The messaging of these kinds of podcasts is deceiving. Get TR, do the hard work, and get really fast.
The first step missing is “have the genetics”. These podcasts are often about outliers.
Nate posted these a long time ago. This is also reported FTP so probably way over-reported between over-testing, short tests, and not wanting to accept a 190FTP when you can enter a nice round 200.
It’s a small percentage of everybody that is at 4w/kg. As you get older, it gets tougher.
And past 50, you are in the top 3% if you can get past 4w/kg:
Decades…er…no it doesn’t and if you are using the w/kg charts there are so many variables …on a ramp test I can get a FTP of 275W in the small ring but 300W in the big ring on my kickr with a road bike that’s about 4.4 - 4.9W/kg aged 53 weighing 61kg…but it doesn’t matter because in the real world I can only put out about 250-255W for a 25m TT on my TT bike which gives about 4.1w/kg for the 53-54 mins it takes. Or 268W on the road bike for an hour TT…all I know is that I get my arse handed to me by guys who are a lot older than me and a lot younger than me…some of them are training harder than me…most are just more talented than me
Don’t agree with every aspect you mention but deffo agree that this thread would be far more useful and interesting if we stopped using W/kg to measure fitness.
I’m certainly not saying bin the power meter. Not at all.
A power meter is an incredible tool.
It’s just the fixation of so many cyclists on the power to weight math. It’s so arbitrary. People actually state that reaching 4w/kg is their main goal in cycling. Not completing a certain incredible event. Winning a race. Climbing the toughest climb. Sharing an epic adventure ride with friends etc etc.
It’s 4w/kg. Like some mythical event will happen at this point.
It doesn’t.
Nothing happens at 4w/kg, you wake up, ride your bike, it feels the same as the day before.
4w/kg has nothing to do with physiology. Our bodies don’t know what 4 is. Hell, if we grew up in a different time, on a different planet, four could be 9 and a kg could be 18.876452989 lbs.
Try making that your main cycling goal. I want to be 9.87433 Flim Flaps per Hectawommps. Then I’d be strong…
I love the training, I love the math, I’m as in to it as anyone here. I just think, many would be better off focusing on other measurements of success in the sport. It’s got to be healthier long term.
Folks have different goals. Who are we to judge others? May they train for a grueling 250k alpine race, the Saturday group ride or a metric like w/kg. And folks are driven differently, many simply enjoy the process of getting to the goal. The goal itself is only of minor importance.
"Grit your teeth and turn those pedals and give it some grunt is lost among the gadgets that lie on the front of your handlebars. If you’re riding your bike and all you’re focussing on is the figures in front of you, then you’re not looking at the scenery and world around you. “Cycling is for enjoyment. The buzz of whizzing through the atmosphere is what cycling is all about. If you do want to measure your improvement, do it on the static bike. But when you’re out riding, ride.”
I do TT - Watts against CdA - is far more important than W/kg. My metric for the latter is ok but I still get easily beaten by big guys with good TT positions who just put out 30W more than me even if they weigh 20+kg more than me
I live in Boulder CO. Despite Garmin saying my “VO2 Max is in the top 5% for people your age and gender. Your Fitness Age is 20”, there are many, many cyclists my age I can’t hang with. I’m guessing genetics, decades of high altitude cycling, smart off season training and whatever else. Picking the right riding group and just laughing at myself as I get passed by younger, older, fatter and slimmer riders of both sexes keeps me happy. PS- I’m 70
I hear what youre saying but shooting for some w/kg is the same in principle as a weight lifter who wants to be able to squat or bench, etc a particular number. It is a way of goal setting.
All these charts show is that the vast majority of users have lives - almost anyone can get to the top 5% of their age group on these charts with consistency and by prioritising cycling above most other things. The reality is that most of us don’t, we just want to be as good as we can whilst keeping other life factors in balance. We’re so far away from our “genetic” limits it’s a joke.
What evidence do offer for your assertion? I honestly don’t believe that most people can get to the top 5% by just training more or better. I’ve ridden with a lot of top 5 percenters and they don’t tend to train more than anyone else. They seem to be fast responders to training, they have naturally high VO2maxes so they get faster than most on a little training.
Of course some people will find it easier than others but that doesn’t mean it’s not possible. You’re absolutely right, most of the top 5% don’t train any more than the rest, they train more effectively and prioritise the whole spectrum of what goes into becoming faster. This could be lower stress at work, fuelling, sleep quality and quantity along with general rest and recovery.
IME, the top 5% don’t even train more effectively. Most don’t even do structured training. I’ve scoped out most of the top 5% in my area and in my club. Most just ride for fun now and are naturally fast. Many did race at some point when they were younger. A very small subset still race seriously and do structured training and all that. One or two do the 15-20 hour weeks. 90% of the top 5% are just naturally fast.
The duration is FTP and derived from Coggan’s power chart which was intended to be used for power profiling. So 5 second power can be an indication of neuromuscular power; 1 minute power can be an indication of anaerobic capacity; 5 minute power an indication of VO2max power and then 20 minute power a proxy for FTP which is not one specific duration. It’s not a specific duration because FTP as determined via his protocol is just an estimate of where you might start to accumulate lactate in your blood. Since we can’t all get blood lactate testing done frequently or at all this is what we are left with.
I reckon it doesn’t take decades. Speaking from personal experience, as a lifetime athlete, it took me as a runner , about 2-5 years to develop aerobic fitness(from starting aged 20). Later on (aged 26 and with running injury) as a cyclist , about 3 years. I was surprised my running fitness and endurance did not translate to cycling. I realised some of that was down to ineficient pedalling tecnique and lack of power in the legs.
Riding easy is ok to start with, but if you don’t push your limits aerobically, you will not get faster. You will be able to ride slowly for a loooooong time!
I know ,because I’m good at that, but have zero sprint power
The thing about genetics is that it effects your performance at every point of your development. It’s not just a top-end limiter. So if two people have 6 hours a week to spend on a bike, neither is going to be tapping their full genetic potential, but their performance at 50% of their potentials may be vastly different and that is due to their genetic makeup.
I grew up and started cycling in Topeka KS in the 80s. Rode many times with Steve Tilford, which was an awesome experience. His brother convinced me of the power of genetics. He was competitive year round, but give him 8 weeks of intense training before a key race like state road championships and he pretty much crushed everyone. No one else could do that.
and if you are using the w/kg charts there are so many variables …on a ramp test I can get a FTP of 275W in the small ring but 300W in the big ring on my kickr with a road bike that’s about 4.4 - 4.9W/kg aged 53 weighing 61kg…but it doesn’t matter because in the real world I can only put out about 250-255W for a 25m TT on my TT bike which gives about 4.1w/kg for the 53-54 mins it takes. Or 268W on the road bike for an hour TT…all I know is that I get my arse handed to me by guys who are a lot older than me and a lot younger than me…some of them are training harder than me…most are just more talented than me 
