# FTP averages



## redondoaveb

I just recently got a power meter (Quarq) and am curious what kind of FTP power numbers others are producing. 

What is your age, weight and FTP numbers?


----------



## jajichan

redondoaveb said:


> I just recently got a power meter (Quarq) and am curious what kind of FTP power numbers others are producing.
> 
> What is your age, weight and FTP numbers?


27, 340, 72 kgs. 

my ftp sucks compared to other numbers. i hate time trials.


----------



## MMsRepBike

haha. In before this thread deteriorates into a shitshow and gets locked.

by the way I'm 22 of course, 140lbs obviously and my FTP is 570 watts naturally.

I also ride at 24mph average always, even uphill.


----------



## kbiker3111

MMsRepBike said:


> .... my FTP is 570 watts naturally.
> 
> I also ride at 24mph average always, even uphill.


570 watts only buys 20mph? Your cda is horrible.


----------



## Got Time

http://weightweenies.starbike.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=52608
That should give you enough to read for a while...


----------



## spade2you

34, 120lbs, and usually 4w/kg. Briefly hit 4.5w/kg last winter, but wasn't able to repeat it.


----------



## RaptorTC

22, 205 lbs (6'3"), last time I tested my ftp was 341. Roughly 3.6 w/kg. I make my impact in the sprints though, max 5 sec was 1,734 this summer.


----------



## serious

jajichan said:


> 27, 340, 72 kgs.
> 
> my ftp sucks compared to other numbers. i hate time trials.


Please tell us what other numbers are superior to that FTP. We are dying to know.


----------



## jajichan

serious said:


> Please tell us what other numbers are superior to that FTP. We are dying to know.


You first, hoss.


----------



## Ricey155

Power2max user - only did one 26min ftp 296w only 41 75kg - 1st try at 10 miles TT - I prefer how many watts on big hills


----------



## serious

jajichan said:


> You first, hoss.


This was all about you, not me.


----------



## ucfquattroguy

30, 230ish, 160lbs. Only able to ride twice/week. Usually a trainer/interval workout around an hour during the week with 2-3hrs outside on a weekend.


----------



## jajichan

serious said:


> This was all about you, not me.


This thread is about ftp. You haven't even posted yours. Kinda the whole point...


----------



## vetboy

jajichan said:


> 27, 340, 72 kgs.
> 
> my ftp sucks compared to other numbers. i hate time trials.


Care to show us some WKO files?


----------



## Wookiebiker

Age - Almost 44 (December)
FTP - 340/350 watts (maintained 340 watts over an hour long hill climb this summer, but was held up a bit by a car in my way during the race)
Weight - 177 pounds this summer, higher in the off season

I'm good at TT's and climbs under a 5% average gradient. I have a descent enough sprint in the mid 1300 watt (5 second) range after 2.5 hours of racing ... so not a good pack sprinter, but a good break away sprinter.


----------



## Alex_Simmons/RST

After a long layoff of several years and lots of weight gain, I reckon I'm a 1.5W/kg rider at present. Was ~ 4.2W/kg when I stopped. Have started gently back. Being a 1.5W/kg rider isn't much fun I have to say!


----------



## bitterertundra0

32 yrs, 82kg, 235 W

Do not race, just jumped at a smokin deal on a powertap. That's the only reason I bother to know.


----------



## floralagator

59 y/o, 203 lbs, 241 watts. Have ridden recreation/social for a few years. Just now starting to train/improve. Weight to go down, watts to go up, right? :thumbsup:


----------



## TricrossRich

I'm 30, been riding 8 months.. 162 pounds, 205 Watts or so...


----------



## spdntrxi

45.. 82kg FTP ~ 3.5-3.8 w/kg


----------



## serious

jajichan said:


> This thread is about ftp. You haven't even posted yours. Kinda the whole point...


Ok you are right. My FTP is 244w (and this is for 1 hour) at 146lbs. But I am more of an endurance rider. I can maintain 212-215 for 4 hours, which is why I do best in 8 hour solos. 

All this measured indoors on a CycleOps 300 Pro. I am 52 years old.


----------



## bikerector

28, 220lbs/100kg, 360-ish

More of a sprinter and only do well in flat land races. Working hard to drop a lot of weight by next spring so I can actually compete in cat 3 if there's more than a mole hill in elevation gain.

Measured with a stages PM so not sure on absolute accuracy but the results have been consistent.


----------



## jajichan

vetboy said:


> Care to show us some WKO files?


Why? I'm a cat 2. a couple of podiums away from a 1. My w/kgs are pretty much in line with most other 2s I know, except my shorter CVs are mid to high Cat 1.


----------



## vetboy

jajichan said:


> Why? I'm a cat 2. a couple of podiums away from a 1. My w/kgs are pretty much in line with most other 2s I know, except my shorter CVs are mid to high Cat 1.


Then why not show us a file or two?


----------



## jajichan

vetboy said:


> Then why not show us a file or two?


Why? You that skeptical?

Or simply another obnoxious troll who can't actually respond to an OP with something relevant so attempts to derail entire threads for some attention?


----------



## vetboy

jajichan said:


> Why? You that skeptical?
> 
> Or simply another obnoxious troll who can't actually respond to an OP with something relevant so attempts to derail entire threads for some attention?


Your claimed FTP is impressive (but attainable for some). I would love to see a file or two. They would be very relevant to this thread.


----------



## jajichan

vetboy said:


> Your claimed FTP is impressive (but attainable for some). I would love to see a file or two. They would be very relevant to this thread.


I think you're confusing 4.7 with 5.7. 

4.7 is quite common. I know Cat 3s with 4.7. It's not impressive at all for a decent bike racer. 

I'd suggest you look for files that would really be impressive (5.7+). I have nothing to prove to trolls.


----------



## vetboy

jajichan said:


> I think you're confusing 4.7 with 5.7.
> 
> 4.7 is quite common. I know Cat 3s with 4.7. It's not impressive at all for a decent bike racer.
> 
> I'd suggest you look for files that would really be impressive (5.7+). I have nothing to prove to trolls.


Nope. Not confused. 4.7W/kg for an hour is knocking on the door of domestic pro according to Coggins chart. Domestic pros are impressive.


----------



## jajichan

vetboy said:


> Nope. Not confused. 4.7W/kg for an hour is knocking on the door of domestic pro according to Coggins chart. Domestic pros are impressive.


So yeah, you're very confused. 

Or you're looking at the women's chart. 4.7 is pure Cat 2. Domestic pro starts at 5.42. 
That is a world of distance.

Better trolling next time.


----------



## vetboy

jajichan said:


> So yeah, you're very confused.
> 
> Or you're looking at the women's chart. 4.7 is pure Cat 2. Domestic pro starts at 5.42.
> That is a world of distance.
> 
> Better trolling next time.


Here's the chart from Fascat coaching website.

https://secure.goozmo.com/user_images/rw_1187467_7346663.jpg

If someone is doing 340 for an hour, they could likely do around 360 for 20 mins (I'm making the assumption that FTP is 95% of 20 minute power - debatable I agree). At 72kg, 360 is 5w/kg for 20 mins. Just about domestic pro on attached chart.


----------



## jajichan

vetboy said:


> Here's the chart from Fascat coaching website.
> 
> https://secure.goozmo.com/user_images/rw_1187467_7346663.jpg
> 
> If someone is doing 340 for an hour, they could likely do around 360 for 20 mins (I'm making the assumption that FTP is 95% of 20 minute power - debatable I agree). At 72kg, 360 is 5w/kg for 20 mins. Just about domestic pro on attached chart.


So you go from confusing women's ftp to mens, to going on about 20min power at 360? 

Talk about leaps and jumps.

P.S. The thread (and Coggan's charts) are about FTP. No one cares about 20 mins. Has little to do with anything.


----------



## vetboy

jajichan said:


> So you go from confusing women's ftp to mens, to going on about 20min power at 360?
> 
> Talk about leaps and jumps.
> 
> P.S. The thread (and Coggan's charts) are about FTP. No one cares about 20 mins. Has little to do with anything.


