I'll take a SWAG and say 3.1 - 3.2 watts/kg for a male. That would put you mid pack for the bike with decent equipment and position at the small races I do. With that power, good equipment choices, and a good position, I'd think you'd be at least mid-pack even in a somewhat competitive field.

I'm pretty much middle of the pack and have an FTP of 3.1 w/Kg right now.

---

Dave Stark
dreamcatcher@astound.net
USAC & USAT level 2 certified coach

Are you at your potential? I'm thinking more along the lines of how far can the average Joe go?

---

Chris Thornham
Co-Founder And Previous Owner Of FLO Cycling

No, I am definitely not at my potential. I could stand to drop about 15 pounds. I'll let you know in October just before CX season starts.

---

Dave Stark
dreamcatcher@astound.net
USAC & USAT level 2 certified coach

I'm pretty much an average Joe when it comes to athletic ability. Not really sure what my FTP is, but my w/kg at CA 70.3 in March was 3.2. FWIW, I'm a 41 y/o guy who thinks that he still has a lot of upside on the bike.

---

Mike Sparks


I have competed well, I have finished the race, I have kept the faith.

FTP for the average Cat 5 is 2.7, Cat 4 is 3.2 and cat 3 is 3.9. These are just some average stats.

---

Park City Condo Rentals
http://www.traverseridge.com

I had my VO2 max measured years ago when I was in decent shape for an average person, but not much more than untrained as an athlete. IIRC my VO2 max was around 41 or 42 ml/kg/min at 5300 feet. I remember thinking that I was pretty much average as an endurance athlete. Riding 5 hours of L4 per week for a few months I got up to about 3.7 watts/kg last year, and I don't think I'm close to my potential. I think I could get close to 4 watts/kg if I could ride 10 hours per week for a year, but think the point of diminishing returns would set in quickly after that. Maybe I'm selling myself short, but I don't see myself riding that much until I'm retired in any case.

I'm 42 and 66 or 67 kg, and think I can improve a good bit more even riding 6 or 7 hours a week for a few years.

What was your bike split? Is the bike course slow, average or fast?

I would think that getting close to 4.0 w/kg would be achievable to most human beings. It just depends upon the effort that that individual wants to put in to training and weight loss.

Gordon

4W/Kg is more "average amateur" than "local pro" for a triathlete.

I would agree that right around 4.0/kg is achievable by most people. It'll take some work, at least 10hrs a week consistantly for at least 1year if your new to cycling. That puts you right in the middle of the cat 3s. You will not climb like the top cat 3s, but you may very well be near the front in a TT. I started as a roady (cat 2), and usually roll right around 4.2-4.35 on 12hrs a week on the bike and Im a FOP AGer on the bike.

---

Seth Wilkie DPT, ACSM-HFS

i would think well beyond 4.

truly dedicate yourself, 5 years......4.5-5 easy. that is really not that high nor that difficult. I would think one could get there just by biking a shit load, not even concerned about a training plan or nothing.

I consider myself very average, bought my first bike (well first bike since a mongoose BMX when I was 12) in December 2008. So, biking just over a year. 3.98 w/kg as of last test, which was a 20 minute test. Last olympic bike leg confirmed results. 305 watts, 76.5 kg.

I have no endurance background at all.

also, I think local pros are well beyond 4.0/kg

Just curious...What does a FTP of 3.1 get you in a flat Oly Bike ride?

It's gets me a 1:03-4 with a good run (for me) afterwards

jaretj

My bike split was 2:29. The bike course probably falls into the "average" category.

---

Mike Sparks


I have competed well, I have finished the race, I have kept the faith.

at under 3watts/kg I did 1:04 last year, wasn't flat though, lot of turns too.

someday you bastages will listen to my aero weenie advice =)

---

---

Kat Hunter reports on the San Dimas Stage Race from inside the GC winning team
Aeroweenie.com -Compendium of Aero Data and Knowledge
Freelance sports & outdoors writer Kathryn Hunter

I'd guess that it had as much to do with bike handling as aero weenieness

On a hilly twisty course, you stand to gain/lose a lot of time based on how you ride hills and corners.

While I'm not as AOD as jackmott I also think the emphasis on this thread on W/kg is somewhat misleading. Watts/kg is all well and good, but can be just as highly dependent on your body mass as it is on your power, I mean afterall the title of the thread is "what FTP" but all we've been talking about is W/kg.

Don't get me wrong, if I was going to brag about anything it would be my W/kg, I'm a pretty thin (I think lean sounds cooler) guy at 6'0 and my W/kg is about 3.9 right now, I think I'll be above 4.0 this season and this is my second year doing Triathlon. The caveat is that my FTP is not all that high at ~270, I can just keep my W/Kg up by staying around 150lbs. This is is enough to seat me pretty well at local races in the 25-29AG, but there is definitely a relationship between how hilly the course is and how well I do overall, if I moved back home to FL and started racing a bunch of pancake flat races W/Kg wouldn't do nearly as much for me as compared to the bigger guys who just pump out a lot more raw power.

So when we ask



My first question would be, well what do you wiegh? You could be at at ~3 W/kg and I could be at ~4 but if you have 30lbs on me your overall FTP is going to be about the same or probably higher, on a flat course we may not have all that different bike splits.

Since the OP was talking in Watts/Kg it appears that everyone else just stuck with it for this thread.

jaretj

I think you've got it backwards. W/kg is more useful to talk about since it corrects for body mass. If I'm 250lbs and have an ftp of 300, that's not really anything to write home about and I'm likely not setting the world on fire with my cycling. On the other hand if I have that same 300 ftp at 140lbs, I'm likely firmly FOP in triathlon bike splits and even (potentially) quite competitive in amateur bike racing.

