.
> 
> VO2max and power are not connected like that...


Not sure why you are hung up on the idea that dropping weight means a loss in power as well. If you work out/ride more, especially with a plan in mind...you tend to put on more power while at the same time losing weight.

Dropping power while dropping weight generally happens because you are losing muscle and thus starving yourself to do so.

As far as the FTP discussion....The basic idea of FTP is the amount of power you can put out for 1 hour. Take that number and divide it by your weight and you get your w/kg for 1 hour...which is the general measuring stick to building workouts around. That's why the FTP has been brought up more.

However, the reality is that for most races FTP is somewhat useless unless you are competing in 40K ITT's or are in races with some seriously long climbs. Most if not all races I participate in have lots of 1, 5, 10 minute climbs...sometimes 20-25 minute climbs but anything approaching an hour is pretty rare. 

So aside from setting up a training program a 1 hour FTP is not the best gage of how one will do in a race. However, it's being used a lot because the OP wanted to know how to reach 400 watts for 20 minutes....which would put his hour FTP in the 360'ish range.


----------



## wfrogge

Ive got to get out of this thread..... 


Most riders will lose a few watts off their FTP when dropping significant weight. Plenty of threads on the google wattage forum, cyclingforms.com, etc to back this up. Reason being is when you lose weight you cannot "target" an area or type (fat vs muscle) to lose so some muscle will go. Also if he's cutting, his calorie intake will be down. Damn hard to run a good FTP test when you are running a calorie deficit. Also riding more dosent = putting on more power. Too generic of a statement to hold any truth.

I dropped around 20 this past winter and lost 10 or so watts from my FTP. I have since gained that back and then some now that I have adjusted and increased my calorie intake.


----------



## function

wfrogge, yes, blindly following weight loss tends to end up in power loss. You're so focused on trying to prove yourself right that you've forgotten the OP's original question. soulfly_nyc, i suggest just ignoring this forum in general and reading up on FTP increasing workouts you'll get more relevant answers.


----------



## Wookiebiker

wfrogge said:


> Ive got to get out of this thread.....
> 
> 
> Most riders will lose a few watts off their FTP when dropping significant weight. Plenty of threads on the google wattage forum, cyclingforms.com, etc to back this up. Reason being is when you lose weight you cannot "target" an area or type (fat vs muscle) to lose so some muscle will go. Also if he's cutting, his calorie intake will be down. Damn hard to run a good FTP test when you are running a calorie deficit. Also riding more dosent = putting on more power. Too generic of a statement to hold any truth.
> 
> I dropped around 20 this past winter and lost 10 or so watts from my FTP. I have since gained that back and then some now that I have adjusted and increased my calorie intake.


Last year, I ran a very high caloric negative (around -1500 calories a day) to drop 50 pounds in just a bit over 4 months...however, during that time I added approximately 60 watts to my FTP. Basically I went from averaging just under 23.7 mph for a flat 10 mile ITT....to averaging 25.5 mph for a hilly 20 mile ITT during that time.

It can be done, has been done and just takes a structured routine and discipline to do.


----------



## CFBlue

I think Floyd Landis reportedly has an ftp of around 400w. Our OP gets on trainer does 278w for 60min, and starts thinkin whats another 100w. well the diff is avg joe cat 3 pack fodder and pro tour level. so yea..that goal is maybe a little unrealistic and thats why so many people here are all riled up over your post.


----------



## tommyrod74

kenyonCycleist said:


> Do you have an srm? Watts are not just watts, you can hit 400 watts grinding up a steep hill or doing high rpms on the flats. Both ways hit 400 watts, but use entirely different ways of getting there. Dare i say doing 400 watts up a 14% hill is gonna use more strength, while doing 400 watts on the flats is a combination on strength and aerobic capacity. Its torque x rpm so....steep hill = fewer rpm but greater torque.....flats = higher rpm less torque. My point is that it works your muscles differently even though its still 400 watts.


So someone who's better adapted to spinning might have more difficulty hitting the wattage target on a hill. Doesn't mean they can't produce the watts on the hill, just that they need to spin like on the flats to do so.

So keep cadence constant. Since it's torque X RPM, if watts are constant, and cadence is constant... so is torque.

What you're really saying is that you can achieve 400 watts in any number of ways, with differing torque and RPM values. Thank you, Algebra 1. 

Watts are still watts. If you can produce it indoors, you can produce it outdoors (it might take more focus, but the physical ability is obviously there- or you'd never measure 400 watts indoors, either).


