[Closed] Operation 5w/kg

On here? Is that the guy in Germany who starts threads occasionally on being more aero etc?

I can’t even get my head around 5w/kg

I’ve only just got myself over 3w/kg and I feel like I’ve had it pare my weight right down. Couple more kgs off will be about as low as I can go - would take me to 74kgs which would be the lightest I’ve been since about ages 12. Means I’d have to get my ftp to 375w ish - and at the moment I’m at 231w.

It was this thread, so not the German powerhouse guy.

https://singletrackmag.com/forum/topic/project-5-watts-per-kg/page/2/

My FTP is currently 275 at 70-71kg so I am pretty close to 4w/kg and then I'll be able to claim indoor training completed, although I did lose my only Strava KOM this summer so I need to re complete Strava this summer

How do you get there? I'm 70kg could go to 68kg but even then it just gives me 3W/kg.
What do you do to get that up?

I use wahoo and run and am exercising daily, sometimes recovery rides sometimes yoga.

For how long? I'm pretty sure I can manage 5w/kg quite easily (but only for about 10 seconds...!)

For FTP so it's what 95% of 20 min effort isn't it?

How do you get there?

Pedal like ****!

Lots of long steady riding. A small proportion of harder efforts. And decent genetics. I don’t believe I could ever have got to 5 even when younger (especially being the wrong side of 80kg), now I’m over 50 and 4 is a respectable level that in quite pleased with (best ever 20 min is 361W at 4.4).

Easier way of all is to have dodgy kit of course. Plenty of that to be seen on zwift, though you can’t usually tell until they are high A+ level.

markgraylish
Free Member

For how long?

It was his FTP he was targeting, so technically 1 hour. Good luck with that

best ever 20 min is 361W at 4.4

Is that best ever 20min or best ever FTP? (95% of best 20mins)

Either way it's very impressive!

I don't think 5w/kg for 20 at a reasonable weight is out of the reach of most amateurs that are interested in it, but if you haven't come to cycling or training from a background of generally being reasonably fit it could be a longer process.

My gut tells me (based on varying volume a lot over the last 4-5yrs) you'd probably need to be spending c. 10-15hrs a week though.

But 5 for 20 isn't 5 FTP, and even if you managed 5/0.95 for 20 it probably wouldn't prove you had a true 5 ftp ( often worse than the estimated 5%).

I've hit 5ish for a 20min once (381 @ like 76kg) but there's not a chance I could do it for an hour, let alone 361 for an hour. I think at 381 for 20 I could probably have pushed 320-330 for an hour. That was on about 8-10/week (plus lifting).

I gave up and decided I didn't care but that I'd like 500 for 5mins. I think for most of the racing you do in the UK (short crits and xco) 500 for 5 would win you more races than 5 for an hour.

Based on a middle aged man with a beer and kebab habit (me).
FTP of around 300 (when not injured)
Weight around 95 kgs

I imagine losing 25 years, 20 kg and structured training could have got near. Unfortunately I'd have been in the pub and smoking 25 years ago.

Also IIRC the weight helps with the power, so if I was lighter would it drop power, assuming the same muscle mass? I don't know.

@jamesoz

That whole 'weight=power' thing assumes that you're at the lowest sustainable bodyfat and have no superfluous upper body muscle. If tom pidcock loses 5kg, he's going to lose power (not just because that would probably require him to chop a leg off), but I'm 75kg and I could easily lop 5kg of extraneous weight.

5? I'd be happy consistently holding 2 and a bit. 83kg, a powerhouse FTP of 209 according to a 12-month old ramp test.

I hit 3.48w/kg for a short time and what a time it was! Back down to below 3 after Covid and not much riding for the 3 months after Covid and then over indulgence at christmas. Easy to fall right off.

ooh..now this is interesting,and something to aim for...

My current weight is 70kg... and an FTP test lst saturday was 312 watts (20min at 328w average)
It spanked me...but... I wasn't well slept or rested enough. Don't get me wrong, it was hard and I rtried hard...but the watt average dropped off towards the end.

If I dropped to 68kg (i've done it before, for my vEveresting) and got the FTP to 340 (yeah right!!!) then that's 5w/kg..
Which would mean 20min at 358 watts....

However...if I dropped to 65kg, and had an FTP of 325 (342 watts average for 20 min) that would ALSO be 5 per kg..

So which is easier... shedding weight, or gaining power...?? hmmm!!!

DrP

My current weight is 70kg… and an FTP test lst saturday was 312 watts

That's impressive!!
I find I can do say 3.8w/kg for an hour when racing but can't raise my FTP over 3.8.... guess I would need to train with intervals etc but that seems the opposite of fun and I ride for fun!

If I could drop 1kg and raise my FTP by 5 w I'd be at 4w/kg

5W/kg is a pretty high elite level and most normal people won’t get there however much training they do. Especially if they are in the large side.

The original thread is pretty interesting reading actually..