Not sure if 20 minute tests are FTP....I thought 20 minute tests were Threshold Power while FTP might be better estimated from a 40K TT or Normalized Power from a hard 1 hour ride...let me know what you guys think...I might have been using the wrong numbers to get my zones right!

FTP = 'Functional Threshold Power'

Right...so anyone who's using a 20 minute test to get their FTP is using the wrong test and overestimating their FTP...I've seen something written that the best way to derive FTP from a 20 minute test is to multiply CP20 by .85...or just get after it for an hour

I'll through in my 2 cents and say 4.0 watts/kg is above average for the average Joe. I ride with a lot of cat 4 and 3 road racers and some respectful tri guys. I finish in the top 3rd of the field on a road race in Cat 4, top 4 to 5 place in a mountain bike race (Sport Cat 2) and I don�t get dropped in crits racing Cat 4 and Cat 3/4 fields. On the weekend hammer-fest when I let the animals go off the front I hang well with the strong tri guys.

I can hang with stronger Cat 4's and 3's for a good 2 hours, but after two hours they start to kick my ass, particularly on the long climbs. I out climb most people, thus I consider myself above average for an average Joe, but 1/3 of the guys in a road race kick my ass.

My last FTP test was a smig over 4.0 watts/kg, which unfortunately is not much better than my prior test about two months ago which was right at 4.0 watts/kg.
I train with a half ass plan and life gets in the way of it often, so I think an FTP of 4.0 is doable for most with some work.

I agree.

FTP is just a number, useful for tracking your own fitness, but not so much for comparing athletes.

Also very useful for selling books, power meters, and coaching plans...

---

Coach at KonaCoach Multisport

Everything within reason, I agree that if I had to choose either one or the other, W/Kg would be a more useful metric to me than overall FTP. I never said that FTP was more important than W/Kg, in fact that my point was that it is not very meaningful to draw conclusions without having both.

Perhaps its just N=1 here, but I'm fairly sure I have higher W/Kg than most of the guys I ride with who routinely make me suffer when we are riding on the flats. When we he hit hills I can often cruise by when these same people are grimmacing and get spit off my wheel. Right back into the flats and its back to working hard for me, terrain makes a huge difference. Body composition (very important for raw power versus W/kg) will always be dependent on the type of racing you do and your goals. Look at Cancellara (180lbs, god knows what FTP) versus Andy Schleck (140lbs, sky-high W/Kg), both suited to very different styles of riding.

I don't think anyone (who knows what they are doing at least) is using their max 20 min power for their FTP. There are many ways given by various coaches out there to estimate your FTP, including as you mentioned multipling an all out 20 min effort by a scaling factor. However, I think a much more common approach would be to do the 2x20' (2') approach, among others.

Watts are watts, and power is power, and body mass matters.

W/KG matters a whole lot more when going uphill.

Pure watts/power matters a whole lot more than w/kg in flat races.

I'm 95kg, and my FTP is 345, giving me a 3.6 w/kg. Solid Cat 4 #s. However in a flat TT I'm putting up times/#s near the front of the Cat 3 pack. In a climbing TT I'm near the bottom of the Cat 4s, and I consider myself a fairly decent climber. I can crush some guys in a 20 min climb that would destroy me in a 2 hour climb. Efficiency matters. There is no magic bullet or formula---depending on what type of race/event you want to focus on should dictate your training much more than simply pursuing the 4.0 w/k. If you are looking at crits, your recovery ability & building your 30-60 sec power (sprint) is much more important than your ability to hold 4.0 w/k for 60 min. If you are racing an IM, your ability to effectively TT at .70 IF w/minimal effort is much more important than your ability to generate 1500 watts. Its almost impossible, without YEARS of volume riding, to do everything well (i.e. pointy end of the spear). The question you shouldn't be asking yourself is how do I get to 4.0, but rather what do I need to do within my life constraints to get to the pointy end of my age group/racing cat/weight class in my chosen sport/event & then train accordingly.

---

____________
"There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs." John Rogers

Yes, that's why little ol' me made it up to cat. 1 in the crit-centric midwest despite having a functional threshold power in my youth no greater than yours.

Let's do some figgerin'...

The average healthy but sedentary, college-aged male has a VO2max of approximately 45 mL/min/kg. However, I have seen it argued based on studies of, e.g., aboriginal tribes (and there are population data from Europe as well as military inductees here in the US to suppor the conclusion) that the "default" VO2max of the average human male is closer to 50 mL/min/kg, and the only way to get below this is to assume a couch-potato lifestyle, gain excess weight, etc. (and/or grow old, of course). So, I'll go with that latter number.

With short-term training, VO2max increases by 15-25% on average, with another perhaps 5-10% possible (on average, anyway) with more prolonged and/or intense training. That gives a total increase of 20-35%, so I'll go with 30% just for argument's sake.

So, if VO2max is, on average, 50 mL/min/kg and increases by, on average, 30%, that means that the average Joe ought to be able to raise their VO2max to about 65 mL/min/kg with training. Indeed, there are many, many, many, MANY amateur endurance athletes with VO2max values of around that number (not to mention the fact that athletes in team sports with an endurance component - e.g., soccer - often have a VO2max of around 60 mL/min/kg, something that is also true in other sports that you don't normally consider to be of an endurance nature, e.g., downhill skiing or motocross - i.e., motorcycle - racing).

The question then becomes, how high might functional threshold power fall as a percentage of VO2max (again, on average), and what does this translate to in terms of a power output? The answer to the former is about 80% (LT, on average, being about 75% of VO2max in trained cyclists), which means that in terms of O2 consumption, a functional threshold power corresponding to a VO2 of 65 mL/min/kg * 0.80 = 52 mL/min/kg could be considered average. If you then assume an average cycling economy of 0.075 W/min/kg per mL/min/kg, this equates to...

3.9 W/kg

So anybody can make it to 4, 4.5, or 5w/kg with a little training, according to this thread.