The attached chart is W/kg at 1s, 1min, 5min and 20 min. There is no 1 hour W\kg on the chart so I estimated your 20min W/kg from your 1 hour W\kg using a recognized (albiet debatable) method.


----------



## jajichan

vetboy said:


> The attached chart is W/kg at 1s, 1min, 5min and 20 min. There is no 1 hour W\kg on the chart so I estimated your 20min W/kg from your 1 hour W\kg using a recognized (albiet debatable) method.


Google Coggan's charts bud. You brought him up but seem to have no idea what it actually says. The more posts you make the more apparent it is that you don't have a clue what you're talking about. 

Again, ftp for domestic pros starts at 5.42 on Coggan's chart. Look it up.

And 1s? WTF is that about? Awesome.


----------



## jajichan

Woops. I googled it myself and it differs from WKO. In my WKO Cat 1 ends at 5.33 and Domestic Pro at 5.42, but on some of the online charts those two overlap. 

Regardless, 4.7 is not even close to either.


----------



## vetboy

jajichan said:


> Google Coggan's charts bud. You brought him up but seem to have no idea what it actually says. The more posts you make the more apparent it is that you don't have a clue what you're talking about.
> 
> Again, ftp for domestic pros starts at 5.42 on Coggan's chart. Look it up.
> 
> And 1s? WTF is that about? Awesome.


Already googled Coggins chart - in fact I attached it to a previous post. For those who weren't paying attention, I'll attach Coggins chart again

https://secure.goozmo.com/user_images/rw_1187467_7346663.jpg

1s was a typo - my bad. Chart is 5s, 1min, 5min and 20min in W\kg


----------



## jajichan

vetboy said:


> Already googled Coggins chart - in fact I attached it to a previous post. For those who weren't paying attention, I'll attach Coggins chart again
> 
> https://secure.goozmo.com/user_images/rw_1187467_7346663.jpg
> 
> 1s was a typo - my bad. Chart is 5s, 1min, 5min and 20min in W\kg


No dude, you didn't. And no, you're using fascat's chart, whatever that is. 

Like I said, you don't know what you're talking about so I'll simply leave you to your ignorance. Enjoy the bliss.


----------



## vetboy

jajichan said:


> No dude, you didn't. And no, you're using fascat's chart, whatever that is.
> 
> Like I said, you don't know what you're talking about so I'll simply leave you to your ignorance. Enjoy the bliss.


So that's a no on the wko files?


----------



## woodys737

Hey guys before this gets stoopid, I'd just like to chime in and say a 340w ftp for a cat 2 is nothing extraordinary. It's really good imo but, not outside the bell curve or anything.

jajichan-I had a really eye opening experience regarding TTing/FTP and being aero. Basically, I averaged 40w more than a guy who finished 1 second ahead of me for a 22k ITT. I thought we looked similar in stature and weight so it just blew my mind how efficient/aero he was and how brickish I was. It's a wicked long story but, I did spend a short time in a local wind tunnel which revealed a few things. The main thing I wanted to say was if you get a chance to evaluate your position I think it's worth it. At least on par with a good bike fit fwiw.


----------



## spdntrxi

woodys737 said:


> Hey guys before this gets stoopid, I'd just like to chime in and say a 340w ftp for a cat 2 is nothing extraordinary. It's really good imo but, not outside the bell curve or anything.
> 
> jajichan-I had a really eye opening experience regarding TTing/FTP and being aero. Basically, I averaged 40w more than a guy who finished 1 second ahead of me for a 22k ITT. I thought we looked similar in stature and weight so it just blew my mind how efficient/aero he was and how brickish I was. It's a wicked long story but, I did spend a short time in a local wind tunnel which revealed a few things. The main thing I wanted to say was if you get a chance to evaluate your position I think it's worth it. At least on par with a good bike fit fwiw.


Unless you weigh him.. you won't know. I outweigh everyone that I have met my height and build by atleast 15lbs.


----------



## woodys737

spdntrxi said:


> Unless you weigh him.. you won't know. I outweigh everyone that I have met my height and build by atleast 15lbs.


He stated his weight.


----------



## spdntrxi

woodys737 said:


> He stated his weight.


ok you stated it like you just eye-balled/sized him up to be similar though.


----------



## jajichan

woodys737 said:


> The main thing I wanted to say was if you get a chance to evaluate your position I think it's worth it. At least on par with a good bike fit fwiw.


Definitely. I can't hold my position. That's my biggest problem. More aggressive, less aggressive, I just can't hold it. It's just a matter of getting out and riding that position way, way more than I do. But I don't like it and don't so I go slower than I should.


----------



## woodys737

spdntrxi said:


> ok you stated it like you just eye-balled/sized him up to be similar though.


It does read that way I guess. My apologies. To be fair i had to take his word on his weight and FTP. He could have produced more power than me but not had his PM calibrated. Or worse my PM could be off! I took a leap of faith so-to-speak.


----------



## spade2you

jajichan said:


> Definitely. I can't hold my position. That's my biggest problem. More aggressive, less aggressive, I just can't hold it. It's just a matter of getting out and riding that position way, way more than I do. But I don't like it and don't so I go slower than I should.


This is why I go with a somewhat "relaxed" TT posture. My ITTs are generally ~40km and/or part of a stage race/omnium. About the only time I come out of the aeros is to climb. I have a water bottle cage behind my saddle, which allows me to stay mostly in my position. At the end of 40km, I'm happy to be done but not struggling to hold my form.


----------



## kbiker3111

vetboy said:


> Here's the chart from Fascat coaching website.
> 
> https://secure.goozmo.com/user_images/rw_1187467_7346663.jpg
> 
> If someone is doing 340 for an hour, they could likely do around 360 for 20 mins (I'm making the assumption that FTP is 95% of 20 minute power - debatable I agree). At 72kg, 360 is 5w/kg for 20 mins. Just about domestic pro on attached chart.


I can assure you from experience 4.7 w/kg is not pro. It might be pro if you can do 10w/kg for a minute and 20 w/kg for 5 seconds....


----------



## kbiker3111

Hell, I've got a cat 4 buddy who regularly does 4.5 w/kg regularly. It drops off steeply as the power duration gets shorter and he's a flyweight anyway, but the point being 4.7 w/kg FTP doesn't get you much.


----------



## Dunbar

You guys are crazy. A 4.7w/Kg FTP is pretty impressive power. Success at racing is about much more than how powerful you are. Here's a copy of the chart straight from the source:

TrainingPeaks Power Profiles for Cyclists | Bicycling


----------



## kbiker3111

Dunbar said:


> You guys are crazy. A 4.7w/Kg FTP is pretty impressive power. Success at racing is about much more than how powerful you are. Here's a copy of the chart straight from the source:
> 
> TrainingPeaks Power Profiles for Cyclists | Bicycling


FWIW, the 'source' isn't bicycling magazine, it was one of the first versions of the training peaks website. Since thats long gone, the closest you can get to the 'source' is here and the discussion that follows: Topica Email List Directory

And again, 4.7 isn't an impressive threshold for any younger male who is well trained.


----------



## Dunbar

My "source" is Andrew Coggan, the guy who came up with the table in the first place. He linked to that same chart over on Bike Forums this year so I can only assume the information is current. An FTP north of 4.5w/Kg is pretty impressive IMO. The only amateurs I've seen with 5w/Kg FTP's are retired pros (i.e., genetic freaks.)


----------



## vetboy

kbiker3111 said:


> FWIW, the 'source' isn't bicycling magazine, it was one of the first versions of the training peaks website. Since thats long gone, the closest you can get to the 'source' is here and the discussion that follows: Topica Email List Directory
> 
> And again, 4.7 isn't an impressive threshold for any younger male who is well trained.


