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.

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.