Here's one Cat 1, State Champion, National Medallist that disagrees. Been busting my ass for years and happy to finally be over 4w/kg.

Either somebody needs to look at a large sampling of power data, or you all need to calibrate your PMs.

Apparently you didn't read what I wrote. The calculations that I laid out indicate that the average person could NOT make it (much) over 4 W/kg even after years of dedicated training.



What event(s)?



So just out of curiousity, when was the last time that you calibrated yours?

AC,

What does this mean in the real world?

If you were to take 100 subjects who were able to achieve 3.9W/kg based on a 2 x 20' test and have them do a 40K TT, what do you think their avg. power would be in W/kg? And what type of variation in speed do you guess you might see?

---

Coach at KonaCoach Multisport

If you were to draw a bell curve here on ST around Power at FTP , I think the fat part of the curve would be around 250W.
Taking a less well founded guess , I'll pick 175lbs as an average weight for the guys, or about 80kg.

That works out to 3.125 W/Kg.

I think if you put someone with that profile on a Professional style program without work, family, etc demands.
you could get that FTP up to 300, and the weight down to 75kg, and there is your 4 W/Kg. That is a 20% improvement in power...
not a no-brainer, but doesn't seem ridiculous.

For myself, I know I could probably stand to lose 8-10Kg if I dedicated myself to a diet (that would get me back to High School weight)
and would be in the 4w/kg range.

It also depends what you mean about 'Average Joe' however - I think the Average ST reader is already at the upper 5-10% fitness wise
of the population as a whole. I think if you threw a dart a phone book, there would be a lot smaller % who could get to that level.

.

---

" I take my gear out of my car and put my bike together. Tourists and locals are watching from sidewalk cafes. Non-racers. The emptiness of of their lives shocks me. "
(opening lines from Tim Krabbe's The Rider , 1978

Meaning that they could routinely average 3.9 W/kg during long intervals done in training?


If the answer to my question above is yes, then 3.9 W/kg.


That would depend on their sizes, positions, equipment, course conditions, etc.

VO2 of 65 mL/min/kg

pretty inspiring to know our potential is about a 2:35ish marathon.

Or the exact opposite :)

Hi Andy,

I posted before your response was up; wouldn't begin to consider contradicting The Man Who Wrote the Book... Twice. But I do feel free to freely question most of the other posters. In God we trust, all others bring data, right? Thank you for bringing data.

Road, Crit & Track, respectively

My unit is probably due for a little trip to South Dakota, (although it is in very close agreement with a CT factory calibrated 2 weeks ago) but I do calibrate (sorry, zero offset) with the Garmin before every ride, and try to pedal the wrong direction at least 4 times a couple of times per ride.

Odd, then, that your reply indicates that it is in response to mine. Quirck of how the software works, perhaps?


Oh, sure, and thanks for answering my questions.

Objection, Your Honor, assuming facts* not in evidence. ;-)

*That the average person can achieve a high enough LT and running economy to translate that VO2 into the stated performance. Since, e.g., Daniel's VDOT tables are based on data from trained runners, that assumption may not be correct.

Time stamp on your post is 8:52, and 8:57 on mine.

It's entirely possible that I did a 5 minute post split, especially since there was a trip in there to the kitchen for more Coffees of Hawaii and a poppy seed kolache*

Besides, you are further east than me. ;-)

It could also be a difference between threaded view and flat view....

That is the kicker, after reading your post the first time I thought that you were inferring that the average trained athlete should have a W/kg of 3.9 which seems high to me. However after re-reading, the difference between has and could have is duly noted.

As always, thanks for a very informative post.

Yes, that's why little ol' me made it up to cat. 1 in the crit-centric midwest despite having a functional threshold power in my youth no greater than yours.

There are a bunch of Cat 1 & 2s that I ride with frequently out here. I can TT a couple of them into the ground. They can leave me behind in a sprint like a Camaro vs a Yugo. They do very, very well in crits, but frequently get dropped in RR. Its all relative when considering the specialties/strengths of each rider & the events/distances/etc they are focusing on. Bradley Wiggins didn't change into a TDF contender overnight. Of course a certain mix of the right genes certainly helps.

---

____________
"There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs." John Rogers

Wow. Thanks. Great response. I was hoping you would chime in. One last question.

You said the average college male has a VO2 of approximately 45-50. For the gifted ones (people with higher trained VO2), do they test higher initially when untrained, or do they just make better than average gains? For example, a 40% increase instead of the average 30% increase.

Thanks again for chiming in!

---

Chris Thornham
Co-Founder And Previous Owner Of FLO Cycling

That isn't (wasn't) me. In fact, I am (was) just the opposite, i.e., far more likely to get results in road races and TTs than in criteriums. Yet, with a functional threshold power of only ~350 W, I made it up to cat. 1, won my fair share of state championships, etc. Why? Because I only weighed/weigh 67-68 kg, and therefore not only didn't have to accelerate as much mass coming out of corners, also didn't have to push as much air out of the way...

Bottom line: size matters, even on flat courses...when looking across the population as a whole, expressing power in W/kg is therefore more telling than expressing it as just W.

Both baseline VO2max and trainability of VO2max have a genetic component, which accounts for ~50% of the variation between individuals.

The interesting thing is, the two seem to be determined by different sets of genes. Ergo, it pays to pick your parents doubly-wisely if you want to be an elite endurance athlete.

Ironically, I have been told by a number of running coaches that "talent" doesn't really factor into performance until about 2:45ish marathon (for males), so perhaps not all that far off. The reality is very few of us are willing to put in the work to reach our potential.

"4W/Kg is more "average amateur" than "local pro" for a triathlete."

