VO2 of 65 mL/min/kg
pretty inspiring to know our potential is about a 2:35ish marathon.
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…
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.
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.
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
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!
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.
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.
[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?
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.
VO2 of 65 mL/min/kg
pretty inspiring to know our potential is about a 2:35ish marathon.
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.
“4W/Kg is more “average amateur” than “local pro” for a triathlete.” Define “average” please.
“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.
“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 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)
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!
at under 3watts/kg I did 1:04 last year, wasn’t flat though, lot of turns too.
If we’re going to play that game
55.51 for 40km tt on 3.15 w/kg. Strong crosswinds (as in sitting up necessary when going past hedges) and a road so rough it barely qualified as paved (worth ~1.40 more than on a smooth road). one turn though.
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!