GhostRider62

I have read many times that a famous exercise physiologist, the one who coined the term FTP, saying 4 w/kg is attainable for either the genetically gifted or those who work really hard for years. Very, very few riders could ever reach 5.4 w/kg. I would link the quote from Coggan but we are not allowed to post links on BF.

Coggan's answer......this is what the" average joe" can achieve with very good training

3.9 W/kg

4-4.5 W/Kg would put an oldie like me on the podium at Nationals.

BlazingPedals

I peaked in my mid-50s, but even now in my mid 60s I haven't lost enough to take me back to my mid-40s. Based on my experience, the chart is garbage.

billridesbikes

You realize that experts are often wrong, even about their own creations? Coggan perhaps underestimated the effects of training or had limited data. This statement seems to be made when there was not a large data sample of 'serious' cyclists with power meters. Let's explore!

The nature vs. nurture question is always interesting to me across all sports. For cycling, I think the answer might be yes. However if one is average physically (i.e. average maxV02, average build) you need exceptional discipline and drive to achieve the goal, a kind of singular focus that most people simply don't possess.

Lets look at some data from cyclinganalytics.com, which is not a random data set but self selected 'serious cyclists'. Below is self reported FTP for males in Watt and W/kg plotted, we don't know the age, since it's self reported it maybe skewed right a bit. That is why say your FTP is 3.91 when you can say it's 4.0? Here 25.4% of cyclists are reporting an FTP of 4.0 or greater corresponding to 290-300W. That's 1 in 4 of 'serious cyclists', which implies, to me at least, 4.0 is quite achievable with training and you don't have to be especially genetically gifted. Looking further 3% of cyclist report FTP of >5 or greater then 350W. So an FTP of 5 seems like it might be obtainable with proper training among serious cyclists because 3% of all serious cyclists is a pretty large number of cyclists suggesting that it's not exclusively the .1% genetic freaks of nature achieving this metric.

OK, there is what people report versus what they do. I looked up some TT in Zwift as reported in Zwiftpower.com, so it's powermeter data but self-reported weight, I ignored a few riders with their weight set to 56kg (the lowest Zwift allows I think) and calculated the percentage of riders with FTP >5

TT#1, 40km, 123 riders, 5 riders >5 FTP (4%), 8 riders >350W (6.5%), about 25% here had >4FTP
TT#2, 10km hill climb, 39 riders, 2 riders >5 FTP (5%), 3 riders >350W, 10 riders (26%) had >4FTP

It appears that Zwift TT results seem consistent with the cyclinganalytics.com numbers.

I don't think it answers the question, but does shine some light on the frequency of high FTPs and since an FTPs of 4~5 isn't that far out of the normal distribution of FTPs it might be achievable by a young man starting with an average maxVO2.

big john

I don't have a dog in this fight, and I don't have any power data for myself, but I always felt the world tour pros were a pretty select group. Not just the physical gifts but the mental ability to live that life. And I think most of the great climbers we have seen have been smaller people. It's rare that I have seen a great climbing recreational rider who is anywhere near my weight (currently 200 pounds).
For me to hit 5.4 watts per kg I would have to make over 480 watts. When I was younger and riding I was 10kg heavier than I am now.

The two charts you posted seem to be in line with what I was thinking. It's an interesting discussion and here is another thread about FTP. How common is 300w for an hour? - Bike Forums

Bob Ross

QFT

...or, as I liked to remind the cyclists I coached, "Average Speed Is For Average People."


But seriously, any reference to average speed on a ride that does not further qualify it with info about
- total elevation gain,
- mean, median, & max gradients,
- road surface types,
- whether one is riding solo or in a group,
- how experienced in group riding that group is
- what you ate for breakfast

is beyond useless; it's actually misleading.

Chart is stupid.

MinnMan

About this, we seem to have rare unanimity.

GhostRider62

Yes, you did not make your point.

Have a look to average people, not a small group of highly fit and talented racers on ZwiftPower or Cycling analytics.

Take average VO2 max data and make some analysis off those numbers.

FTP of 5.4 W/Kg is not remotely obtainable by average people as you suggested.

An average young male has a VO2 max of 45 ml/kg. If and that is a big if, they can increase it by 30% to 58 ml/kg and if they can ride at 85% fractional utilization (FTP percentage of VO2 max), they would be around 3.8.3.9 W/Kg. Many riders are closer to 80% of VO2 for their FTP, I was around 90%. If Joe average trains for many, many years.....they might achieve 4.2 W/Kg. But.....never in a million years would Joe Average get to 5,4 W/Kg with a calibrated scale and PM at least.

billridesbikes

GhostRider62 One final thought: maxVO2 is not athletic destiny. Training is more important. It’s what you do with that oxygen that matters. If you take two athletes with the same maxVO2 but one is better trained, the more fit athlete will produce more power and go faster. The oxygen to power conversion rate is not fixed and more affected by training, not by nature. Some studies like this one show cycling power and efficiency aren’t that dependent on max VO2. If we knew the max VO2 of the Zwift power, cyclinganalytics, or trainerroad databases I suspect we would find a poor correlation to maxVO2. These are about the best data we have on a large number of average guys reporting their cycling results that are publicly available despite the self-selection limitations. If you know of better ones publicly available let me know and I’ll happily take a look.

While many elite cycles have really high VO2 there are some that do not. Mark Cavandish’s is said to be much lower than his peers in the pro peloton.