Define "average" please. I'm a ~4W/Kg guy and I race elite/open state and local races to top-5 or better finishes. I raced to the 8th fastest bike split at a recent 1/2 IM. Certainly, there are stronger amateur triathlete cyclists out there....but they are few and far between these days. If that is your definition of "average"...then so be it.

I would put the "average joe" capability at less than 4W/kg, mostly because of how lean that usually means you have to be. Few "average joes" are going to be willing or able to get lean enough to max their W/Kg equation...but they may develop a fairly high absolute FTP figure that would serve them well in flatter races (as long as they are reasonably aerodynamic).

I will definitely agree that 4W/Kg is way low for "local pro"...unless we're talking about women. The few "local pro" triathlete types I've known were more in the 4.5W/Kg range if they had any kind of cycling ability. More if they wanted to be competitive in a strong pro field.

I would agree with you that it does take a very lean "larger" athlete to achieve 4.0w/kg, but the smaller guys can usually get there fairly easily with some consistant dedicated training. Im 6'2" and ~170 so I am really happy when I reach 4.2-4.3. Mostly this is because I am that light, which means I'll climb better and run better. There are a lot of kids who just get a little training in and they are at 5.0w/kg because they weigh 135lbs.

But I feel the most important thing is aerodynamics (W/CdA) for bike performance in triathlon. I have rolled a 53:xx 40k at 300w on an aluminum bike with tufos for tires (if I only would have run vittorias). I don't understand why guys focus so much w/kg in triathlon. Most tris have limited climbing on the bike anyway. The most that I have had is 1500' and I was still right about an hour.

---

Seth Wilkie DPT, ACSM-HFS

"Average" is anyone slower than me of course ;)

I don't know, but I was around 4.5 W/Kg last year and while I'm usually top 20 in local races, I've never made top 10. Looking around me it seems 4 W/Kg is pretty common for serious triathletes. Although I can only guess, since I'm (or was) the only one with a powermeter around here. So I guess when I say "average", I mean for athletes that train somewhat seriously and have been doing so for several years.

Bottom line: size matters, even on flat courses...when looking across the population as a whole, expressing power in W/kg is therefore more telling than expressing it as just W.

Agreed, with one caveat: in TT's the equation changes so that watts/square meter (surface area) becomes a greater factor than w/kg: myself @ 6'3, 95kg vs Joe Climber @ 5'10, 70kg: our surface area isn't that much different--maybe 10% or so all other factors being equal---especially in a TT position---and while we may have similar 3.6+ w/kgs, I'm putting out 90-100w more than Joe is; that 10% difference in drag coefficient isn't enough to makeup for the 90-100w less power Joe generates (on a flat course). Throw in anything more than rollers on a TT course & things will of course change.

---

____________
"There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs." John Rogers

I mostly agree with ya, overall.

But - my FTP is right around 4-ish at the moment, and I managed to outsplit a local Pro on the bike at some event this past weekend.
(although that was likely more a function of my P4 vs. his C-dale road bike w/ clip-ons - not our relative w/Kg's)

---

float , hammer , and jog

Jack I'm going to hire you to fit me on my bike because I am sitting around 3.9 right now and praying that I could hit those numbers! Seriously I think I need to up load some pics for you to look at and tell me what I am doing wrong!

post a picture of you and your set up.

Ill put it up tonight, just as long as it doesnt get in the way of Lost!

There are some impressive watts/kg being posted here. I'm not sure they can be based on the same FTP calculation protocol I am using (the one in Dr Coggan's book based on 20mins), or if I haven't calibrated my newly purchased Powertap and Garmin 500 or done myself justice in the FTP test. I consider myself quite close to front of pack in bike splits in tris but my recently measured FTP is only currently about 3.25w/kg in my off season. This moderate FTP doesn't seem to correlate with my results E.g 15th fastest bike split out of 546 competitors at HIM, 1:01 bike split in non drafting Oly tri, 59th fastest bike split out of ~1200 including pros at IMNZ. But, I do pay a lot of attention to the aerodynamics of my position and bike though, and can hold a high % of my FTP for a long time.
I'm pretty sure my competitive advantage comes from my aero position on the bike.

excellent work cyclenutz

tell us of your good work on equipment choice and position!

---

---

Kat Hunter reports on the San Dimas Stage Race from inside the GC winning team
Aeroweenie.com -Compendium of Aero Data and Knowledge
Freelance sports & outdoors writer Kathryn Hunter

1. get rid of all the crap behind yer seat
2. deeper front wheel
3. rear disc
4. fast, narrow tires
5. latex tubes
6. maybe level out the forearms
7. maybe a TAD lower but that position looks good enough where you probably need a wind tunnel or power meter to do better
8. aero chainring
9. remove the cage from the seat tube
10. make sure your clothing is aero
11. make sure you STAY aero the whole ride

just some quick thoughts

---

---

Kat Hunter reports on the San Dimas Stage Race from inside the GC winning team
Aeroweenie.com -Compendium of Aero Data and Knowledge
Freelance sports & outdoors writer Kathryn Hunter

For position sake, here is a photo towards the end of a 40K TT. For the record, I'm about 4W/kg and can do 55-56 min. Don't move from your position (notice your shoulders/head/neck), skinsuit, proper helmet, narrow arms/shoulders, running Veloflex Records with latex tubes, etc.

---

____________________________________
Fatigue is biochemical, not biomechanical.
- Andrew Coggan, PhD

And in making the changes you suggested, how much time over a 40k TT would you estimate?

Thanks for the advice.

---

Chris Thornham
Co-Founder And Previous Owner Of FLO Cycling

Maybe I am just stupid and missing it, but how do I add a picture up here?

dunno but that aero chainrinng will save you at least a tenth of a second per 40k ;)

---

---

Kat Hunter reports on the San Dimas Stage Race from inside the GC winning team
Aeroweenie.com -Compendium of Aero Data and Knowledge
Freelance sports & outdoors writer Kathryn Hunter

1. tinypic.com
2. Upload a pic
3. Copy the forum link. ( something like http://...
4. paste that link in your post.