I think this whole chart business is my fault, and I find it pretty funny. The only reason I ever mentioned any chart is because another member moaned that his 4.7w\kg FTP sucked, and I find it comical when people attempt to impress on internet forums in this way (ie downplaying what is an impressive FTP). A "what's your FTP" discussion online is kinda like a "what's your penis size" online discussion and provides very little useful information for anyone. Whether or not someone with 4.7W/kg FTP is domestic pro, cat 1 or cat 2 is irrelevant to my original point.

Now if people want to back up their FTP claims with actually PM data, then I think these discussions could actually have some relevance - we could discuss real world FTP and how they relate to racing performance. That's a discussion I would actually like to see, but it seems when impressive numbers are brought up here, some members are very reluctant to provide evidence.


----------



## Flexnuphill

47/68kg/avg 205w over a recent century.


----------



## obohlman

I'll play...

45 yrs old, started racing this year (Triathlete last 3 years) - only crits thus far, CAT4, chasing 4 points to get to 3...focus shifting to bike racing next year.

20 Min FTP test in August was 317 Watts, so 95% is 301 Watts.

Weight, 157lbs / 71kgs


----------



## jajichan

.....


----------



## jajichan

vetboy said:


> I think this whole chart business is my fault, and I find it pretty funny. The only reason I ever mentioned any chart is because another member moaned that his 4.7w\kg FTP sucked, and I find it comical when people attempt to impress on internet forums in this way (ie downplaying what is an impressive FTP). A "what's your FTP" discussion online is kinda like a "what's your penis size" online discussion and provides very little useful information for anyone. Whether or not someone with 4.7W/kg FTP is domestic pro, cat 1 or cat 2 is irrelevant to my original point.
> 
> Now if people want to back up their FTP claims with actually PM data, then I think these discussions could actually have some relevance - we could discuss real world FTP and how they relate to racing performance. That's a discussion I would actually like to see, but it seems when impressive numbers are brought up here, some members are very reluctant to provide evidence.


Yep, you're the one who screwed up the entire chart in the first place by confusing it with the women's chart. 

I said my ftp sucks compared to my other numbers, which it does. You, like so many on this site, suck at reading and are ignorant of concepts of relativity. 

Relatively speaking, my ftp may be impressive to joe bike rider, but it's completely unimpressive to any good cat 1 or above. Since I only race guys that are as good or me as better, that's who I compare myself to. 

Is that really that hard to understand in a RACING forum?


----------



## Dunbar

Some of us were just objecting to some of the numbers being tossed around as "average" or "nothing special." Cat 1 is one notch below domestic pro so by definition includes the very best amateur racers. There is obviously much more to racing than power numbers.


----------



## Alex_Simmons/RST

An younger adult male with average physiology (i.e. population average VO2max, average gross efficiency cycling and typical fractional utilisation of VO2max at threshold) and morphology along with some reasonable training would have a threshold power in the vicinity of 3.9 W/kg.

I would consider that to be an average threshold power for a modestly trained young adult male in a first world nation.

What adjectives one considers suitable for riders with power outputs above that is of course somewhat subjective.

And what benchmark one uses of course then sets new relative scales.

Coggan's power profiling tables reported the range of threshold power/weight that riders at various levels of racing typically exhibit, and pinned the top of the chart to known best performances from riders with no known doping history/suspicion. Of course the purpose of such charts is not to define one's racing cat, but to understand their power profile.

If you are racing Cat 1 or 2 (successfully), then you are already well above average.


----------



## jajichan

Dunbar said:


> Some of us were just objecting to some of the numbers being tossed around as "average" or "nothing special." Cat 1 is one notch below domestic pro so by definition includes the very best amateur racers. There is obviously much more to racing than power numbers.



vetboy erroneously asserted that a certain w/kg was almost pro level, which it wasn't and isn't and won't ever be. That's what started the whole discussion. To give further evidence of why vetboy was wrong, more examples of racers having such a w/kg and NOT being a pro (or anything even remotely resembling one) were given. 

And in the context of that discussion when compared with pro numbers (not with you or someone who rolls off the couch and rides a bike), it really isn't anything special. Context matters. 

That's the crux of the whole matter: 4.7 w/kg is not pro-level ability. Unless you're a woman.


----------



## Cableguy

kbiker3111 said:


> And again, 4.7 isn't an impressive threshold for any younger male who is well trained.


What is your FTP ratio btw?


----------



## kbiker3111

Cableguy said:


> What is your FTP ratio btw?


4.2-4.5 depending on how many cookies I've been eating lately. I regularly get dropped on long steep climbs by non-pros and occasionally by cat 4s.


----------



## serious

kbiker3111 said:


> And again, 4.7 isn't an impressive threshold for any younger male who is well trained.


This suggests that anyone can get to 4.7. And that is pure fantasy.


----------



## vetboy

jajichan said:


> vetboy erroneously asserted that a certain w/kg was almost pro level, which it wasn't and isn't and won't ever be. That's what started the whole discussion. To give further evidence of why vetboy was wrong, more examples of racers having such a w/kg and NOT being a pro (or anything even remotely resembling one) were given.
> 
> And in the context of that discussion when compared with pro numbers (not with you or someone who rolls off the couch and rides a bike), it really isn't anything special. Context matters.
> 
> That's the crux of the whole matter: 4.7 w/kg is not pro-level ability. Unless you're a woman.


Actually, Vetboy only called you out for downplaying your claimed FTP. The rest was just some fun in response to your aggressive and off-putting debating style.


----------



## kbiker3111

serious said:


> This suggests that anyone can get to 4.7. And that is pure fantasy.


I believe any younger, healthy male can get to 4.7 w/kg through good training. I'm a natural fast-twitcher and very tall (ie not naturally light) and I can get within spitting distance of 4.7 w/kg ftp and regularly do 4.8 for 20 min on <13 hrs/week . A smaller, more slow twitch oriented rider should be able to make 4.7 w/o much trouble. Hell, I think ex weightlifter/35+ wookiebiker has seen 4.7. The key of course is weight loss.

IIRC, my original intent was to say 4.7 for 20 min is common, perhaps that got mixed up along the way. Anyway, FTP of 4.7 w/kg should be genetically attainable for just about anyone. Motivation and time are a completely different story.


----------



## Alex_Simmons/RST

kbiker3111 said:


> I believe any younger, healthy male can get to 4.7 w/kg through good training.


You might believe that, but it doesn't change the facts that in order to do it requires they possesses above average physiological characteristics to begin with.

With GE of 22.5% (typical for well trained cyclists and even pros) and fractional utilisation of VO2max at threshold of 86% (that's well trained), you'd need a VO2max of 71 ml/min/kg to have a threshold of 4.7W/kg.

If you pushed up to 90% fractional VO2max at threshold (that's pretty much the limit), it still requires a VO2max of 67 ml/kg/min.

I'm sorry, but that sort of VO2max just isn't available to every young healthy male, no matter how much or what sort of training they do.


----------



## kbiker3111

Alex_Simmons/RST said:


> You might believe that, but it doesn't change the facts that in order to do it requires they possesses above average physiological characteristics to begin with.
> 
> With GE of 22.5% (typical for well trained cyclists and even pros) and fractional utilisation of VO2max at threshold of 86% (that's well trained), you'd need a VO2max of 71 ml/min/kg to have a threshold of 4.7W/kg.
> 
> If you pushed up to 90% fractional VO2max at threshold (that's pretty much the limit), it still requires a VO2max of 67 ml/kg/min.
> 
> I'm sorry, but that sort of VO2max just isn't available to every young healthy male, no matter how much or what sort of training they do.


A vo2max of 71 is atypical for a well trained male with <10% body fat? I realize most of the literature lists anything above 50 ml/kg/min as 'outstanding'. 71 corresponds to an absolute VO2 of ~5L/min (+- .5) for your average male. The hard part is losing weight. That doesn't seem exceptionally high, but perhaps I've seen too many reports of 90's era bike racer physiology.


----------



## vetboy

kbiker3111 said:


> A vo2max of 71 is atypical for a well trained male with <10% body fat? I realize most of the literature lists anything above 50 ml/kg/min as 'outstanding'. 71 corresponds to an absolute VO2 of ~5L/min (+- .5) for your average male. The hard part is losing weight. That doesn't seem exceptionally high, but perhaps I've seen too many reports of 90's era bike racer physiology.