@molgrips mentioned "It’s long been told on here that if you are already a reasonable cyclist you can’t lose weight at the same time as increasing power."
I would agree, but also PERSONALLY I have dropped to 65kg (about 2015 i think) and felt SUPER STRONG on the bike. However, at that time I didn't use power data, so maybe I just felt sprightly (though did well at Brighton Big Dog).

6 years later and approaching 40 it might be a different matter!
I know I'm pretty light, but I also know with commitment I COULD shed 2-3 kg of back fat (!! vanityP) and keep the muscles..

Hmmm...
With my new FTP of 312, I'm planning on redoing the 'build me up' workout plan..of course this time the figures to train to will be harder/higher, THUS I SHOULD be aiming for an FTP climb again...

Should...

DrP

I think for most of the racing you do in the UK (short crits and xco) 500 for 5 would win you more races than 5 for an hour

Agree with this, good 5 minute power is probably a better focus if you're racing.

Intervals can sometimes be grim but are obviously effective, so if being fit and fast is your idea of fun you need to embrace them!

As indicated above, it’s all in the weigh. Far easier to lose 20kg if you are a bit porky than put on 100 watts of power.

I went from 2.5 w/kg to 4.1w/kg in about 9 months, but my power only rose by about 50 watts in that time. The rest was losing my excess Podge

You’ll then get to your optimum weight, I lost about 2kg too much and my power started going back down again

I love the way ftp has evolved into a sort of semi-vanity metric, which disregards the rest of your power profile completely. Personally, and particularly for mountain biking, I'd rather have a middle ground ftp and disproportionately high one minute and five minute numbers plus really good recovery from those and anaerobic sprint efforts.

I know there's not a total disconnect and you can potentially have both, but just sitting there on Zwift doing ftp-focussed workouts so you can brag about your ftp figures seems a little myopic. I'm not having a go at anyone, but as my Iron Man riding buddy discovered a few years back, being able to churn along at a constant rate isn't much use on a mountain bike if three successive, hard, technical kick climbs render you more or less insensible.

Michael Hutchinson's book Faster is interesting on this. He's basically a big diesel engine, which is fine for time trialling, but not so great for anything more varied. In the end ftp is really just a mark to set training levels by, not an aim in itself.

Definitely not something I could achieve, without living like a monk (nor would I want to, I don't think).

One of my riding friends is a bit of a freak, 185cm, 68kg & has an FTP of 308w, which is 4.5w/kg. He does an insane amount of training, and looks like he would snap in a strong breeze, that said he can ride a bike though.

I'm a much more slovenly 188cm, 85kg & 275w FTP which puts me at 3.2w/kg, which is fine. I could probably lose 5kg fairly sensibly whilst still being able to lift decent weight in the gym, and fit it round life, a job, a nice beer & dinners out & push it up to ~290w with some training, which would get me up to a whole 3.6w/kg.

Or I could just carry on as I am & enjoy myself 🙂

There's the short person advantage too.

I'm not heavy, I'm tall. 🤣

At 6ft 3in and 84kg, my current 210w FTP puts me at 2.5w/kg

If I was 5ft 8in at the same BMI, same 210w FTP, I'd be 69kg and would be at 3.04w/kg.

but just sitting there on Zwift doing ftp-focussed workouts so you can brag about your ftp figures seems a little myopic.

True and I reckon if I practiced FTP test I could up my figure by about 10-20w. I've only ever done 2 tests, the one this week was prompted by me seeing my average Watts on an RGT race (6 laps with 6 Patterberg climbs) was higher than my FTP, so if I could average that figure over 50mins with periodic hard efforts up the climb, I should be able to beat my FTP and sure enough I could. I'd like to increase my 2min type power to hang onto groups longer in races, but TBH I can't be arsed!

5W/kg is a pretty high elite level

Don't kid yourself, 5W/kg is top end Junior male level's of power / Elite female levels, Elite male is a good 0.5 to 0.75 W/kg more, Pro is way beyond that.

There's absolutely no point dropping weight if its firstly unsustainable and secondly drops power, yeah if you're the average MTB rider then loosing weight is going to help, but it's more about lean muscle mass than actual weight.

Take a look at Wout for example, he's frankly massive for a pro road racer at 78kg, but can also drop exceptional wattage bazookas and has a huge FTP, even when he's in (lighter maybe 74kg) GT shape as Ineos found out last year when he merrily rode away from Bernal.

I'm on the good side of shit when it comes to racing, best I've done in a Zwift Crit is 3.9w/kg average and can sprint at around 10w/kg, not exactly amazing, but I'm considerably better at chugging around for hours on end.

For reference, on the same calibrated trainer (Elite Direto) my 36kg 9yr old has an FTP of 129W or 3.6w/kg and a 10 second of 548W or 15w/kg, but then again he can also spin along at 110rpm and there's barely an ounce of fat on him.

@badlywireddog
I'd kinda agree... especially on a MTB where 'punch', burst power, and skill/flow are very important factors too....
But... If you gotta measure something to work from, it may as WELL be FTP..
It's recognised, pretty translatable from one system to another..

For example, doing any workout plan WILL ask for your FTP to base it around.