---

Chris Thornham
Co-Founder And Previous Owner Of FLO Cycling

maybe i can ride faster than i think. last test at the end of last year put me at 4.2 W/Kg for a FTP test.

btw rod i love the skinsuit, cincy area team?

---

____________________________________________________________
Link to my photography
http://davidsavoiephotography.blogspot.com/
http://davidsavoiesports.blogspot.com/

Yeah, you probably are much faster than you think (plus, I know your position is pretty aggressive/good). I'm about 4.3 w/kg end of season, but much better sprint (left slope) power.

Yup, Cincy area team:

---

____________________________________
Fatigue is biochemical, not biomechanical.
- Andrew Coggan, PhD

i need to do a cat4 race

pretty sure I can suck wheel behind the talent then crush them at the line

as long as the wrecks I cause do not involve myself, im good

---

---

Kat Hunter reports on the San Dimas Stage Race from inside the GC winning team
Aeroweenie.com -Compendium of Aero Data and Knowledge
Freelance sports & outdoors writer Kathryn Hunter

sharp looking kit.


we'll see what this season holds. position is MUCH better for me now than last year/years before. front end is lower, arms a bit more narrow, a little more stretched out. feel a LOT more comfortable and the shorter cranks have helped with the hip issues.

we'll see what the later part of this season looks like.

---

____________________________________________________________
Link to my photography
http://davidsavoiephotography.blogspot.com/
http://davidsavoiesports.blogspot.com/

Given that you rode strongly at Rotorua and say you can sustain a high proportion of FTP for a long time - I suspect that you haven't done yourself justice with your ftp testing. Looking at your position I'd have expected a 3w/kg just to ride your IM time.

I'll bet you an Oval a900 aerobar you'd get your ass handed to you in a Cat 4 crit.

You have to race THIS weekend. No time to prepare or do any specific training.

im getting married this weekend

but I do a group ride in austin which is full of cat1 and cat2 guys, and is basically a criterium.

I cannot hang with them for too long

but cat 4? I think I'll be ok

of course odds will some of the wrecks I cause WILL include myself soo..

---

---

Kat Hunter reports on the San Dimas Stage Race from inside the GC winning team
Aeroweenie.com -Compendium of Aero Data and Knowledge
Freelance sports & outdoors writer Kathryn Hunter

I'm with you. Jack, just "solo/tailgun" off the back of a local Cat 4 crit, then just come around them at the end ;-) I'll throw in a Renn disc I'm not using ...

---

____________________________________
Fatigue is biochemical, not biomechanical.
- Andrew Coggan, PhD

I race in SoCal almost every weekend. I see every cocky triathlete in Southern California who thinks he's good on the bike come out to a crit at some point or another. It's a load of fun to watch. :-)

But hey, you do a group ride once in a while with some Cat 1's and 2's (as though guys who are racing cat 4 don't)... :-)

There's so much more to racing than a lot of you guys think (even at the lowly cat 4 level).

Weight is a big part of the picture - at 90kg 3w/kg is ok power. But aero is the main part of the equation here and I do a lot better on that. The winds on that day added ~1min. Tom A and RChung have given plenty of advice you can use for self improvement on aero - which is the only way to get significant gains.

every week!
you should have seen me draft amy marsh then crush her up the hill at 71 and bee caves

she didn't know I was racing but that is half the battle ... lololol

thanks to the guy offering the renn disc, now who has a front disc I can use?

---

---

Kat Hunter reports on the San Dimas Stage Race from inside the GC winning team
Aeroweenie.com -Compendium of Aero Data and Knowledge
Freelance sports & outdoors writer Kathryn Hunter

Any posts in particular that you'd recommend? I searched aero in the search bar but that entails just about every post on ST. :-)

---

Chris Thornham
Co-Founder And Previous Owner Of FLO Cycling

Do you have any pics of your legs at top/bottom of the pedal stroke? It appears to me that your hip angle is severely closed and you may benefit from raising your set and/or getting shorter cranks.

You hit the nail on the head. It was a comment I was going to make earlier that we ought to be discussing W/CdA for triathletes (vs W/Kg). Trouble is, most folks out there don't have a clue what their CdA is and wouldn't know how to go finding it outside of an expensive trip to a wind tunnel. Everyone has a scale, though.

That's why some of these people with relatively low W/Kg figures can go so well on the bike. The bigger guys will have more absolute power to play with, so if they are reasonably aero, they'll kill a little 135 lb 5W/Kg pipsqueak. But remember, in triathlon...those big guys then have to haul their 180+ lbs around a run course. There are very few fast big guy runners out there.

Thats why Cancellara is killing everyone on the TTs but isn't (yet?) a real threat for a grand tour GC. He puts out massive power and is super aerodynamic. That makes for fast TTs. But he's enough heavier than most of the GC guys that they kill him with superior W/Kg when the road heads seriously up.

learn a bit about the process in this thread (and wade through a lot of fluff)
http://forum.slowtwitch.com/...t_reply;so=ASC;mh=25;

then search 'chung method' and 'field testing' to expand the picture.

As a hint - ducking your head would be *very* worthwhile to work on. Changing extensions may make it easier to do so but that can only be determined by experimentation.

ding ding ding!

---

---

Kat Hunter reports on the San Dimas Stage Race from inside the GC winning team
Aeroweenie.com -Compendium of Aero Data and Knowledge
Freelance sports & outdoors writer Kathryn Hunter

Here's the best I have. Sorry about the head down thing.