71ml/kg/min is very typical in internet chat rooms. In the real world...


----------



## swuzzlebubble

Alex_Simmons/RST said:


> You might believe that, but it doesn't change the facts that in order to do it requires they possesses above average physiological characteristics to begin with.
> 
> With GE of 22.5% (typical for well trained cyclists and even pros) and fractional utilisation of VO2max at threshold of 86% (that's well trained), you'd need a VO2max of 71 ml/min/kg to have a threshold of 4.7W/kg.
> 
> If you pushed up to 90% fractional VO2max at threshold (that's pretty much the limit), it still requires a VO2max of 67 ml/kg/min.
> 
> I'm sorry, but that sort of VO2max just isn't available to every young healthy male, no matter how much or what sort of training they do.


Alex what is your preffered conversion from power to Vo2 Max?
Is [(10.8 x W)/M] + 7 any good? - I think that is used with CP20?
What power duration do you use?


----------



## Cableguy

kbiker3111 said:


> 4.2-4.5 depending on how many cookies I've been eating lately. I regularly get dropped on long steep climbs by non-pros and occasionally by cat 4s.


You have (or at least claim) a very respectable FTP weight ratio IMO, but by your own account it would seem you should be doing better considering it's not even impressive for a young male to be at 4.7. So, are you just a slacker or what? 

The reason I said "claim" above is some people are just incapable of telling the truth when it comes to things like this. I know a rider who claims he can do 340w on his time trial bike for an hour. He can't weigh more than 170lb, so that would put him at 4.4w/kg or more... yet I tend to drop him on just about everything and my absolute best is 3.9 w/kg. He does in fact have a powermeter, so I honestly don't understand what the hell he's talking about. I guess he's just delusional, and this isn't even on the internet mind you.


----------



## jajichan

vetboy said:


> Actually, Vetboy only called you out for downplaying your claimed FTP. The rest was just some fun in response to your aggressive and off-putting debating style.


Yeah, facts can indeed be offputting to those who argue about things they don't know about.


----------



## spade2you

Sin título by spade2you at Garmin Connect - Details

This is the closest I have to a FTP test in the 2nd half of the year. I was probably somewhere around 120lbs on this day. 

20 minute power test by spade2you at Garmin Connect - Details

20 minute power test from Feb. Weighed 125lbs at that time.


----------



## jajichan

kbiker3111 said:


> A vo2max of 71 is atypical for a well trained male with <10% body fat? I realize most of the literature lists anything above 50 ml/kg/min as 'outstanding'. 71 corresponds to an absolute VO2 of ~5L/min (+- .5) for your average male. The hard part is losing weight. That doesn't seem exceptionally high, but perhaps I've seen too many reports of 90's era bike racer physiology.



70s is really, really high. The 2-3 guys I know that have been tested with numbers that high are freaking phenoms. Like 5s to 1s in two years time type stuff. Maybe it's because not many people get the test done, but it really seems a bit rare.

A national team member I knew only had one in the high 50s so vo2 max is certainly not everything, but something in the 70s is pretty astounding.


----------



## jajichan

Cableguy said:


> You have (or at least claim) a very respectable FTP weight ratio IMO, but by your own account it would seem you should be doing better considering it's not even impressive for a young male to be at 4.7. So, are you just a slacker or what?
> 
> The reason I said "claim" above is some people are just incapable of telling the truth when it comes to things like this. I know a rider who claims he can do 340w on his time trial bike for an hour. He can't weigh more than 170lb, so that would put him at 4.4w/kg or more... yet I tend to drop him on just about everything and my absolute best is 3.9 w/kg. He does in fact have a powermeter, so I honestly don't understand what the hell he's talking about. I guess he's just delusional, and this isn't even on the internet mind you.


Or your short duration output is much higher than his. 

That's perfectly feasible. I have been beaten in long time trials by cat 4s and 5s as a Cat 2. But there's no way they could hang in a p/1/2 race. 

Some people are better at other things. That's perfectly normal. Watch a grand tour. It's really pronounced at that level.


----------



## kbiker3111

spade2you said:


> Sin título by spade2you at Garmin Connect - Details
> 
> This is the closest I have to a FTP test in the 2nd half of the year. I was probably somewhere around 120lbs on this day.
> 
> 20 minute power test by spade2you at Garmin Connect - Details
> 
> 20 minute power test from Feb. Weighed 125lbs at that time.


So almost 4.4 w/kg for 20 min? Pretty good for a father of small children non sprinter.


Pretty good


----------



## spade2you

kbiker3111 said:


> So almost 4.4 w/kg for 20 min? Pretty good for a father of small children non sprinter.
> 
> 
> Pretty good


Thanks! Hoping to improve upon that next year. Used to cash out vacation time for a little extra dough and won't be able to do that in 2015. I've been there long enough that this means I'll need to take more time off during the season.

Had a really crappy race season this year. Weather was very cold and wet for the early season. Got sick during another race weekend. Stuck working all other race weekends but the state games ITT. Shouldn't be hard to get some better results given the entire lack this year.


----------



## kbiker3111

swuzzlebubble said:


> Alex what is your preffered conversion from power to Vo2 Max?
> Is [(10.8 x W)/M] + 7 any good? - I think that is used with CP20?
> What power duration do you use?


VO2 = [W/KG]*60/21.12/[GE] in L/min/kg

W/KG is the watts per kilogram necessary to elicit VO2max (typically 75-90% FTP, usually ~max 5-8min power)
GE is gross efficiency, typically somewhere btw 20-24% (unless you're a late 90s professional)


----------



## kbiker3111

Cableguy said:


> You have (or at least claim) a very respectable FTP weight ratio IMO, but by your own account it would seem you should be doing better considering it's not even impressive for a young male to be at 4.7. So, are you just a slacker or what?


Yup, I'm a bit of a slacker. I've always admired those racers who can train their brains out day after day, but I need to pace myself a bit more. That combined with 3 leg surgeries in 3 years and a full time job and I'm fairly sure I'm not limited entirely by genetics. 

Even if I did get the extra couple tenths at FTP, I doubt it would help much. I get most of my results with hard 1-6 minute efforts and I'm mindful not to forget to train the short efforts.



> The reason I said "claim" above is some people are just incapable of telling the truth when it comes to things like this. I know a rider who claims he can do 340w on his time trial bike for an hour. He can't weigh more than 170lb, so that would put him at 4.4w/kg or more... yet I tend to drop him on just about everything and my absolute best is 3.9 w/kg. He does in fact have a powermeter, so I honestly don't understand what the hell he's talking about. I guess he's just delusional, and this isn't even on the internet mind you.


That is a problem in this modern age. I have similar friends, who manage to do amazing numbers (and occasionally have the files to prove it) but can't muster anything above a top 10 in a hilly cat 4 race. Some of this is the nature of power at different durations, part of it is tactics and part of it is the confidence to perform.


----------



## spade2you

kbiker3111 said:


> That is a problem in this modern age. I have similar friends, who manage to do amazing numbers (and occasionally have the files to prove it) but can't muster anything above a top 10 in a hilly cat 4 race. Some of this is the nature of power at different durations, part of it is tactics and part of it is the confidence to perform.


Could also be that they're peaking at the wrong times. I've done that once or twice.


----------



## vetboy

Alex_Simmons/RST said:


> You might believe that, but it doesn't change the facts that in order to do it requires they possesses above average physiological characteristics to begin with.
> 
> With GE of 22.5% (typical for well trained cyclists and even pros) and fractional utilisation of VO2max at threshold of 86% (that's well trained), you'd need a VO2max of 71 ml/min/kg to have a threshold of 4.7W/kg.
> 
> If you pushed up to 90% fractional VO2max at threshold (that's pretty much the limit), it still requires a VO2max of 67 ml/kg/min.
> 
> I'm sorry, but that sort of VO2max just isn't available to every young healthy male, no matter how much or what sort of training they do.





jajichan said:


> 70s is really, really high. The 2-3 guys I know that have been tested with numbers that high are freaking phenoms. Like 5s to 1s in two years time type stuff. Maybe it's because not many people get the test done, but it really seems a bit rare.
> 
> A national team member I knew only had one in the high 50s so vo2 max is certainly not everything, but something in the 70s is pretty astounding.