Also, (not a facaetious question..) have you done any FTP based programmes?? Zwift etc?

They are actually pretty good! I used to be a bit cynical, and be of the "Meh..just rid your bike camp", but actually they DO address lots of different riding factors...
Say your FTP is 300; a LOT of the programme is based about riding at just below and then just above.. sweet spot training..
But then you'll have some sessions getting you to grind out at 70-80 rpm at, say, 275 watts, for 10 minutes...
Then another will work on 350 watts for 3 minutes, with a 4 min rest, then again at 350 for 3 min...
Then it'll get you doing 600 watts for 20 seconds...40 seconds off, 600watts for 20 again...

They DO mix up the varying components you sepak of...

But... it all works around the base figure of FTP.

I've benefitted greatly for XC racing as I've massively improved my ability to ruddy push it for 2 min (up a climb, for example) then KEEP THE POWER DOWN over the top, whilst actively recovering whilst still giving it some#!

DrP

I've just started (2 weeks ago) the most training I've done in many years, which is 6 workouts a week. My Garmin training was around 300 typically, now it's currently 1150. And I feel pretty good, but my weight actually went up a bit from its already high post-Christmas number. Just started to come down now. But I feel like a monster on Zwift currently.

Intervals can sometimes be grim but are obviously effective, so if being fit and fast is your idea of fun you need to embrace them!

I can't be the only one on here who actually enjoys doing intervals, right? Right?

For example, doing any workout plan WILL ask for your FTP to base it around.

Systm doesn't, at least not exactly. Their 4DP test includes 15 second and 5 min power, too. And they then use that to calibrate the workouts. Whether they're any more effective... no idea. Then there's also the point that while the 5min power might be what wins you the race, if you need to ride at 100% of FTP just to be competitive at the sprint you're stuffed. Another rider who's been cruising round at 90% is going to be a whole load fresher.

Also, (not a facaetious question..) have you done any FTP based programmes?? Zwift etc?

Yes, lots, but not on Zwift. My point isn't that ftp is a useless metric, it isn't, but it's basically there as a training baseline and just improving it in isolation is a bit like being great at, say, maths. Ideally you also want to be able to read and write and have a level of common sense and emotional intelligence etc.

The 4DP measurement that Sufferfest / Wahoo SYSTM uses makes a lot more sense as it measures 20 minute, 5 minute, 1 minute and, erm, I think, 7 second sprint power rather than using ftp as a baseline to set the other levels for workouts. Of course if your power levels are in perfectly in proportion, then just using ftp is fine, but if, say, you have a disproportionately higher five minute power, then potentially setting MAP interval levels using FTP is actually going to set your targets too low.

I'm not saying ftp is useless, but - and this isn't exactly an original thought - it's just a part of your overall power profile or whatever you want to call it. I'm a bit hyper-aware of this atm as after almost 18 months off the bike thanks to long covid and around five months back, my ftp is now 248 watts - without any structured training - so down about 50 watts on what it was, but my top end is still trashed and disproportionately low and trust me, I can feel it. I'm pretty good on steady stuff, but still struggling with short, hard efforts.

If I trained simply to increase ftp - sweet spots, which are actually below ftp, not the same as over/unders etc - nothing would change ort at least it wouldn't be an effective way of increasing five minute or one minute power. Indeed if I then tried to use my increased ftp to set power targets for shorter intervals, it would potentially make those targets quite unrealistically high.

None of this really matters, but ftp is just part of a much bigger picture not an aim in itself. It's a bit like max torque and power figures for a car engine, they tell you a bit, but not necessarily how it will drive in the real world.

Edit: sorry, I suspect we sort of agree, but I'm feeling argumentative 🙂

The 4DP measurement that Sufferfest / Wahoo SYSTM uses makes a lot more sense as it measures 20 minute, 5 minute, 1 minute and, erm, I think, 7 second sprint power rather than using ftp as a baseline to set the other levels for workouts. Of course if your power levels are in perfectly in proportion, then just using ftp is fine, but if, say, you have a disproportionately higher five minute power, then potentially setting MAP interval levels using FTP is actually going to set your targets too low.

I'd agree with this...
(also, yup..got over/unders confused with sweetspot!)
I think my power curve starts off lower than you'd expect (for my FTP), drops rapidly, then flattens out around teh 5 min mark...
I.e My max sprint power is usually 2.5 ish times my FTP... no way will i routinely hit, let alone sustain, 1000w. Again, my 20 second power is probably waaaay down from what would be expected from my FTP. But i could, with relative ease, hold my FTP for 5-10 minutes really.

Thus I imagine a 4dp programme would suit me better. But..I pay for and like zwift, so meh!!!!

DrP

EDIT

Edit: sorry, I suspect we sort of agree, but I’m feeling argumentative 🙂

Ha..no worries... I'm in the midst of messaging my Ex about actually helping out with our isolating daughter this week... so I feel a 'zen like calm' at the mo..otherwise I loose my shizzle!!!

I used to like the Sufferfest 4DP thing, as it tailored all areas of the workouts to suit.