---

Chris Thornham
Co-Founder And Previous Owner Of FLO Cycling

I am at 3.9 w/kg right now, and usually place top 10 locally, but get blown out on the bike at anything nationally. Managed a Clearwater rolldown slot last year, but I would say an average bike time. I only train about 3-4 hours a week on the bike for that number, very focused consistent training, but that is what I have to give right now with 2 kids at home. I would think that a lot higher number would be needed to be a top age grouper. I have a pretty good swim/run, hope to bring the bike up to balance these for short course racing next 2-3 years. One things I do have to say is that I don't believe 10 hours per week is needed to achieve 4.0, I haven't put in more than 4 hours for past several years and have seen significant improvement with my cycling over that time. Have a ways to go, but volume is not always the answer. I think a lot of people dawdle in their training and don't see improvement because their training lacks progression and consistency.

---

Daryl
http://www.advantagemultisport.com

>>I see every cocky triathlete in Southern California who thinks he's good on the bike come out to a crit at some point or another. It's a load of fun to watch. :-)

Funny, in Northern Cal we say the same thing about SoCal roadies when they show up at our road races.

I believe it.

SoCal is the Crit Kingdom.

Well, it shows, since they're pretty good at it too. Glad it's not my bag.

At the last road race I did down here there was *almost* a crash cause we rode past a tree, 2 miles later there was a crash because there was a palm tree leaf in the gutter

---

Ride Scoozy Electric Bicycles
http://www.RideScoozy.com

Hey now, I didn't say anything.

Although the SoCal definition of 'bad weather' is relative. (3, 2, 1 for Roady to chime in on what really 'bad' weather is)

What race was that?

sounds delightful

any and all precipitation, including sprinkler overspray onto the course, that counts too

Thanks for the feedback. Did you mean 3w/kg during the IM, or 3w/kg FTP?

Next time I'll test my FTP at the bike track rather than on my indoor trainer, that will take me overheating and possible non zeroing of the Powertap out of the equation.

Are you still doing bike fitting? If so, do you do mountain bike fitting?

3w/kg for IM. You will 'gain' a lot of power doing it outside

Yes I'm still doing fits. I don't do MTB so often (full disclosure and all) but the principles I use apply very well there and have yielded good results.

Can you define what you mean by "short-term training" and "prolonged and/or intense training"?

Assuming someone follows the principals from your book, how long is "short-term" and how long is "prolonged"? I've read it takes 7-10 years of consistant training for an endurance athlete to reach their true peak. Would you agree with this?

And just so I'm clear... I'm strictly speaking averages here.

Thanks

---

Chris Thornham
Co-Founder And Previous Owner Of FLO Cycling

Coming to this late, but the best reason to focus on Watts/kg for triathlon even though many courses are flat, is because if you can get lean enough to jack up your watts per kg, for a fixed CdA, while you may not bike that much faster, you're sure to run faster.

Dev

What about the average Joe-womens?

---

-----

"Alice laughed. `There's no use trying,' she said 'one can't believe impossible things.' `I daresay you haven't had much practice,' said the Queen. `When I was your age, I always did it for half-an-hour a day. Why, sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast!'"

+1 - Some of us average Jane's would like to know.

If we substitute some common numbers given for avg. vo2 for women *assume avg vo2 for women = 38 * in AC's calculations I get: 3.3 w/kg.

Sound about right? Does that mean if you are over 3.3 then you are above average in terms of power?

3.47 is equivalent to 4.0 on the power profiling chart

---

Ride Scoozy Electric Bicycles
http://www.RideScoozy.com

This makes some sense. I believe I am pretty much an "average joe" and am in the range of 3 to 3.2 now and believe that next year's training, which will have a HEAVY bike focus will push me up in power to hopefully an ftp in the range of 275 with a weight drop to 70 kilo, which would be 3.9...with a few more years of work, I should be able to go plus 25 watts and - 2 kilo for 300 / 68 = 4.4 watts / kg...

Will have to update in 2 years or so if I am there.

---

-----------------------------------------------------------
"Chrissie wins because she trains really f'ing hard and races really f'ing hard and was blessed with a huge f'ing motor" Jordan Rapp

few more years? why do you think it would take that long?

---

Ride Scoozy Electric Bicycles
http://www.RideScoozy.com

I don't know why 2 years was what I threw out, but will try to provide a rationale below.

I figured I wouldn't be able to go from 240, which is where I guess I would be now, to 300 in one year.

My training, which will be bike heavy, also isn't focused on specific workouts such as I would get in "training and racing with power", which I do plan to buy.

Instead, I am cycle commuting to / from work in the mornings, which is 40km round trip on a heavy steel bike (may add my powermeter over to this bike...), which will get me 200 km / week + the Saturday or Sunday long ride....

As the training isn't specifically designed to raise FTP or Vo2, I don't know what gains I can expect on the plan in the short-medium term and don't want to invest much more into the bike than this, as outside of the cycle commuting, I plan to do shorter, but more frequent / consistent, running this year, and to do a more focused swim training regiment, which will involve a coach / lessons to improve in the water, which is my biggest detriment / downfall.

---

-----------------------------------------------------------
"Chrissie wins because she trains really f'ing hard and races really f'ing hard and was blessed with a huge f'ing motor" Jordan Rapp

You may be hard pressed to improve at all with a cycling schedule like that. Unless you build some sort of structure/focus into your commute, you're not going to see continued improvement because you won't be applying any sort of progressive overload on that schedule.

Andy,

Very spot on with your calculations.

I'm a 51 year old [Canadian] Joe with a real job which calls for lots of travelling. After an intensive effort of training I managed to get 250 watts for my FTP. With my 65 kg weight that is 3.85 W/kg. My tested VO2 max was 48 - not far from the 50 you get with your formula. So why did I pay for testing :-)

I have never understood why watts/kg are talked about so much if weight isn't a big deal in tt's. Is it just a way of talking about power numbers....or does weight now matter? I can see the weight for a guy trying to rage up the Pyrenees at 15mph, but not how it adds up in a tt if weight is indeed not a big deal?