And yes, you do really need many years of hard, dedicated training to reach your ultimate potential irrespective of your innate ability. You have to put in that Malcom Galdwell 10,000 hours of perfect practice. This is true to master just about any discipline.

mr_pedro

An average is just an average. There is also a lot more that determines speed than just age.
Almost anyone you encounter will be going slower or faster than what the table has for their age.

big john

What Cavendish does is quite different than what elite climbers do, (I'm sure you know this). Sprinters are more about the 30 second power than the watts/kg thing.
Assuming Cavendish is an exceptional athlete and one of the best of his generation, he still can't ride with the climbers and suffers through the mountain stages.

Chris Hoy is said to make 2500 watts during a sprint but I'm sure even a mediocre world tour climber would drop him in the mountains. On the other hand, the best climbers in the world wouldn't have a prayer against Hoy on the track.

GhostRider62

So, you still think 5.4 W/kg is attainable for the average joe?

Aerobic capacity is most certainly a limit. Very few can put out 5.4 W/Kg EVEN if you gave them 100% utilization. As I said, training can and certainly increases that utilization. Few get to 85% of VO2 max as their FTP.

I really don't care to discuss further, you are really wrong but who cares.

DEK

That chart is total B.S. I'm 66 and I consistently ride at 16-18 mph. I wonder how the hell they came up with those stupid numbers.

PeteHski

Sooooo.... if experts are OFTEN wrong. What hope do you have of being right if you are not an expert? Very slim to zero maybe?

If your hypothesis was correct, then we would see an awful lot more riders with a 5.4 W/kg FTP than we actually do. Coggan's 3.9 W/kg target for the average well trained cyclist is far more in line with my own experience.

I don't see how you can interpret 3% of all serious cyclists >5 W/kg as being proof that ANY AVERAGE healthy guy has the ability to produce that level of cycling performance. That's nonsensical when you are looking at data from a self-selected group who are strongly inclined toward performance cycling. Yet only 3% of them are able to get near.

Of course there are plenty of serious cyclists above 4 W/kg (lets say 25% is accurate and I believe it is from my own experience), but those are not really AVERAGE guys are they? I would say I'm slightly (and I mean very slightly) above average, genetically speaking, and the 4 W/kg target is just about my limit with very focused training and discipline. So I seem to fit Coggan's target pretty accurately. Either that or I've been leaving about 1.5 W/kg on the table, which I seriously doubt.

caloso

4 w/kg is enough to do Mt. Diablo in an hour. It's also more than enough to win a Cat 3 race. Does that describe 25% of serious cyclists?

Ogsarg

Any article like that that does not state how the information was collected, is not worth reading. There is nothing of value.

Monoborracho

Ditto

Which bike? Mountain bike, my '92 Schwinn Paramount refitted in 10-spd, my Soma touring bike, our Seven Tandem, or (yikes) my Blue T-12 tri bike where I sometimes podium 'cause there ain't very many in my age group?

Asking for a friend.

Road Fan

No.

AJW2W11E

Okay the chart is wrong but I'm not 30. Interestingly other charts are like it.
I work from home. I'm 62. At lunch I did 24.5 miles in 1 hr 35 minutes.
After dinner I fell asleep. Maybe if I were 30, I would be heading out with my family or tinkering in the garage.

SpedFast

Yep, my rides average 25 miles and take @ 1 hr 30 mins and that includes the 5 min break at the top of the mountain where there's an awesome viewpoint.

Road Fan

This is where I am. He justifies none of his base data, and none of his conclusions. I see no reason to see that there is anything of value.

Gonzo Bob

Didn't bother loading that suspect spreadsheet. I'm 60-years old. Am I slower than I was when I was 30? Yes. How much? Haven't bothered to try to objectively measure it. Maybe 2%.

soloman

It's nonsense. No rules.

Hypno Toad

I stopped scrolling the totally BS content when I saw this " ... professional bikers and cyclists can hit the 16 to 19 mph mark easily." Are you effing kidding me?!? As a 52 YO, I'd be a top pro if this was true

FFS, I can hit 16 to 19 mph with a fatbike on a snow trail. Reference, this Toad is the KOM: https://www.strava.com/segments/16643929

Bosco13

The chart is likely legit based on the individuals they studied/surveyed, but meaningless if we don't.

Wildwood 

So, this habit of measuring cycling performance and statistics has not been my thing for the last 25 of my 35 cycling years. But half a lifetime of recreational+ cycling and one might wonder about power and where one fits relative to other cyclists.

Lots of thoughts in above posts. Since many subscribe to Joel Friel's belief here is what he said regarding the question:
"Athletes often ask me what should my FTP be?" (no definition given for 'athlete')
Joel does state FTP as measured over an hour of output. [not 95% of a 20 minute effort]
Then he qualifies with "It Depends", but offers a quick & dirty for calculating a wattage based on body weight, age, gender.
Estimating Your FTP - Joe Friel (joefrieltraining.com)

For Men.
Body weight (pounds) x 2
SUBTRACT 0.5% for every year over 35.


At age 70, weight 190 pounds = not an Athlete
but let's continue
380 subtract 17.5% (67) =.313

Joel says I need to crank 310 watts to be an Athlete as a fat 70 yo rider.
Compare that to the chart offered in initial post which says some group of 70yo riders output less than 90 watts. Big difference.

Who is right? Who knows? It depends!
More food for thought....