Zwift just seems to base all of its metrics on percentages of the FTP, so if you have a relatively high 20min figure compared to 10 seconds, the sprint wattage required is insane.

At the end of the day, its just a number to see if you are getting stronger on the turbo or not. Doesn't equate well to outdoor power figures in my experience.

Back to the OP, I'm above 4k/w FTP but 5 is never gonna happen...

I find that the only reliable way to test FTP is to take an average of 3 different tests.

I do a 20 min FTP - tends to be the lowest.
A 2x8 min FTP - tends to be the highest.
A ramp test (Suf Half Monty) - tends to be in the middle.

My 2x8 is highest as I've (apparently a good AC proportionately to my FTP), but I really suffer with extended high tempo stuff. Find that just brutal..

Its a fun week!

I have a slightly fanciful goal of trying to get to 5 W/kg this year. I went from 3.5 W/kg at the start of last year up to 4.25 as I currently stand. 73kg and FTP of 310. (This is measured both inside on the turbo and outside using the same powermeter - both come out within 4W of each other). I reckon I can get my weight back down to 71/72 kg, which means raising FTP to around 355W, which will be hard but doable.
My slightly more realistic goal is 4.5 W/kg at 73 and 330W.

I'm following a training programme on Trainerroad (low volume) and then adding in two gym workouts and lots of extra Z2 work on the road. I generally do somewhere in the region of 10-12 hours weekly.

I would definitely agree with FTP not being the be-all and end-all. Once my base phase ends, I spend a considerable amount of time working on repeatability of hard efforts as I feel that being able to do 400W efforts again and again is what benefits me in XC racing. I'd still like a big FTP though, as it makes everything feel a little bit easier!

I would definitely agree with FTP not being the be-all and end-all. Once my base phase ends, I spend a considerable amount of time working on repeatability of hard efforts as I feel that being able to do 400W efforts again and again is what benefits me in XC racing. I’d still like a big FTP though, as it makes everything feel a little bit easier!

I'd go along with this.

Team lap events I like as I can give it the beans safe in the knowledge I've got plenty go time to recover.

Depends entirely on the cycling you do as to whether ftp is a good indicator of performance

I worked on my ftp as I wanted to compete in tt’ing. Granted w/kg isn’t massively relevant on a flat tt but ftp absolutely is. In fact it and your aero cda literally define how fast you’ll go

But conversely I then rocked up to a mtb event, looked at all the ‘fat’ mtb’ers on the start line next to me, and had a little chuckle to myself. Before literally dying a painful death on the many short sharp climbs that required efforts far over ftp that I’d simply not practiced for.

I’d say ftp is far more relevant on a road bike than a mtb, however unless the race finishes on a fairly long climb, you won’t win much without numerous other strings to your bow

Targeted workouts based on 4DP on Sufferfest / SYSTM have massively improved my mtb ability. I used to do triathlons, so it was all steady-rate FTP based. But over the past 12 months, whilst my FTP has only gone up by 8%, my 5-minute and 1-minute power have gone up over 20%, with a transformation in recovery from hard efforts, which means I can now do short sharp offroad climbs and keep going at the top, ready for another one.

@mogrim

I can’t be the only one on here who actually enjoys doing intervals, right? Right?

I enjoy them too, just need to dig in sometimes and remember why I'm doing them!

I've been using WKO5 which models FTP from your power duration curve, you need to keep feeding good data into the curve with periodic short, medium and long tests.

Garbage in, garbage out.

Workout intensity based off iLevels which are generated from the curve and much like the 4DP thing they're personal rather than some generic percentage of FTP.

And I couldn't hit 5wkg either, usually between 4 and 4.3 which I'm happy enough with.

OK... so thinking about it, I might look into, or create, some workouts on Zwift that aim to push up my shorter time power..
7, 20, and 300sec power....

I'm lazy..anyone know the names of workouts that do this??

DrP

Don’t kid yourself, 5W/kg is top end Junior male level’s of power / Elite female levels, Elite male is a good 0.5 to 0.75 W/kg more, Pro is way beyond that.

Not sure where you're getting your numbers from but the UCI pro in my zwift team comes in at 5.1, sure there are some with better numbers, but the enthusiasts who didn't quite make it are a good level down. The strongest women I know on zwift, which means national titles and records for IRL riding, are also at or under under 5. Juniors can have good W/kg due to being super light but unless you remain a skinny midget into adulthood, you're not going to stay that way.

I did mean "elite amateur" when I wrote elite, not absolute world beating. There's simply no way that an average guy is ever going to get there. We can't all just get to pro level in cycling by willpower any more than we would in athletics or golf.

Currently 3.96 W/kg based on 77kgs and FTP of 305 (one and only FTP test courtesy of DrP's Saturday morning FTP wake-up call last weekend). That's through reasonably infrequent riding and a bit of running rather than any dedicated training so going to see where I can get to this year, both in terms of W/kg and efforts, with a bit more structured training now that I've a turbo. That's been great for when I'm a bit short on time or if the weather up here is crap (though don't mind running in the rain, cycling definitely less fun).