I'm a moron in the power game, just looking into a wired PT and getting my nomenclature down.

Straight watts means nothing

w/kg means a bit more than nothing

w/cda means even more

It's called "allometric scaling".

Bigger people tend to have bigger hearts, bigger muscles, etc., and hence on average can produce more power. However, they also punch a bigger hole in the air. Thus, even in a flat TT power expressed in W/kg is a better predictor of speed than power alone.

If that doesn't make sense, here is another way of expressing it: speed in a flat TT is most closely correlated with W/m^2 of CdA. Most people, though, don't know their CdA, so how do you estimate it? Various formulae exist, but as it turns out, they all include body mass as a measure of overall body size.

Tell that to all the petite women who can TT at 45-50 km/h while producing only ~250 W...

Good goal for an average joe would be sub hour 40k TT.

---

---

Kat Hunter reports on the San Dimas Stage Race from inside the GC winning team
Aeroweenie.com -Compendium of Aero Data and Knowledge
Freelance sports & outdoors writer Kathryn Hunter

Weight doesn't matter for a TT, however, the larger you are the more air you have to push so therefore someone who is 100kg will need more power to sustain the same speed as someone who is 60kg because they will have a much larger frontal area. This is a general correlation and obviously someone who is 68kg could have a lower CdA than someone who is 66kg.

---

Ride Scoozy Electric Bicycles
http://www.RideScoozy.com

Would a better correlation be to height? I can gain a bunch of weight but it isn't going to increase my heart.

---

Ride Scoozy Electric Bicycles
http://www.RideScoozy.com

Within a given individual, height would undoubtly be better (since it is essentially constant). We're not talking about intra-individual comparisons here, though, but inter-individual ones, so my answer would be "not necessarily".

You know what I meant.

Really? 50km/hr on 250 watts?!? I'll give you 45 but calling bs on 50. Prove me wrong.

In his pursuit presentation he shows ~50k/hr @ ~420W

---

Ride Scoozy Electric Bicycles
http://www.RideScoozy.com

1. Average speed during a pursuit is well below the "cruising speed" due to the time lost on the 1st lap (half-lap, actually).

2. Petite women generally don't make very good pursuiters.

It was a ballpark range, but consider this: a small, aerodynamically-gifted woman (or man, for that matter) can easily have a CdA of only 0.180 m^2, sometimes even less. Combine that with a functional threshold power of ~5.5 W/kg, and you've got quite the "pocket rocket".

(Colby Pearce is ~67" and ~135 lbs, and his CdA is only ~0.200 m when using frop bars.)

I was looking at the individual data points of speed and power to negate the standing start/average speed issue. While a pursuiter is not a petite mara abbott it is also a pretty aerodynamic position. and to go 420W to 250W that would be a 40% reduction in CdA from the most aerodynamic pursuiter on a track bike just by being smaller and with a less aero bike. That seems a stretch to me.

---

Ride Scoozy Electric Bicycles
http://www.RideScoozy.com

If you were looking at raw data then it was my wife's...and she's hardly petite:



(Photo from the UCI World Cup race in Montreal in 2002.)


At (a claimed) 120 lbs, Mara Abbott also isn't petitie.


Run the numbers that I provided, and you'll see that the end result is smack-dab in the middle of the 45-50 km/h range I originally stated.

I'm an average Joe who's worked his ass off. No previous history of biking (other than riding a bike as a kid) as of 3 years ago and the last time I did an FTP test I was around 4.3w/KG.

Ken

---

"the trick is to keep losing weight until your friends and family ask you if you've been sick. then you know you're within 10 pounds. if they start whispering to each other, wondering if you've got cancer or aids, you're within 5. when they actually do an intervention, you're at race weight." - Slowman

Ok so, since we're Facebook friends and I am a bit lazy and hungover this morning....how much faster would I be with the same 350 watts and the same position if I dropped from 82 kg to 70 kgs? Very roughly of course.

If you want to be real specific, this could be modeled on the Stony Creek (VA State Champ) TT course, out and back 40k with 100 feet of elevation gain or so on the way out. 51:29 and 46.5kph @351 watts and 180lbs. I think you raced this course a long time ago.

Just paypal me your fees ;>)

I’m bringing up the dead with this thread but it came up when looking at 4w/kg.

Fwiw I started riding 1.5 years ago. First year was 666 miles, yes, mark of the beast. This year? Trying for 4000 by year end. May make it with a pair of centuries in Dec.

I do my numbers in 20min because that’s the plans I follow for my zones. For me 95% is about dead on from doing long hard hour intervals a couple weeks after a test. As a change over time it’s still same change.

Started: 185w and 82.3kg or 2.24
Last week’s test and weigh in: 255w and 74.8kg or 3.4

I can stand to get to 70kg no issue. I don’t see reaching 270w by next years first race too hard. That would be at 3.85 in 2 years from nothing. 3.65 for the hour folks. On 5-6hrs a week. That’s literally nothing against a traditional LSB approach. I’d say a legit hour 4.0 could be done on 6-7hrs a week and within 4 years of riding, from nothing.

But you better get used to some punishing intervals.

I say swap to the hour for stronger than Cat 4. That fitness is very applicable to the race length. Many 5 and 4s race 90min. How is an hour really helpful there? For 3 and faster or tri? Yup, hour.

I’m mostly doing the Time Crunched Cyclist plans when more organized.

Among seasoned riders who train and race, 4w/kg can be very “meh” depending on your region. A flat uncompetitive area a 4w/kg could be god like as the rider is like 75 to 80kg and the competition is lax. Mountain areas like Asheville or California? Not special. A 4.0 may be a min to not get dropped as a 4.

I’ll also throw out that your power profile matters. Having a 4.0 in Tri isn’t the same as a RR 4.0 isn’t the same as a crit 4.0.