Now I'm confused. Alex succinctly demonstrated how a VO2 max of 71mls/kg/min is required to have a FTP of 4.7W/Kg. Yet you (Jaji) say 4.7W/Kg is commonplace and 71ml/kg/min is rare.


----------



## kbiker3111

vetboy said:


> Now I'm confused. Alex succinctly demonstrated how a VO2 max of 71mls/kg/min is required to have a FTP of 4.7W/Kg. Yet you (Jaji) say 4.7W/Kg is commonplace and 71ml/kg/min is rare.


Well, Alex really gave _an example_ of a VO2max that could reach 4.7 w/kg. A range of VO2max values exists something like 62-90 ml/min/kg (i suppose there really is no upper limit) that would be physiologically plausible at 4.7 W/kg


----------



## Cableguy

jajichan said:


> Or your short duration output is much higher than his.


No I excel at long steady efforts... during which I would drop him. Just an example of someone finding a way to greatly over estimate their ability.


----------



## jajichan

vetboy said:


> Now I'm confused. Alex succinctly demonstrated how a VO2 max of 71mls/kg/min is required to have a FTP of 4.7W/Kg. Yet you (Jaji) say 4.7W/Kg is commonplace and 71ml/kg/min is rare.


No, you've been confused. That your confusion grows is no surprise.


----------



## jajichan

kbiker3111 said:


> Well, Alex really gave _an example_ of a VO2max that could reach 4.7 w/kg. A range of VO2max values exists something like 62-90 ml/min/kg (i suppose there really is no upper limit) that would be *physiologically plausible at 4.7 W/kg*


And higher. There's a lot of variance with vo2 max even at the world tour level. Clearly it's not a physiological given that a specific VO2 max elicits a certain ability level.


----------



## vetboy

jajichan said:


> No, you've been confused. That your confusion grows is no surprise.


Bazinga


----------



## spade2you

I don't care for the uber in depth over analysis, but it's sure better than people neg reppin' over politics or doperz.


----------



## swuzzlebubble

kbiker3111 said:


> VO2 = [W/KG]*60/21.12/[GE] in L/min/kg
> 
> W/KG is the watts per kilogram necessary to elicit VO2max (typically 75-90% FTP, usually ~max 5-8min power)
> GE is gross efficiency, typically somewhere btw 20-24% (unless you're a late 90s professional)


So at 20% GE, you'd need 5w/kg at V02max to have Vo2 of 71L/min/kg
?


----------



## vetboy

kbiker3111 said:


> Well, Alex really gave _an example_ of a VO2max that could reach 4.7 w/kg. A range of VO2max values exists something like 62-90 ml/min/kg (i suppose there really is no upper limit) that would be physiologically plausible at 4.7 W/kg


You may have missed my point


----------



## Sumguy1

I hate to be that guy but,
many many people train to numbers and fail at actually racing - that passion thing and the absolute unwillingness to not do their best by BEATING the other guys. You have to commit to passing as many people as possible at the right times. Otherwise it's just a mass TT and that's not a recognized event. At least not yet.


----------



## kbiker3111

vetboy said:


> You may have missed my point


Intentionally


----------



## serious

kbiker3111 said:


> I believe any younger, healthy male can get to 4.7 w/kg through good training. I'm a natural fast-twitcher and very tall (ie not naturally light) and I can get within spitting distance of 4.7 w/kg ftp and regularly do 4.8 for 20 min on <13 hrs/week . A smaller, more slow twitch oriented rider should be able to make 4.7 w/o much trouble. Hell, I think ex weightlifter/35+ wookiebiker has seen 4.7. The key of course is weight loss.
> 
> IIRC, my original intent was to say 4.7 for 20 min is common, perhaps that got mixed up along the way. Anyway, FTP of 4.7 w/kg should be genetically attainable for just about anyone. Motivation and time are a completely different story.


No! You don't know what you are talking about. 4.7 for 20 min is not common and 4.7 for 60 min is next to impossible without help from genetics. There are tens of thousands of riders that train very hard and will never even come close.


----------



## vetboy

kbiker3111 said:


> Intentionally


Fair enough. Do you consider people with VO2 max values between 62-90mls/kg/min to be average or above average?


----------



## Duane Gran

Dunbar said:


> You guys are crazy. A 4.7w/Kg FTP is pretty impressive power. Success at racing is about much more than how powerful you are.


I'm at 4.7 and it puts me a pointy end of cat 3/4 racing and definitely head and shoulders above the typical gran fondo rider, but there are few competitive opportunities where the person who suffers deep for an hour the best wins. I've ridden with people where I'm nose breathing a climb that makes them suffer only to have them school me hard in a short sprint. Most racing success is determined by short (5 min and under) power ability. A good FTP keeps keeps you a little fresher but as impressive as a 4.7 w/kg number may be, in a competitive situation I often find myself saying that I would have come out on top if only the hard stuff lasted a lot longer.

My stats, just to contribute to the main question...

41 yo, 143 lbs / 64kg, 300w / 4.7w/kg


----------



## Duane Gran

serious said:


> 4.7 for 20 min is not common and 4.7 for 60 min is next to impossible without help from genetics. There are tens of thousands of riders that train very hard and will never even come close.


I tend to agree. Those of us who like to do this sport have self selected because we are good at endurance exercise and we hang out around others who have a knack for it. We were the kids who ran the one mile race in track but still thought it was a short race while others couldn't imagine going more than 400 meters of running. In the circle jerk of endurance cyclists it is easy to lose perspective. I've heard, and believe, that the average person tops out at 250w FTP.


----------



## aclinjury

spade2you said:


> Sin título by spade2you at Garmin Connect - Details
> 
> This is the closest I have to a FTP test in the 2nd half of the year. I was probably somewhere around 120lbs on this day.
> 
> 20 minute power test by spade2you at Garmin Connect - Details
> 
> 20 minute power test from Feb. Weighed 125lbs at that time.


You're around my weight (and height) neighborhood. I'm 5'7", 117lbs. I'd say those are definitely respectable numbers for a weekend athlete.


----------



## vetboy

Duane Gran said:


> I'm at 4.7 and it puts me a pointy end of cat 3/4 racing and definitely head and shoulders above the typical gran fondo rider, but there are few competitive opportunities where the person who suffers deep for an hour the best wins. I've ridden with people where I'm nose breathing a climb that makes them suffer only to have them school me hard in a short sprint. Most racing success is determined by short (5 min and under) power ability. A good FTP keeps keeps you a little fresher but as impressive as a 4.7 w/kg number may be, in a competitive situation I often find myself saying that I would have come out on top if only the hard stuff lasted a lot longer.
> 
> My stats, just to contribute to the main question...
> 
> 41 yo, 143 lbs / 64kg, 300w / 4.7w/kg


May I ask what method you used to determine your ftp? Would you be willing to show us some files? Lord knows it would lift this thread out of the ditch.


----------



## ucfquattroguy

Holy hell there are some big numbers being thrown around this thread. Do any of you guys with 4+w/kg have jobs and/or families with kids? 

Looking back at some of my estimated data (using KK Road Machine assumed power curve), my 20min is right at 3.5w/kg (puts my estimated 60min FTP at 3.3w/kg or so). My training? 1 HIIT workout between 45-70min on the trainer during the week with a ride of 2.5hrs+ on either Saturday or Sunday (sometimes group, sometimes solo). 

30yrs old. 
Current weight is 158lbs/72kg. 
20min estimated wattage is 251w. 
60min using the 93% assumption is 233w.

I know the KK calculated power curve isn't perfect, but it does exactly what I want it to: Compare my current performances against my past performances with the same set of variables.