@thecaptain

Sorry - but I don't agree and a quick google shows that in the pro or even amateur peloton, 5wkg isn't special. It's obviously stronger than 95% of the random bods just out there riding, but I wouldn't be surprised if half the field in my local e/1/2 is pushing 5 or more.

I got to 4.9 on 5-10hrs a week training at a reasonable weight and a few training weeks abroad, and can comfortably sit at 4-4.5 on 4hrs a week of Sufferfest, a bit of lifting and the occasional mountain bike ride. Half the guys I'm racing against (amateur, they also race road e/1/2) are pushing over 400 for 20mins and under 80 (but they don't do anything else, and probably put in 10-15hrs a week).

However, you're completely right when it comes to the women's field. 5 is exceptional, and puts you right at the top (Chloe Dygert apparently like 298@65 for 4.6wkg).

Not sure where you’re getting your numbers from but the UCI pro in my zwift team comes in at 5.1, sure there are some with better numbers, but the enthusiasts who didn’t quite make it are a good level down. The strongest women I know on zwift, which means national titles and records for IRL riding, are also at or under under 5. Juniors can have good W/kg due to being super light but unless you remain a skinny midget into adulthood, you’re not going to stay that way.

I did mean “elite amateur” when I wrote elite, not absolute world beating. There’s simply no way that an average guy is ever going to get there. We can’t all just get to pro level in cycling by willpower any more than we would in athletics or golf.

In the real world 5w/kg for an FTP (i.e. the best part of 1 hour) is probably lower end Elite cat racer (on the Britsh Cycling standard).

Of course I agree 5 isn’t that special in the pro peloton. I’m saying that we don’t all have the ability to get there.

I just looked at the DIRT team on zwift as it’s a large accessible data set probably representative of reasonably enthusiastic and competitive riders.

About 30 of them (just 1%!) have a 20 min power over 5. Several of these I know to be pros. One I know to be a fraud with faulty data and I’d be surprised if there weren’t more.

The idea that we can all fit into that 1% if we just choose to.. it’s silly. You might as well say we could all run a 2:30 marathon if only we set our minds to it.

This (from 2018) would indicate that 5w/kg is pretty exceptional amongst the general population.

I (once) got to 4w/kg - 302W @ 75kg. I was doing the whole 28 week TR plan (Base 1,2, Build and MTB) plus riding 3 to 4 times per week.

[img] [/img]

Your friendly neighbourhood spider-elite-amateur here. I tend to finish in the top 15 in elite national XC races, so not anywhere near bothering the pros.

I've been hovering around the high 4s for a couple of years now but never cracked the arbitrary 5. Interestingly my 20 minute derived FTP (Coggan protocol with the 5 minute max effort beforehand) is very close to that from an hour test. I've found that I can improve the value I get from a 20 minute test by doing what are effectively under-overs and surging on hills, but that just takes it further away from the aerobic capacity it's trying to evaluate.

I do find that I'm weaker than most of my peers, and tend to do best in races where power matters the least. My best result this year was 5th at the National in Monmouth, where there was literally more running and falling over than riding.
I've plenty of friends at 5w/kg or above, but there are always other factors at play which level the playing field.

I also get absolutely battered on the road, although that's as much a lack of tactical awareness than anything else. There are some very different demands on all the different events that suit different riders though. XCO tends to be about repeated 10-120 second efforts that don't tail off too much over the course of the race. Marathon racing is mostly being able to do sweet spot all day, so is much more FTP determined in some ways. Then the road varies hugely, but you'll be pretty stuck without a half decent aerobic capacity.
Even the sprinters on the road are endurance athletes at their core, just ones with a kick.

@thecaptain

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that I reckon any (genetic) male, 18-40, without a disability, with the time to invest 12-15hrs a week during the training season, a reasonable training plan, enough food, sleep and recovery time can make 5w/kg. Lots won't even need that.

I'd say it was the equivalent of redpointing 8a; or maybe running a sub 3hr marathon. Not easy, but if you put the time in you can get there.

If you can't make the above for any reason; that doesn't make you a failure - far from it. 15 hours a week is a lot of time investment! But that also doesn't mean you don't have the ability to do it.

I reckon you’d need fairly decent genetics and a good training plan to get there, but I’d agree that I think 5w/kg aint all that special. To be a top cyclist you obviously need far more variety than that, unless you are a gc or tt contender, in which case you can probably rely more on your ftp, but it’s going to have to be far higher than 5!

My mate at the club has an ftp over 5 yet he’d be absolutely battered in an mtb or flat road race. He has no top end power. Most of the guys at sharp end in my local TTs are putting similar efforts out.

On the flip side, marcel kittel apparently never had an ftp over 5w/kg, and he did alright for himself

I’m going to go out on a limb here and say that I reckon any (genetic) male, 18-40, without a disability, with the time to invest 12-15hrs a week during the training season, a reasonable training plan, enough food, sleep and recovery time can make 5w/kg. Lots won’t even need that.