----------



## Quixote

Tommyrod74: you're right, but I tend to disagree with your first sentance. "So someone who's better adapted to spinning might have more difficulty hitting the wattage target on a hill." If you can hit that wattage, it doesn't matter if you are on a hill or the flats. Like you said, watts are watts. In fact, I'd give the edge to the "spinner" since average pedal force is less (according to AC.com) the spinner should theoretically be able to maintain it longer ceteris peribus in virtue of a more balanced muscular effort compared to a big gear masher .


----------



## tommyrod74

Quixote said:


> Tommyrod74: you're right, but I tend to disagree with your first sentance. "So someone who's better adapted to spinning might have more difficulty hitting the wattage target on a hill." If you can hit that wattage, it doesn't matter if you are on a hill or the flats. Like you said, watts are watts. In fact, I'd give the edge to the "spinner" since average pedal force is less (according to AC.com) the spinner should theoretically be able to maintain it longer ceteris peribus in virtue of a more balanced muscular effort compared to a big gear masher .


Yeah, I meant that was the other poster's argument. I was saying that even if that were the case, spinning (as the theoretical rider is used to doing) would circumvent the issue. 

So we agree after all. Ceteris paribus? Didn't see that coming


----------



## Quixote

Yeah, any excuse to throw around the Latin.


----------



## StillRiding

The OP asks two questions:

"How do i get to 400w 20 minute threshold?"

"Should I spend more time with weights?"

The short answer is to get a coach and do what he says.

The long answer is that 400w for 20 minutes is exceptional no matter what your weight. Chances are that unless you're a tremendously gifted athlete you'll never reach that goal...and weights are a waste of time for building long-interval power on the bike.


----------



## bauerb

i'd like to see the OP's V02max numbers from a lab to get an idea of his genetic potential.


----------



## iliveonnitro

bauerb said:


> i'd like to see the OP's V02max numbers from a lab to get an idea of his genetic potential.


VO2 max is not the only genetic potential. In fact, it's not even that great of one, especially in this case.


----------



## soulfly_nyc

*improvement*

since I originally posted i have tested myself again.

Here are my average wattages at time:

20min = 310w
60min = 288w

I did a race yesterday (crashed, too) so was feeling it today. I think I can do better next time. 

I lost 3lbs, too. Now 174lbs.


----------



## STARNUT

iliveonnitro said:


> VO2 max is not the only genetic potential. In fact, it's not even that great of one, especially in this case.



2nd..... 



Plus it doesn't matter since he has weight to lose. VO2 is almost worthless unless we're talking about very highly trained individuals with very low body fat. It's more of a measure of how much more blood you can squeeze from the stone rather than an absolute predictor of athletic potential, ask Big Mig and Olano, both were big mofos though. This coming from someone who is very light and has a high VO2 for not being PRO :lol:



Starnut


----------



## muscleendurance

*Noooooooooooooooooo..*



soulfly_nyc said:


> Hey guys (and gals?),
> 
> Thanks for the info and debate. I'm a Cat 5 racer, had great success on my first few races...and just want to keep progressing....
> 
> *.......Do you have some tips on making more power?...*.......but what I really have no clue about is what I should do to make more power.


its painfully easy (literally!) just ride your cotten (coolmax  )socks off and race very aggressively and keep getting blown out the back of the field when caught, and just keep doing this, you want to be at the stage where you are riding very aggressively AND still being in the mix for the breakaway/winning group, which will take pateince pain and humbleness to achieve. just ride hard hard hard and when you think your ring too hard, RIDE HARDER!!! - too many guys just race tactically and think of short term winning, and not the long haul. If you want to 'make it' (at whatever level you choose) - remember this from Lemond "it doesnt get any easier, it just gets faster" - that just sums it right from one of the best modern era pros, more people should remember this!.. its up to you how fast/how much power you want to end up with  

sure you'll get some trolls on here banging on about what intrvls to do and such, but you cant ask the guys in races to wait for ten minutes to recover before you let them attack you...exactly, less time listening to people on forums and more time listening to the ones who are cutting their way through the ranks of racing cats and coaches. Of course Im on this forum and just as faceless as the rest in an online community, but ask yourself the question are more people here in the top cats that are giving you advice or in the lower3-4/5 cats?? its all about suffering and riding - just do it  (if you want the improvements your after, then this is your best shot)


----------



## G A /\/\ /\/\ A

Update:

20 minute is now 333w
60 minute is now 306w

...let's go 400!

PS: I am OP, changed my name.


----------



## soup67

To what do you attribute the increase? What sorts of workouts?