Carry on...


----------



## kbiker3111

ucfquattroguy said:


> ...I know the KK calculated power curve isn't perfect, but it does exactly what I want it to: Compare my current performances against my past performances with the same set of variables.


Its great that you recognize that but it totally negates the sharing of numbers above it.


----------



## spade2you

ucfquattroguy said:


> Holy hell there are some big numbers being thrown around this thread. Do any of you guys with 4+w/kg have jobs and/or families with kids?


Demanding job, wife, toddler. My trick is to follow the Friel plan as closely as my schedule allows. This often means time on the trainer after everyone has gone to bed. 

While my FTP numbers look good, my short bursts aren't very good and my sprint isn't even worth calling a sprint. These would be more useful to my area, but I'm pleased with how I do in ITTs.


----------



## Alex_Simmons/RST

swuzzlebubble said:


> Alex what is your preffered conversion from power to Vo2 Max?
> Is [(10.8 x W)/M] + 7 any good? - I think that is used with CP20?
> What power duration do you use?


See here for my explanation:
Alex's Cycle Blog: Looking under the hood


FTP = Energy per litre O2 (J) x VO2max (ml/kg/min) x Fractional VO2max at threshold (%) x GME (%) / 60 (seconds/minute) / 1000 (ml/litre)

e.g. 
Energy per litre of O2: 20,900 joules (refer above link for details it can be a little variable)
VO2max: 65ml/kg/min (say)
Fractional utilsation of VO2max at threshold: 80% (say)
Gross mechanical efficiency: 22% (say)

FTP = 20,900J x 65ml/kg/min x 0.80 x 0.22 / 60,000 = 3.98W/kg

You could substitute 20-min power for FTP in that formula, however that then begins to bring in more variability with anaerobic contribution which differs a lot between riders and is not accounted for in such formula.

In terms of estimating VO2max from power directly, you can do this from examining the quasi steady state power level reached during an effort such as a well paced individual pursuit over 3-5 minutes, and then applying an assumption on GME and use 100% as fractional VO2 value.

e.g. in a paracycling pursuit a few years ago, after the initial higher power acceleration phase I settled into averaged 346W for the quasi steady state portion of the event.

346W/74kg = 20,900 x V ml/kg/min x 100% x 0.225 /60000

flip that round to solve for V

V = (346/74) x 60000 / (20900 x 1 x 0.225) = 59.7 ml/kg/min


----------



## Alex_Simmons/RST

kbiker3111 said:


> Well, Alex really gave _an example_ of a VO2max that could reach 4.7 w/kg. A range of VO2max values exists something like 62-90 ml/min/kg (i suppose there really is no upper limit) that would be physiologically plausible at 4.7 W/kg


Yes, and you can make an assessment on what's "plausible" to attain such a W/kg value given a range of assumptions with the charts in this blog item:

Alex's Cycle Blog: Looking under the hood

e.g at 85% fractional utilisation (well trained), to attain 4.7W/kg

with a GME of 19% you'd need a VO2 max of ~84 ml/kg/min
with a GME of 24% you'd need a VO2 max of ~66 ml/kg/min

if you were able to attain 90% fractional utilisation with a GME of 24%, then you'd need a VO2 max of ~ 63 ml/kg/min


----------



## Alex_Simmons/RST

swuzzlebubble said:


> So at 20% GE, you'd need 5w/kg at V02max to have Vo2 of 71L/min/kg
> ?


yes (that assumes a higher energy yield from O2 than I tend to use - 20.9kJ per litre)

keep in mind that power at threshold will of course be a fraction of the power at VO2max, and power at VO2 max is a little tricky as VO2max can be induced at a wide range of powers and has some contribution from anaerobic energy metabolism, which is why I tend to prefer the quasi steady state portion of a well paced pursuit style effort.

Along the lines of parsing out (functionally) the "aerobic" and "anaerobic" contributions as described in the following blog item, although in reality it's hard to place such distinctions as that as you can never really divorce them:

Alex's Cycle Blog: Anaerobic Stuff - Mr Peabody's WABAC Machine


----------



## swuzzlebubble

Alex_Simmons/RST said:


> yes (that assumes a higher energy yield from O2 than I tend to use - 20.9kJ per litre)
> 
> keep in mind that power at threshold will of course be a fraction of the power at VO2max, and power at VO2 max is a little tricky as VO2max can be induced at a wide range of powers and has some contribution from anaerobic energy metabolism, which is why I tend to prefer the quasi steady state portion of a well paced pursuit style effort.
> 
> Along the lines of parsing out (functionally) the "aerobic" and "anaerobic" contributions as described in the following blog item, although in reality it's hard to place such distinctions as that as you can never really divorce them:
> 
> Alex's Cycle Blog: Anaerobic Stuff - Mr Peabody's WABAC Machine


I wonder if/where would MAOD fit into the W'Bal model (in Golden Cheetah?


----------



## spade2you

aclinjury said:


> You're around my weight (and height) neighborhood. I'm 5'7", 117lbs. I'd say those are definitely respectable numbers for a weekend athlete.


Thanks. I hope to improve on those numbers as well as find some races where my power to weight is much more useful. My lack of racing this year has me very hungry for training and results. Who knows, perhaps I can make it down to 117lbs or so this winter.


----------



## jajichan

ucfquattroguy said:


> Holy hell there are some big numbers being thrown around this thread. Do any of you guys with 4+w/kg have jobs and/or families with kids?


Of course. 

Train smarter, not harder. Well, maybe harder, too.


----------



## Alex_Simmons/RST

Pithy Power Proverb: Choose your parents wisely.


----------



## Alex_Simmons/RST

swuzzlebubble said:


> I wonder if/where would MAOD fit into the W'Bal model (in Golden Cheetah?


Well for starters it's based on VO2max and O2 uptake kinetics, so it's a slightly different thing, but it's similar enough in principle and I think my 2007 Darth Vader blog post was first time the principle of tracking this "reserve supra threshold capacity" while riding, or post hoc assessing how it tracked during a ride it was discussed publicly.

I think the issue is trying to make a distinction between aerobic and anaerobic when really that's pretty difficult, if not impossible, to do from power meter data as it's all a mash. Only need to look at the number of times W'bal goes negative or not close to zero but riders blow, to see why this approach has its problems at times, but nonetheless it has its uses as well and no doubt the modelling is improving.

Hence why Dr Coggan is taking a practical approach with Functional Reserve Capacity (FRC, measured in Joules), and Pmax (maximal peak power) to complement Functional Threshold Power. In that way you focus on what your actual power and energy output capabilities are, and use the entire mean maximal power-duration curve to define them, rather than attempting to assign them to a particular metabolic energy system and rely on a CP model based on a pretty narrow band of the P-D curve.


----------



## serious

Alex_Simmons/RST said:


> Pithy Power Proverb: Choose your parents wisely.


Yep. After a lifetime of training and competing in track, bodybuilding and mountain biking, I have seen what genetics means to performance. Especially in bodybuilding. 

As they say, genetics decides your potential and hard work decides how close you come to that potential.


----------



## spade2you

Alex_Simmons/RST said:


> Pithy Power Proverb: Choose your parents wisely.


Does the average day job and family man have enough time to train for genetics to come into play? 

FWIW, I gre up with debilitating asthma and could barely run down the street without having an asthma attack. Finally started to get over it in my early 20s. Never really figured I'd be racing.


----------



## RaptorTC

It always does surprise me to see people with 4.0+ FTP's struggling in 4's. But I've seen it first hand so I definitely believe the claims. One of my buddies popped out a 4.3 last week and can pull hard for days, but struggles to crack the top 10 in Cat 4 races.

Meanwhile, I'm sitting at 3.8 on a good day and I'd consider myself to be a competent Cat 3 with a win and some top 10's this season (my first in 3's). That being said, my 5sec numbers are comfortably "cat 1" according to the aforementioned Coggan chart (19.73 w/kg). 

A whole lot more goes into racing well than FTP. Shorter term power, instincts, cornering, drafting, and much more also influence whether or not someone can race successfully.


