ZHVelo

rubik: "It's at a beginner level, which fits, since you're a beginner."

Also rubik: "At USA Cycling races, riders typically start at the beginner level(category 5) and work their way up the ranks with upgrade points."

This guy has literally just started cycling and has no prior endurance background. And yet rubik references competitive cycling. But ok, let's go with that. He then referenced cat 5 as being the beginner category (how many beginners are there and how many because they simply aren't better?) and then I linked a table showing despite being a complete beginner to cycling, this dude is already above the cat 5 category.

Not to mention the entire claim is ridiculous anyway. How many non-beginners are at 3.21 w/kg or below? He could have said amateur, or low or medium or whatever, but 3.21 is neither a beginner level by racing category w/kg estimate (yes, since he has never raced he would still be in cat 5 and probably get dropped because he has no tactics but that is a separate matter) nor is there any meaning attached to calling it beginner level in a general sense. In fact, that would imply more advanced cyclists are above that level, and yet so many are even below it (according to this, 39%, that's an awful lot). The statement '3.21w/kg is beginner level' makes very little sense in and of itself.

Then rubik's statement that I am out of my depth - in what way? This discussion has very little to do with cycling. You can have it purely based on the numbers. You could even argue beginner level is higher than that - if you consider crossover athletes, e.g. rowers or skiiers, when they become beginner cyclists they are very likely to have a lot higher FTP given their aerobic capacities.