FTP and Annual training hours: Share your numbers

Looking at my Strava account for 2018…

4.2 w/kg
Swim - 74 hours
Bike - 282 hours
Run - 118 hours

1 Like

So far in 2018, but hey… there’s still a week to go!

511 hours (bike)
32,000 TSS
4.06 w/kg

1 Like

52, been doing this since 1981. I had been sitting on 4.5 w/kg for a few years, training 475-500 hours a year. Two years ago I bumped that up to 600 and have kept that volume up since.

2018: 594 hours and counting. 504 on the bike, 90 on the Concept 2. FTP peaked in June at 4.75.

2 Likes

You must be like a pro!! 5.5w and 9%!!!

hi pretty new on trainer road

420h 53m ftp 251 = 4Wkg

1 Like

352hrs
3.95w/Kg
278FTP

Aiming for the 4w/kg & FTP of 300 next year

1 Like

2018 TR Hours: 125
FTP: 250–>300
4.34w/kg

1 Like

Currently FTP 273, 3.96W/kg

Looking to get back to somewhere close to 4.2-4.4W/kg but at 48yrs its getting harder every year

Inspired by fellow TR users her though

:slight_smile:

1 Like

176 hours
3.5 w/kg
252 FTP

Power for the year was good (for me) last winter, poor most of the season, and is picking up again as I’m doing base now. My training consistency and hours followed the same pattern.

This thread been been dominated by the “high watt/kg” end of the spectrum. Remember that Nate posted some great stats about average watt/kg here: The Bell curve of cylists - how fast are the average TR users?

I’m curious what the folks on the left side of the bell curve are doing? In my case: Got back on the bike in August after several years of putting on weight and not cycling. Did ~100 hours of unstructured riding (mostly commuting) over 3 months, then started structured training at the end of November. Was 95kg and 214 watts FTP (2.25 watts/kg) at the start of the structured training.

Goal for 2019 is to get over 3 watt/kg and make it to the right side of the bell curve :-). I can get almost all the way there on the “kg” side of the equation, so I think 3.0 watts/kg is reasonable.

2 Likes

36 yr old
6ft 2
291W ftp (3.80 w/kg)
201 hours so far this year.
Pretty much all low vol plans plus 1 commute or Petit type ride a week extra

1 Like

134 hours- Joined trainer road last spring
Have gone from FTP of 125 to 227, 2.9w/kg.
I did a couple mountain bike races last year but am looking to up the volume a bit this coming year and try my hand at some Marathon MTB races in addition to XC.

1 Like

A quick update as I’ve just completed a full year and started this current years SSB1:

Full 2018 on TR:
Total time in saddle 282 hours
Start FTP 146W - 2.09 W/kg
Finish FTP 226W - 3.23 W/kg

Maybe 4W/kg is attainable in 2019 :open_mouth:

2 Likes

48 yo, 3.7 W/Kg, 300 hours in 2018 (my highest total in recent years).

Wife, 2 young kids, job, commute, house, yadda, yadda, yadda :rofl:

I’d love to reach 4.0 but several years into TR structured training I’ve never gotten that high and the gains come in very small increments. I’ll keep trying though!

1 Like

Related, Alan Couzens ideas on the relationship between volume and performance.

https://www.alancouzens.com/blog/volume-vs-intensity.php

https://www.alancouzens.com/blog/volume_vs_intensity2.html

https://alancouzens.com/blog/vol_int_responder.html

2 Likes

In the first article he has managed to diss 50% of the TR users
“Similarly we also see relatively unfit athletes - folks with FTPs of 3w/kg”

His FTP model is way off for me. He has my 56 CTL indicating 3.75 w/kg and an FTP of 299. It is 3:01 and 240
Not bothering with the next two articles

1 Like

Off for me as well, but within his range – my CTL is 100 right now, FTP 4.5 w/kg.

Just wondering…is there a diminishing returns cut-off point to hours/TSS and gains in FTP (or other power curve #s)?

Out of curiosity I ran my stats through the model. Didn’t read the article, but:

36 CTL, 68.4KG.

Estimated: 3.61 W/kg, 247 FTP
Actual: 3.71 W/kg, 254 FTP

Not too far off. As I tried to scale up though based on where I’ve been at in the past, it progressively got less and less accurate.

Seems there is:

You can see the power of this sort of model to explain non linear relationships, e.g. the relationship of ‘diminishing returns’ between more work & the performance gain that it brings…

Increase the volume from 40-60hrs per month and you get ~0.5 w/kg. Increase it by another 20 to 80hrs per month and you only get an additional 0.2 w/kg, i.e. the relationship between work & performance is non-linear.

and

Most athletes significantly underestimate the benefit of volume on performance and significantly over-estimate the value of intensity on performance.

:point_up:Might be useful for the 80/20 crowd.

20% of athletes are ‘intensity responders’;
20% of athletes are ‘volume responders’;
30% of athletes are ‘average responders’;
30% of athletes are ‘low responders’.

Looked at the paper for a bit…kinda ran some numbers…and his thesis on V:I:P is pretty much reflected in how TR design a complete Base:Build:Specialty phase. In other words, doing TR will most likely make you a faster cyclist. :+1:

2 Likes