----------



## iliveonnitro

G A /\/\ /\/\ A said:


> Update:
> 
> 20 minute is now 333w
> 60 minute is now 306w
> 
> ...let's go 400!
> 
> PS: I am OP, changed my name.


I will estimate that you top out at 320w FTP. Unless you are just learning better pacing, which could be the case, your gains will not be exponential for long.

400w is a big goal. You're pushing genetic potential territory near that point. Or, you are training a ridiculous amount of hours to work your way there. One will just take longer than the other.


----------



## G A /\/\ /\/\ A

iliveonnitro said:


> I will estimate that you top out at 320w FTP. Unless you are just learning better pacing, which could be the case, your gains will not be exponential for long.
> 
> 400w is a big goal. You're pushing genetic potential territory near that point. Or, you are training a ridiculous amount of hours to work your way there. One will just take longer than the other.



Considering that I had a traumatic shoulder injury (stage 3 separation) from a crash in the end of April, i was just happy to not have lost power. I have a very strong athletic background as a nationally ranked swimmer. Sky's the limit, baby!


----------



## vertex112

G A /\/\ /\/\ A said:


> Considering that I had a traumatic shoulder injury (stage 3 separation) from a crash in the end of April, i was just happy to not have lost power. I have a very strong athletic background as a nationally ranked swimmer. Sky's the limit, baby!


Thats what I love to hear!! Optimism is your best friend. Just keep training and the fitness will come. Just a little mention, but when we are talking watt/kg, it has almost no relevance in a flat area unless we are talking Crits. Where I live, it is all about power. In Southern Ontario, I couldn't find a hill with more than 10 meters of elevation for 100+ miles.


----------



## benk10

Got any updates G A /\/\ /\/\ A ?


----------



## muscleendurance

benk10 said:


> Got any updates G A /\/\ /\/\ A ?


PM is your friend


----------



## benk10

muscleendurance said:


> PM is your friend


Then why didn't you PM me instead of calling me out in front of everyone?


----------



## iliveonnitro

iliveonnitro said:


> I will estimate that you top out at 320w FTP. Unless you are just learning better pacing, which could be the case, your gains will not be exponential for long.
> 
> 400w is a big goal. You're pushing genetic potential territory near that point. Or, you are training a ridiculous amount of hours to work your way there. One will just take longer than the other.


Dumb to estimate.

Keep working at it, regardless of what people say. Even if you don't get there, you'll still be fast.


----------



## soulfly_nyc

Hey guys/gals,

So, I moved back to NYC last July and spent the rest of last season rehabbing the separated shoulder and training on my own arbitrary schedule...but, never did another LT or FTP test. However, i did get a powertap and noticed that my outdoor efforts were nowhere near the results that i had witnessed on the computrainer earlier in the season. For example, my max recorded 60min wattage was around 270w, but this was just random training rides with teammates. 

In September, i decided to get more focused in training and got a good coach. The training plan hasn't focused on 20-minute power, more on endurance (ie 2-3hour rides at 240-260w) to this point. I did take a "ramp test" last week and scored 315w for 30min and 305w for 60min. I did notice that my HR was nice and low and that my wattage was consistent. In comparison, the computrainer test i did had a VERY high HR (close to 180 the whole 20 minutes) and the wattage was very inconsistent (up to 500w then down to 250w then to 350w...). 

I'm supposed to take another "ramp test" in 2 weeks or so...i'll post up the results, but hoping to do much better.

On another note, i've been cutting back on calories BIG time and am now down to 168lbs, so watts/kg is probably improved.


----------



## Raceoftruth

FYI 400W FTP will win you national championships in most places. But good luck all the same.


----------



## soulfly_nyc

Raceoftruth said:


> FYI 400W FTP will win you national championships in most places. But good luck all the same.


That would be wonderful, but i'm just trying to get the 20min power "near" that level...

So far i've been focused on the longer endurance power (ie 3hour) but will start working the shorter stuff in the next few months.


----------



## Undecided

soulfly_nyc said:


> That would be wonderful, but i'm just trying to get the 20min power "near" that level...
> 
> So far i've been focused on the longer endurance power (ie 3hour) but will start working the shorter stuff in the next few months.


What are your goals? If you want to win local P/1/2 road races, you might decide to focus on tilting your efforts toward shorter durations well before you can put out 5 w/kilo for 20 minutes (unless you live someplace where a lot of the races require staying at the front of really long climbs).


----------



## soulfly_nyc

Undecided said:


> What are your goals? If you want to win local P/1/2 road races, you might decide to focus on tilting your efforts toward shorter durations well before you can put out 5 w/kilo for 20 minutes (unless you live someplace where a lot of the races require staying at the front of really long climbs).