I’d say it was the equivalent of redpointing 8a; or maybe running a sub 3hr marathon. Not easy, but if you put the time in you can get there.

If you can’t make the above for any reason; that doesn’t make you a failure – far from it. 15 hours a week is a lot of time investment! But that also doesn’t mean you don’t have the ability to do it.

No way, not in a million years! I don't even think that would work for 4w/kg. You need decent genes and a lot of training to hit 5w/kg.

Edit: I would add that I know plenty of folks who train that much on the road don't get close to 5w/kg. Go to any 2/3/4 cat race in the country you will find many such people.

If you listen to Andy Coggan, who most would agree knows more than a little bit about cycling power, he reckons an average male will top out at 3.9 W/kg even after serious training:

From here: https://forum.slowtwitch.com/forum/?post=2830698#p2830698

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

Yay, I'm bang average!!

Or maybe slightly above being closer to 50 than 40.

@ac282 I'll take that and feel mollified

I can only surmise that what I've learnt is I'm not losing races to average people.

Is there perhaps a self selection bias here? People with average vo2 maxes don't race bikes? Tell that to half the blokes on a zwift b cat with 380w normalised!

There’s simply no way it is close to a sub3 marathon. I’ve run 2:47 (aged 50) and am around 4W/kg. When I was a student training hard under good coaches, maybe as much as 4.5W/kg but even then 5 would have been a very strong performance considering I was 85kg.

The world record for 1 hour on a rowing machine is 408w by a 98kg Olympic champion. Rowing is less efficient than cycling but it’s the same ballpark.

Personally, and particularly for mountain biking, I’d rather have a middle ground ftp and disproportionately high one minute and five minute numbers plus really good recovery from those and anaerobic sprint efforts

I think we have to accept that we're mostly the wrong side of 30 or 40, and increasing power at 1 minute or 5 minutes is now very hard indeed. I think it's true of most people that we become more dieselly as we get older.

I'm 46 and have lost any real top-end power. 5 minute efforts are ok, but i expect that will decline, or at least is not likely to improve. My 1 minute power is poor. My Sufferfest 4D power profile has me as a very definite time-trial type (not that i ever do time trials)

If I'm going to make any real gains, it will be to my FTP. I have been at 4.5w/kg when i trained for the Marmotte a few years ago and FTP was exactly what was required when going up the Galibier etc. Getting to 5 probably requires sacrifices to diet and time that i'm not willing to make.

These days it's about 4 (i'm heavier than i was then) and I'm more bothered about 10-20 minute efforts for which FTP is still crucial, especially if I'm doing them again and again over 4+ hours. I think a realistic target for me would be to get back to 4.5 and i think i'll set that as a goal for this year.

Of course improving FTP tends to bring up MAP as well. i doubt there's many who are great at 20 or 60 minutes, but really rubbish at 5.

i agree that 1 and 5 minute efforts would be more important if i was intending to make it big in XCO racing, but i don't think that's on the cards any more. 🙁

@thecaptain

4.5@ 80 is an easy 5.1 @70? 😉

Why am I encouraging this awful approach toward weight loss? Eurgh, cycling.

If you listen to Andy Coggan, who most would agree knows more than a little bit about cycling power, he reckons an average male will top out at 3.9 W/kg even after serious training:

I reckon that’s very conservative. As a 43 year old with a lifetime of fags and other bodily abuse behind me, and absolutely zero athletic background, I got to 4.1 w/kg within 9 months of taking up cycling semi seriously. And by semi serious I’m talking no more than 7 hrs per week and absolutely zero structured training.

I’m confident I could have got that quite a bit higher with proper coaching. Probably not 5 watts per kilo tbf, but if I’d started in my 20s and followed a proper plan it wouldn’t have been out the question

I reckon for a normal bloke under 40 who’s not heavily built, between 4 and 5 would be very realistic with the correct training

If you think sub 3hr is anywhere near 8a you're very, very wrong. 6c, but that's another argument.

I would argue the statement that a good ftp is irrelevant to some racing because of other factors... it's going to impact the other factors as you're not going to be on your bars dying. Back in the day I did some stints of altitude training- it shouldn't have impact on power and fast finishing, but it does, as everyone else is knackered and you're fresh as a daisy, and recover in race, very fast

I think you have some genetics on your side tpbiker. I'm "built like a cyclist" (6ft, 165lbs) and have been moderately athletic most of my life. At times I've even trained pretty hard but I've never made it out of sport class or much over 4W/kg.

I have a friend who can run marathons in 2:45. Even when he wasn't really training and I was he could wipe the floor with me..

LOLs yeah @continuity I’m skinny at 80, I’d have to lose limbs to make 70. But I can see the temptation for cyclists to go for unhealthy weight loss which can be a problem for some.

I’m afraid this “anyone can do it if they try” is mostly something lucky gifted people say to convince themselves that it’s all due to their hard work and thus deserved, rather than substantially due to genetics and therefore luck. I know more about running than cycling, and I know plenty of guys who train just as hard as me but who haven’t got that close to sub3 for a marathon. And on the flip side, the winner of my age group in the last vet champs went under 2:30 which is beyond my wildest dreams. We all have our limits. And for most people I’m pretty sure it’s closer to 4 than 5w/kg.