----------



## jajichan

spade2you said:


> Does the average day job and family man have enough time to train for genetics to come into play?


I think a more useful question would be: would it matter?

Unless you're a serious genetic super freak who goes from a 5 to a 1 in one season, would it really be worth it to you to take (probably) a far less-paying job and see your family that much less and/or spend less quality time with them to chase a huge "maybe" in genetic potential (which of course is by no means a sure thing in pro sport where lots of other factors come into play). 

Pro sport is, in the vast majority of cases, a sport for dudes that either have it at 21-22 or don't. It's the rare specimen that comes on late and really comes on strong in the big leagues.


----------



## Alex_Simmons/RST

spade2you said:


> Does the average day job and family man have enough time to train for genetics to come into play?


Some guys are 4+W/kg when unfit, some are 2W/kg when unfit, so yes, it matters because you not only start from a different level, but how you respond to the limited training you do also varies. Some respond faster than others.

I have a client that will get to 5W/kg on 6-8 hours / week.


----------



## Alex_Simmons/RST

RaptorTC said:


> It always does surprise me to see people with 4.0+ FTP's struggling in 4's. But I've seen it first hand so I definitely believe the claims. One of my buddies popped out a 4.3 last week and can pull hard for days, but struggles to crack the top 10 in Cat 4 races.
> 
> Meanwhile, I'm sitting at 3.8 on a good day and I'd consider myself to be a competent Cat 3 with a win and some top 10's this season (my first in 3's). That being said, my 5sec numbers are comfortably "cat 1" according to the aforementioned Coggan chart (19.73 w/kg).
> 
> A whole lot more goes into racing well than FTP. Shorter term power, instincts, cornering, drafting, and much more also influence whether or not someone can race successfully.


Being fitter give you more options but racing is very much about how cleverly you use then engine you have.

Guys with a sprint really only need enough to be there at the end and fresh enough to contest. The craftier they are at minimising their effort during the race, the better they will be at the end.

Another pithy power proverb: 
"Maximise the power you can produce, minimise the power you must produce" - Jim Martin


----------



## swuzzlebubble

Some guys in lower grades are not too fussed about results either. IE Happy to be involved in the action, string the group out, go with breaks etc for fun of it rather than sit in waiting for bunch kick.


----------



## spade2you

RaptorTC said:


> It always does surprise me to see people with 4.0+ FTP's struggling in 4's. But I've seen it first hand so I definitely believe the claims. One of my buddies popped out a 4.3 last week and can pull hard for days, but struggles to crack the top 10 in Cat 4 races.
> 
> Meanwhile, I'm sitting at 3.8 on a good day and I'd consider myself to be a competent Cat 3 with a win and some top 10's this season (my first in 3's). That being said, my 5sec numbers are comfortably "cat 1" according to the aforementioned Coggan chart (19.73 w/kg).
> 
> A whole lot more goes into racing well than FTP. Shorter term power, instincts, cornering, drafting, and much more also influence whether or not someone can race successfully.


My power to weight isn't very useful in my area. Not enough climbing in most of my races for it to matter. The one climbing race in my area is so early in the season that weather can whoop me and sometimes it's combined with Cat 3. 

Lack of climbing aside, Cat 4 can be a very mixed bag. I did very poorly several years ago because of some really strong riders that are now doing very well in the Cat 1-2 stuff. Some of the older riders are empty nesters and/or semi-retired, which allows them to train more. My area is also very small, which forces organizers to combine Cat 1-3. Some strong riders hang around 4 simply because they know they'd struggle in the 1,2,3 races.


----------



## kbiker3111

I think what may be getting lost in this discussion is the importance of hitting a really low weight if your goal is a high w/kg. If you're not tall (ie, <6 ft), it isn't impossible or necessarily unhealthy to get under 155 lbs. At that weight (<70 kg) its much easier to achieve 4.5 w/kg (which is somewhere between completely pedestrian and pro-level).

I'm not saying FTP w/kg are the be all end all. As Spade points out, there are plenty of courses where climbing ability is of little benefit. However, if your goal is not to get dropped on climbs cutting out beer and dessert is just as important as making the SRM put out bigger numbers.


----------



## spade2you

Agreed. I think it's just a standard that somehow became the standard. I think the important part is utilizing it to set realistic goals. For a guy like me to shoot for a FTP of 300w would be more than a little unrealistic where a bigger rider could hit this target. Other training numbers can be more important in lots of races as is strategy. 

I recently found a triathlete who has very similar power numbers on a TT course. She's much taller and has a normal build. No aero helmet, no disc, and not the most aggressive posture. I think I put about 3-4 minutes on her, catching and passing her on a downhill.


----------



## Wookiebiker

kbiker3111 said:


> Hell, I think ex weightlifter/35+ wookiebiker has seen 4.7. The key of course is weight loss.


I've never quite seen 4.7 w/kg for an FTP ... the closest I got this past season was 4.26 w/kg on a hill climb, though I think I could have got at least another 5 watts out of the effort due to a car slowing me down during a shorter downhill section where I couldn't pedal for a bit.

I was 177 pounds for this effort and averaged 340 watts for just under 1 hour (59:38 was my time I believe).









Weight is a huge factor, but at some point you can't drop weight any longer and you need to be able to add power. I'll never hit 4.7 w/kg, but if I had been a serious rider in my 20's might have ... and it would have put me no where close to what even a domestic pro can do ... I've ridden with a few and can't hold a candle to what they do.

With that said ... in the past, when I weighed a little more, I put out more power, but my w/kg was lower (in the 4.15 range). My goal next year is to add some power and retain the mid 170's weight ... something in the 175 and 355-360 watt FTP range (4.45 - 4.5 w/kg range).

As it is, I'm a pretty strong masters 40+ racer, but on steep climbs ... I get roasted by the fast guys every time. I do tend to make it up on the flats though


----------



## Andy STi

ucfquattroguy said:


> Holy hell there are some big numbers being thrown around this thread. Do any of you guys with 4+w/kg have jobs and/or families with kids?


I'm a mid-forties masters racer who gets to race with Wookie every once in a while. I have 2 kids, wife, busy job, weekend soccer, camping trips, vacation, blah, blah...I'm right about 4.37w/kg. I train 12-14hrs a week typically. I don't think that is an unusual number for most competetive masters racers.


----------



## 41ants

360 for about 25 minutes. Not impressive in that I am not all that flexible and I have horrid pedaling efficiency, which means I don't put that power to good use. I keep trying to work on the yoga, core, and flexibility with hopes of getting more efficient. Problem now is that I rather drink beer and have fun riding my xc bike in the dirt. I don't use wko, so no file to share, but I probably have a garmin file or link somewhere. Just have to remember the day i did that test/tt. :thumbsup:


----------



## Got Time

Where/how do you measure those 360W such that your "horrid pedaling efficiency" prevents you to "put that power to good use"?

Whether "360 for about 25 minutes" is "impressive" depends a lot on your weight...


----------



## 41ants

Got Time said:


> Where/how do you measure those 360W such that your "horrid pedaling efficiency" prevents you to "put that power to good use"?
> 
> Whether "360 for about 25 minutes" is "impressive" depends a lot on your weight...


L/R leg imbalances due to injuries that has caused one leg to be longer. My pedal stroke is not smooth and I think that causes my power output to spike all over the places. Granted, I have only ever done one road TT and it was on my road bike instead of a time trial bike.

Here is the link. I basically started my Garmin from the parking lot from which I rode my bike to the TT and I didn't hit the stop button until a little bit after the finish. 

Untitled by 41ants at Garmin Connect - Details


----------



## kbiker3111

41ants said:


> L/R leg imbalances due to injuries that has caused one leg to be longer. My pedal stroke is not smooth and I think that causes my power output to spike all over the places. Granted, I have only ever done one road TT and it was on my road bike instead of a time trial bike.
> 
> Here is the link. I basically started my Garmin from the parking lot from which I rode my bike to the TT and I didn't hit the stop button until a little bit after the finish.
> 
> Untitled by 41ants at Garmin Connect - Details


I'm waiting for alex to chime in, but if the power is measured on the bike its going to the road, no matter what your 'efficiency', 'balance', or 'smoothness'.