So having a 4.0 means very different things in different races.

I have got a question. I m new to Cycling’. I’m 5’4.5 and did a ftp test on the indoor trainer. Wahoo kicker and it gave me a 138 that is cray low and I did a ride on zwift and that honestly about right. Oh my weight is 135lbs . Can someone help me out with this . If it is so low then could I ever become a cat 2or 1 rider. Since I’m stating so low. I don’t know how to start a forum with this question so I just sent it as a replay

Only one way to find out. If you're brand new then you'll probably make some large strides quickly. Either way, I would think about some intermediate goals because Cat 2 is probably ~5 years away if things go well, and really enjoying races and being competitive in your current category should be front of mind.

FWIW I am same height and weight as you when I was bike racing . . . was a good cat 3 @ ~265W 2x20 power. I upgraded to Cat 2, but then quit racing pretty much right after. At that power I was pack fodder in flat races and unable to hang in anything that had hills. Pure speculation, but I think I would have needed to push my power profile up ~10% to be somewhat competitive (i.e. actually finish a race other than giant flat criteriums) -- I had been racing a long time by that point, wasn't clear I could accomplish that without a very serious increase in commitment.

---

Dimond Bikes Superfan

Hey is there anyway you could shoot me a text and just break the basic stuff down or any tips I need to know or just any info that you have learned that you could give me . I’m Jesse and my number is 470 276 0653. If not then no worries thanks agian for the comment

Your FTP is estimated at 95% of your 20 min max power output test. That’s a pretty standard accepted number (Joe Friel and the like use this as the test number).

FTP is an estimate of the power in W(atts) that you could maintain over the course of about an hour. It's a threshold, figuratively and literally- how hard can you sustain without going so hard you have to stop- i.e. it's not a sprint, but it's a harder effort than a tempo pace (moderate to harder aerobic pace, you could "easily" hold 90 minutes plus, up to 3-4 hours), and well past aerobic base, which would be an "all day" kind of pace. It's the TOP end of a lactate threshold pace, the idea being that above LT, your body cannot clear lactate as fast as it is producing it, and you have headed in to VO2 max efforts- maybe tenable 5-20 minutes. I really don't think there is a great number you can call "average". But you can look up charts of accomplished cyclists from Category 5 on up to elite cyclists. Those numbers are high. I wouldn't use them as your benchmark. Also, the first time you attempt to obtain what your FTP might be? Take it with a grain of salt. Warm up thoroughly (there are a lot of guidelines to proper warmups, easily google-able). Test again when you have a better idea of how hard you can push. Don't go out at a pace where you can't say two words. Just like you wouldn't go out too fast in a race. Someone much more well-acquainted with this forum will probably post some useful links about improving FTP. Search the topic, for sure. I'm a total amateur brand-new triathlete with two races under my belt, only about 5 months on a road bike, 42, female, 162lbs, 20% body fat, and my FTP is about 200. It's middling, I guess, but the first time out of the gate I tried an "FTP test" it was only 160. So, there is a ton to be gained simply by riding consistently and wrapping your head around what you have to do.

Yea I’m a 31 male 5’4.5 weight 140. My ftp first time was 130 lol .

I would test it again, anew, on a well-rested, well-hydrated day, with a thorough warm up (not less than 15 min, maybe longer of higher cadence small chainring moderate gearing pedaling and a few short bursts with recoveries, again, totally google that). You could probably maintain 130W for several hours without thinking. Do the test again with a really good warmup and an idea of what to expect. Expect it to be very unpleasant, but also, you can do it. Expect it to SUCK but also, you can do it. You should feel like you worked your a__ off. But also, you survived.

Also, a 20 minute test is even more of an estimate than a 1 hour time trial effort- an hour is a beastly thing. So you take your 20 min best at 95% and it might be a little overstated.

Actually, the people that wrote the book on FTP would disagree with you and Friel.

This applies to less than 50% of the general population.

Edit: dinosaur thread, lol.

Louis :)

Based on a n=1 data point (very statistically significant, I know), I think 4 w/kg.

I achieved that in one season with a consistent and lots of training (I don't have an Olympian parents nor did college level sports). Since then (7 years ago) I have remained broadly flat... I did gain watts with a position change in late 2017 and I am now at 4.2. I don't think I will improve from here... 44yr old guy.

Definitely interested in hearing more

What W/kg did you start at the year before hitting 4w/kg



And what did you do in that year to get to 4 watts/kg

How much do you weigh?

Please be as detailed as possible.

Thank you

This was a long time ago and around that time I switched from Polar to Garmin, so I don't have my old training records.

I re-started training in the summer of 2010 after a 2 year hiatus. Did a couple of long distance duathlons in the fall of 2010 and spring 2011; ended up in the bottom decile and quartile respectively. Summer of 2011 trained for my first (and only) ultra marathon. Completed it, again bottom decile in the results. Continued the run focused training for the rest of the year, then in Jan 2012 switched to triathlon training for the goal of completing my second Ironman. Knee inflammation 4 weeks before the race, so stopped all running.

So for 8 months, my training consisted of 1.15 to 1.30 every morning at 180 watts. I also did some sessions on a 12 min (180) / 3 min (220w) ratio. For the summer vacation, took my bike and ended up doing some harder unstructured rides in the mountains.

In late October, joined a local cycle club for a 120km ride, of which 7km /4 miles is an uphill time trial. I came in second in that informal race with 313 NP for 28 minutes.

Bottom line (or the way I package my recollection): I fell in love with cycling, cycled tons, didn't get injured or burned out, didn't test my fitness in training, and then realized that I became quite good at it (for a triathlete, not cyclist).

Hope this helps. Recognize that this might not be great, but it was nearly a decade ago...

Thank you

Helps a lot

Much appreciated

maybe this attached screenshot can help