You do need genetics on your side. The physical attributes aren't necessarily all that rare, but not everyone is using them. There are people out there who would be great cyclists don't ride bikes. Just think how many outstanding rugby players have never picked up a rugby ball. Or consider that the world's best sprinter may have been born in a country that doesn't have a structured athletics programme so they never took it up.

@wbo sounds like you're as bad a climber as I am a runner...

4.23 for me, on one of the lower power outputs on here (276W average on 10mile time trial, never done an FTP test so used that)
Being 10st4 really helps bring it up though.
Not sure I want to lose weight, but gaining power would be really nice!

Talking about w/kg and then giving weight in stone FFS....this country 🤪

4.23 for me, on one of the lower power outputs on here (276W average on 10mile time trial, never done an FTP test so used that)
Being 10st4 really helps bring it up though.
Not sure I want to lose weight, but gaining power would be really nice!

This nicely illustrates the problem of asking random strangers what their FTP is...

Firstly, using those numbers the estimate of your FTP would be 4.01W/kg not 4.23.

Secondly, taking 95% of a sinlge 20 min effort will almost certinly overstate your FTP. Originally the test featured a 5 min max effort 10 mins before your 20 min test. Even then it's still not not a reliable estimate of threshold power for a lot of people, particularly if you don't train and race longer durations. My best 1 hour power was about 0.91% of my best 20min power.

And finally of course there is the accuracy of the PM. If it's a Stages you might as well just pluck a number out of a hat. Even if it's a decent manufacturer the calibration could easily be off.

Of course improving FTP tends to bring up MAP as well. i doubt there’s many who are great at 20 or 60 minutes, but really rubbish at 5.

*Puts hand up*

I did a 4DP test last week (my first ever, though I've done a few different types of Zwift ftp tests) and my results are:

Your 5 min power is less than 115% of your 20 min power. We've adjusted it to the minimum of 115% of your 20m power, but we strongly suggest manually decreasing your 20min power by 2-3%.

...which, apparently, is pretty rubbish for MAP but in my defence I've never attempted a 5 minute all out effort so probably got the timing/effort of that part wrong. Anyway, I'm classed by SYSTM as a time trialist and I've never done a time trial in my life.

I was listening to a podcast by the SYSTM guys and they reckoned that a lowish MAP puts a ceiling on your potential FTP. So, to increase FTP, you have to work on your MAP first (which is the opposite of what @gingerflash said)

This is my results from the SYSTM 4DP test (aka Sufferfest Full Frontal) which suggests improving MAP (5 minute Maximal Aerobic Power) as, otherwise, you'll reach a ceiling on your FTP...

As a roadie who didn’t take up road racing until my late 30’s, at 67kgs my max FTP was 308 watts, so 4.6 w/kg. That’s with coaching and going part time work wise to fit in 15 hours of training a week….ish…I always tried to do 2 rides a week for me, that I enjoyed, coffee and cake always included, training was probably closer to 8 hours a week. (FTP measured on a Wattbike Pro, multiple tests, but I’d get very similar numbers from The Athlete Lab in London measured with a Stages. Also pretty close to my 4iiii used performing 45 min climbs pretty much traffic free)
I was ok when the race had a few prolonged hills or even breaks I’d hold my own. However crits, as much as I loved them, the constant 30 second max effort out of every corner absolutely mullered me. I was also crap at TT’s and would get hammered by the younger lads in XC. Again the XC was because of the constant max efforts.
I had to work really hard to get to the power/wper kg I got to. Being honest it wasn’t worth the sacrifice. But we all differ.

<span style="font-size: 0.8rem;">Secondly, taking 95% of a sinlge 20 min effort will almost certinly overstate your FTP. Originally the test featured a 5 min max effort 10 mins before your 20 min test. Even then it’s still not not a reliable estimate of threshold power for a lot of people, particularly if you don’t train and race longer durations.</span>

It's a very common misconception, but FTP is not your hour power. Coggan reckoned FTP is the power you could potentially hold for 40-70 minutes. Riding at high percentages of your FTP is hard and needs to be trained. It is almost impossible to calculate FTP without being in a lab and measuring blood lactate levels.

Id have to start lifting/squating weights to get to 5w/kg. Currently at about 3.5w/kg which is an FTP of 206 at 59kg.

We did a club hillclimb on Zwift. The female winner did 5.1 w/kg average over 49 minutes.

She does hold multiple national TT records though!

Of..that’s some effort… up AdZ??

DrP

Zwift hasn't upped my estimated FTP for ages despite me being very clearly a lot stronger. It's because I used to do the crit races, to which I am well suited, but now I do the longer races and TTTs where I am conserving effort wherever I can.

I'm considering sacking off the Thursday TTT and doing a crit instead or maybe a VO2 max workout. I think I would respond much better to it. That said I've made my way into our Frappe team from Latte which is better training.