----------



## Alex_Simmons/RST

kbiker3111 said:


> I'm waiting for alex to chime in, but if the power is measured on the bike its going to the road, no matter what your 'efficiency', 'balance', or 'smoothness'.


No power meter measures efficiency. The only losses between power measured at the pedals and the road are drivetrain/mechanical related (typically ~2-3% for good drivetrains), and not human physiological.


----------



## 41ants

I was speaking in terms of physiological efficiency. The extreme would be if I were to try and repeat that same power number over the same period of time standing out of the saddle it would be much more difficult and taxing on the body, not to mention aerodynamics. No, the power meter couldn't detect it, but I certainly would be able to detect it.


----------



## Alex_Simmons/RST

41ants said:


> I was speaking in terms of physiological efficiency. The extreme would be if I were to try and repeat that same power number over the same period of time standing out of the saddle it would be much more difficult and taxing on the body, not to mention aerodynamics. No, the power meter couldn't detect it, but I certainly would be able to detect it.


OK, no problem. 

Your original post suggested that your "horrid pedalling efficiency" meant you were "not putting my power to good use". That's a little confusing, since the power you put out already accounts for your physiological efficiency, amongst other things.

If you have lower efficiency, then the rate of energy metabolised is higher for the same crank power output, which I think is what you meant.

As for pedalling style and efficiency, you might be surprised as to what the link between them is, or isn't. Here's a published study to chew over for your interest:
http://img2.timg.co.il/forums/1_168859045.pdf


----------



## Poncharelli

Approaching 48 yrs old. 3.6 - 3.9 W/kg at about 5000 feet elevation. 160 pounds is about as low as I can get. It's been a goal for years to break 4 w/kg but have never gotten there (and at this age, prolly never will). I have a hard earned Cat 3 license, but race Masters 1/2/3. 

My power profile is kinda flat, but I must have the wind drag of a parachute. I've been dead last in every TT I've done except a couple. 

But I can break 1100W pretty easy in a pop sprint and have a best 1160 5 sec, and a 500W 1 minute. So I have the ability to make breaks when things get ugly, and hold on when the yo-yo gets bad (except at Nationals this year). I also train a lot (7-20 hours a week), so that helps the power degradation (at the end of races) that happens to more talented riders that don't train as much. 

I'm also pretty crafty racer/rider. Like cycling author Arnie Baker said, "there is no medal for pulling the most." I really take that statement to heart. 

So despite my okay FTP, I'm seem to do good. At least in my mind.


----------



## 41ants

@Poncharelli, I think those are great numbers. You are also at 5K' of elevation. I think my one minute is about the same as yours, but you would definitely kick my butt since I am at sea level and heavier than you. If I could only drop weight, but easier said than done when you are already at single digit bf%.


----------



## gus300

i am a no body, i just do rides during the week and weekends, started riding in november of 2012 and stopped for like 11 months due to a full reconstructive surgery, got back on the bike again in april this year, i weight more than avg 192 lbs or 87kg and im 31 so its hard for me to get a good FPT but i have seen 325w for 1 hour, 358w for 20, 434w for 5 and i have had burst of 1277w for like 3 sec. i am still working on my cycling.

i dont know if this numbers help


----------



## Poncharelli

41ants said:


> @Poncharelli, I think those are great numbers. You are also at 5K' of elevation.


I'm thinking of driving down to Vegas when I'm in best shape, and finally get that 4 W/kg!! 

I'm also good friends with a few National champs here in the town I live in. One of them keeps track of his numbers pretty good, the other two don't ride with PMs and sort of despise them, which is kind of funny considering the scope of the conversations above. (Ha, ask Nairo Quintana what FTP stands for and he wont have a damn clue!!).

So one of them, 340W CP20 at 5k elevation, at 148 pounds. I believe that was close to his lifetime best. He has several national championships in both road and mountain, in a couple of masters age groups.


----------



## sd5500

Just did a trainer test for some baseline figures. 

I do about a 15 min warm-up, consisting of 3 1 min 110RPM spin ups. Then I do 5 min all out. Then 15 min spin working into Zone 2. Then the 20 min test. Take the 20 min average and X by 97%.

I'm 47 y.o. Cat 5 moving to Cat 4 early this season, 5'6", 159lbs/72kg. I'll be 150lb when the season starts. My stocky wrestling body is not ideal for cycling..LOL.

My 5 min average was 336. My 20 min average was 280. 280 X .97 = 271.6 or 3.77w/kg.


----------



## Local Hero

I just averaged 5.7 watts/kg up a 5 minute climb. 

Should I quit my day job?


----------



## jajichan

Local Hero said:


> I just averaged 5.7 watts/kg up a 5 minute climb.
> 
> Should I quit my day job?


That's pretty impressive stuff.


----------



## Sumguy1

Local Hero said:


> I just averaged 5.7 watts/kg up a 5 minute climb.
> 
> Should I quit my day job?


I don't know. Is bike riding your day job?


----------



## Local Hero

Sumguy1 said:


> I don't know. Is bike riding your day job?


No. 40+ hours a week I race my desk on the rolling hills of Corporatelandria. I built a powertap wheel 4 months ago and started monkeying around with power in this off season. Nothing too serious yet. Orange bubbles are goals for January:


----------



## Undecided

Local Hero said:


> No. 40+ hours a week I race my desk on the rolling hills of Corporatelandria. I built a powertap wheel 4 months ago and started monkeying around with power in this off season. Nothing too serious yet. Orange bubbles are goals for January


Anecdotally, at my peak, I could put out 6.4 watts/kilo for 5 minutes, which held me in good stead generally for NorCal road races, but I would still be dropped from the lead group late in a tough race with repeated shortish climbing sets when local pros went AHAP. Nothing did more for my descending skills. I will dig for files to see how my power dropped over the race.


----------



## deviousalex

Local Hero said:


> I just averaged 5.7 watts/kg up a 5 minute climb.
> 
> Should I quit my day job?


With a name like "Local Hero" you have to.

My FTP at the top of last season was 290 watts @ 66kg, so 4.4W/kg. I'm 166cm, so not very tall. Looking to get down to about 63kg this season. My sprint sucks and I've only broken 900watts on a handful of occasions, but I'm never in contention for crits so I've never really pushed my sprint to it's max.


----------



## 41ants

I recently did a 45min crit. Is it possible to estimate ftp based upon my avg power or normalized power from the file?


----------



## jajichan

41ants said:


> I recently did a 45min crit. Is it possible to estimate ftp based upon my avg power or normalized power from the file?



Yep, I generally use 60min np. For 45 mins I might take off 5-10 watts, but frankly that's within the window of accuracy error anyway so it's a bit of a toss up. 

I'd just use it and if you struggle with the zones in training, back it off a bit.


----------



## kbiker3111

41ants said:


> I recently did a 45min crit. Is it possible to estimate ftp based upon my avg power or normalized power from the file?


Yes, but it will really only be useful with a really really hard crit. Also beware crits that have a hill you sprint up every laps. Can be NP busters.


----------



## deviousalex

41ants said:


> I recently did a 45min crit. Is it possible to estimate ftp based upon my avg power or normalized power from the file?


As other posts have said you *could* but I really wouldn't. If you're off by 20 watts that's quite a bit. In reality I'd try to find a 20 minute climb or a 20 minute uninterrupted flat ground and do the test.


----------



## 41ants

I did a 25min TT back in July (merckx), but haven't done an another TT since that one. However, I did that 45min training crit just to get some hard efforts.
NP 371. Windy, but pancake flat.

Anything sustained that I have been doing up til about the last 2 weeks has been 53x11 10min intervals. I guess I just need to get back out and do another 30-60 min sustained effort to build my zones. Probably better than working off of a 6 month old test. It's probably dropped since then.


----------