Right now, just want to upgrade to Cat 3. I'm guessing that will come a lot sooner than 400w for 20min. Whether i get it or not, still fun trying...


----------



## onefascruzan

Tabata, baby!


----------



## onefascruzan

The guys r right. "Ride lots." Hammer when you feel good, take a rest week at least once a month, watch what you eat, blah, blah,blah. But FTP of 400? Man, I dunno. If the stars align for you, then I'm happy for you. You go, girl!


----------



## soulfly_nyc

Took another ramp test, 30min power went up to 330w from 315w and FTP is now 320w versus 305w last month. Weight is down to 168lbs.

I'm getting a lot of out the workout program...hope to get up to 340w FTP before the season.

PS: The original intent was to get to 400w for 20 minute power, not 400w FTP.


----------



## muscleendurance

soulfly_nyc said:


> PS: The original intent was to get to 400w for 20 minute power, not 400w FTP.


those numbers are usually around 5% of each other though so its *almost* the same thing :wink5:


----------



## Alex_Simmons/RST

muscleendurance said:


> those numbers are usually around 5% of each other though so its *almost* the same thing :wink5:


I'd suggest that FTP is more typically ~ 90-95% of 20-min power. can be lower or higher


----------



## iliveonnitro

Alex_Simmons/RST said:


> I'd suggest that FTP is more typically ~ 90-95% of 20-min power. can be lower or higher


Oui. Mine is at 93%.


----------



## S_Top_Sign

Already putting our French lessons to work, are we?  

In the past I've found my FTP to be about 95% of CP20 according to training peaks, FWIW.


----------



## iliveonnitro

S_Top_Sign said:


> Already putting our French lessons to work, are we?
> 
> In the past I've found my FTP to be about 95% of CP20 according to training peaks, FWIW.


You couldn't have given yourself away in a more vibrant fashion, Stovetop.


----------



## danahs

i got my powertap last summer... i have been cycling for about 15mo total. 

i am 30 6'3 210lb 18%body fat (measured at my nutritionists office using bio-impedance meter)

the purple line is my ride today... i held 300w for 3.3hr, 355 for 95min, 400 for 15min.

the gray line is my personal best since I got my powermeter.










by the way, my first cat 5 race is next weekend.


----------



## Undecided

danahs said:


> i got my powertap last summer...


So are you suggesting that the answer to the original question is "Weigh 100 kilos."?


----------



## danahs

no, 95kg


----------



## soulfly_nyc

danahs said:


> no, 95kg


Great numbers! I'm not sure if you've got a sprint, but it looks like you've got some good TT power. Imagine if you lost 10-20lbs and kept your power...


----------



## danahs

thanks! my weightloss is still a work in progress... (I used to be 300+lb a few years ago and turned my self around with eating right and working out) 

i went to a mostly plant based diet (I still eat egg whites occasionally) about 2months ago and noticed a drastic and immediate improvement in my ability to recover. with my body frame its probably possible for me to get to about 190lb but i think less than that is not healthy for me.


----------



## rbart4506

vertex112 said:


> Thats what I love to hear!! Optimism is your best friend. Just keep training and the fitness will come. Just a little mention, but when we are talking watt/kg, it has almost no relevance in a flat area unless we are talking Crits. Where I live, it is all about power. In Southern Ontario, I couldn't find a hill with more than 10 meters of elevation for 100+ miles.


Where in Southern Ontario are you talking? Come to Dundas there's plenty of 100m+ climbs around. I've got at least 5 that I can think of and can link into a nice hilly 80km, or so, ride...


----------



## Sonomasnap

400 watts threshold for a newbie. Why has everyone missed the obvious answer?

EPO:idea:


----------



## ridenfish39

I just got a Power Tap. The amount of info you can download is amazing and overwhelming to me. I did my first 20 minute test on my rollers two weeks ago, I haven't repeated because it's finally nice out. 3" plastic drums, 90 psi in tires and I did 384 watts for 20 minutes. I am 6' 2" and 175 now, but I'll be at 165 in another month with some real training. In another month when I get some miles in I'll be over 400, this has been the worst winter for training for me I have ever had between the snow and overtime at work.
Is the Training Peaks software worth it?


----------



## aasa

I had a outdoor workouts yesterday, where I did 2x20 minutes 400/406W. I am around 90 kg, I guess in my weightclass 400 watt for 20 minutes isnt that much. Its all about w/kg after all..


----------