It’s a very common misconception, but FTP is not your hour power. Coggan reckoned FTP is the power you could potentially hold for 40-70 minutes. Riding at high percentages of your FTP is hard and needs to be trained. It is almost impossible to calculate FTP without being in a lab and measuring blood lactate levels.

Yes, I am aware that Coggan has subsequently redefined FTP (or not, as the case may be!), but for the sake of brevity and because it's what most people still use, I have referred to 1 hour power. Plus I think it's still a perfectly good (simple) training metric for most amatures.

If it’s a Stages you might as well just pluck a number out of a hat. Even if it’s a decent manufacturer the calibration could easily be off.

I’m intrigued by why you think stages aren’t a good manufacturer and will be miles off?

I have a 5 of them and (other than one that is clearly a bit dodgy) they give near identical numbers to any other power meter I’ve ever used. Including my neo which is one of the most accurate trainers out there

I also think a 20 min test is a pretty accurate way of determining power. I’ve only ever done one proper hour long ftp test and my power was within a few watts of what I’d thought it would be calculated on 20 min.

Ramp tests however I reckon are bollocks. I did one on the tt bike last year, yet the value it gave me I struggled to hold for 25 min of a proper race (and I’ve always put out more power outdoors than on a turbo)

My mate sometimes goes to the gym for Zwift races because he says the Stages bike gives him another 20W. Perhaps because it's miscalibrated, it has a bigger flywheel than his indoor trainer or because it's a fixed gear. Bit sneaky though tbh.

and I’ve always put out more power outdoors than on a turbo

Interested in this - even on a decent direct-drive trainer? I always saw about ten percent less power for the same RPE indoors back when I had a power meter on my bike, but then I had a wheel-on trainer which seemed to suck power in the dead spot. My current power seems to be way down on what I got back then even though I feel probably the strongest I've ever been. I'd love to think I could stick another 30W onto my actual power numbers but I don't have a power meter on my bike any more 🙂

I’m intrigued by why you think stages aren’t a good manufacturer and will be miles off?

I have a 5 of them and (other than one that is clearly a bit dodgy) they give near identical numbers to any other power meter I’ve ever used. Including my neo which is one of the most accurate trainers out there

That was a bit tongue in cheek, although when they first came out they were crap. I'm sure the more recent versions are a bit more accurate 😁. My main point is that there is quite a bit of variation between power meters even when they are working well, fitted properly, calibrated, zeroed etc etc.

I also think a 20 min test is a pretty accurate way of determining power. I’ve only ever done one proper hour long ftp test and my power was within a few watts of what I’d thought it would be calculated on 20 min.

Forming an opinion based on a sample size of one - excellent, carry on!

10% difference indoors to outdoors here also, using the same power meter on a dumb trainer. It’s narrowed down a little since I started using a dd smart trainer but never really read much into it.

My ramp and 20m results have always correlated quite well but I can see how the 20m should probably be more accurate for some, and yes definitely should include the 5m effort before the main course.

Of..that’s some effort… up AdZ??

Road to the Sky course, so the lead in and then up AdZ. Can't remember if the 49min was the KoM time or the whole thing though. Probably the KoM. I did a 57m which I was happy with!

At 48, it's feeling increasingly difficult to find the energy and motivation to try and regain the power and lose the ~7Kg I've gained since Feb '20, having started to cycle for fitness in '17 and had a power meter since Xmas '18. The last two years have been so frustrating, having had regular health setbacks that meant pausing training often for weeks at a time, including side effects to Covid vaccines which might well be a regular thing for the coming years at least. In recent weeks it's been encouraging to average just over 300W on some 10-15min lunchtime races on Zwift for the first time in months, the challenge now is to try and extend that power for longer and try and snack less to drop from 84Kg.

I've no chance of 5W/Kg, maybe a younger me might have had a shot, these days I'd love to manage 4W/Kg again like two years ago.

Forming an opinion based on a sample size of one – excellent, carry on!

How many times would you like me to do it? I’m pretty sure that it wasn’t a fluke the numbers were borderline identical. My single sample test backs up pretty much the general consensus that 20 min tests are a accurate way of testing ftp.

My main point is that there is quite a bit of variation between power meters even when they are working well, fitted properly, calibrated, zeroed etc etc.

Not in my experience, all my devices claim to be within 2% accuracy, which is backed up by my experience, whereby 4 of my working stages all calibrate within a few percentage of my garmin pedals over a 20 min period, as does my 4iii. And all track very closely to the neo, which is a few watts lower as you’d expect as it’s taken from the hub. So maybe they are all inaccurate by the same percentage, but I find that highly unlikely. If that’s not your exp then Maybe you aren’t calibrating your kit properly, or maybe it’s faulty.

Interested in this – even on a decent direct-drive trainer?

Not so much with the direct drive trainer but it’s still noticeable, particularly on hills. It’s definitely closer than when I had an old wheel on turbo though. I reckon it’s a combo of factors, motivation, cooling, ability to move about on bike even if only to make micro adjustments.