How did you 5w/kg+ riders make it there?

[djhnz]

100% disagree. It really just takes consistency, and knowing how to listen to your body. I’ve got a full time job (probably 50hrs a week minimum), average genetics etc.

I do 12-14 hours a week, but i do that consistently. I know guys who skip weeks etc and its hard to progressively add some kind of overload when you do that. One week they do 20, then they do nothing the next.

For reference, 340ftp, 67kg, 5’11", so not like i’m especially powerful, or especially lean.

One criticism i do have of the TR plans is that they don’t do enough threshold intensity and say sweetspot is just as good. Not true for me at least. Which is why the short power plans are much better than the sustained ones IMO

[G650]

@maxim809

Similarly, I think there are biological dispositions that allow some people to achieve 5min miles / 5wkg pretty quickly, while many have to work like crazy to get there, and some can never get there

Totally. It always makes me laugh I’m so inclined to running and so bad at cycling. My all time FTP was like 265 about 10 years ago and yet I could literally get off the couch and go sub 5 minutes in the mile.

[dsirrom]

@djhnz

100% disagree. It really just takes consistency, and knowing how to listen to your body. I’ve got a full time job (probably 50hrs a week minimum), average genetics etc.

I believe this is a valuable counter point to the earlier posted perspective from @BT-7274, however I do think there are genuine limits to some people’s ability, regardless of time available to train / motivation / consistency etc

My own case in point. At age 47, at 6’ 3” tall and currently weighing around 100kg. FTP is currently around 250, as I’m slowly working my way back into fitness after injury (RTA).

My best ever FTP was around 340w and I was 97Kg at that point. This is the lowest weight I’ve been (heathy with some fitness) in the last 5 years. Gave me a W/Kg of 3.5.

If I quit work and just dedicated myself to cycling, then the ‘best’ weight I could reasonably and realistically hope to achieve (really pushing the optimism) would be the lowest weight I have ever had in the last 20 years (again whilst healthy and having a degree of fitness) which was 89Kg. This was with pretty low (for an average dude) body fat; around 14% as measured on Tanita scales so might actually have been higher as I understand then can be inaccurate and over-read.?

If I managed to hit my all time best FTP again with that lower weight then I’d still only be at 3.8W/Kg

To reach the lower (but still for me a great goal) benchmark of 4W/Kg at this lower weight would still require me to hit an FTP of 356w which is around a 5% improvement on my all time best and would be pretty tough to get to.

To get to 5W/Kg would mean I needed an FTP of 445!!! That is simply not going to happen, regardless of how much training I put in!

Maybe if I started at age 20 or even 30, and even then it would be a huge stretch target.

So I think the argument you make is well articulated however for some of us it is either too late or the genetics (adaptation to exercise / body weight) are limiting factors even if you were to allow for maximum training / recovery / nutrition/ coping etc.

Conversely my cycling buddy (same age as me) weighs 60Kg and his FTP is around 230. A year or two of really hard work could quite reasonably see that go up by 40w or so (He is an amazing ‘responder’ to training) and he could also probably drop a Kg or 2, this would see him close in on the 5W/Kg target, without needing to quit his job.

Having said all that - I think for me a 4W/Kg target is a decent ‘stretch’ goal for the longer term

[ryanhnelson]

At 6’3 and 97kg, you’re well into overweight territory in terms of BMI. Unless you know your body fat (i.e., because you’re a body builder or otherwise intense lifter), it is exceedingly unlikely that you’re anywhere near 14% body fat. Sorry.

I’m maybe a centimeter shorter than you are, and between my ‘hard lifting’ and ‘fast cycling’ phases I’ve weighed between 94kg and 74kg. When I was 94 I thought that I couldn’t go down very much; when I dropped below 80 I realized that MUCH more of what I had lost was fat than I had previously wanted to believe. At 75kg, a maintainable weight for me while riding, my BMI was still near 22 and well within the normal range — despite being 50 pounds down from where you are now.

I would suspect that gaining cycling performance for you will be weight-focused, and not going for some ridiculously high, unattainable FTP.

[BT-7274]

This was basically my point. Body type puts a hard physiological limit on the Specific Power a person can reasonably generate, regardless of their genetic potential.

[G650]

?

A fit 6’3" male at 213lbs is most likely in the 14% BF range.

[wysbf2]

@djhnz

I’ve got a full time job (probably 50hrs a week minimum), average genetics etc.

Curious to know how you quantify the average genetics part?

[BT-7274]

You are an N of 1, so you cannot say for sure that you have average genetics. Your body type allows you to achieve a high Specific Power. Someone who weighs 85+ kgs with low body fat is going to have a very, very hard time achieving more than 5.0 watts/kg without World Tour level genetics simply in terms of Vo2max.

My lean mass would require me to get my FTP to up 100% of my VO2max in order to hit 5.0 w/kg at ~7% of body fat, which I am nowhere near, unfortunately.

[ryanhnelson]

A large WHO study found a quadrilinear correlation between BMI and body fat, and the regression line at a BMI of 26 lands across a body fat percentage around 24%.

As I said, if they are specifically training for size then their body fat could be lower, but I’m skeptical that a ‘generally fit’ person is going to have a body fat of 14% with that much weight at that height. (note, referencing DEXA figures.)

[dsirrom]

@ryanhnelson

At 6’3 and 97kg, you’re well into overweight territory in terms of BMI. Unless you know your body fat (i.e., because you’re a body builder or otherwise intense lifter), it is exceedingly unlikely that you’re anywhere near 14% body fat. Sorry.

I would suspect that gaining cycling performance for you will be weight-focused, and not going for some ridiculously high, unattainable FTP.

Hi @ryanhnelson - I completely agree.

Apologies if I was less than clear or maybe the way I set out the information wasn’t helpful.
I’m around 24% to 25% at the moment (100Kg)
Not sure what % I was at 97Kg - probably somewhere around 20%

As noted, the 14% was a few years ago when I was 89Kg.
My lowest bodyweight over the last 20 years.
At that point I was very into lifting weights.
Lifted consistently from age 14 through to 43 when I quit due to an accident (and then a year later after that took up cycling). Mostly strength stuff and a bit of bodybuilding type rep-range lifting.

My frame is fairly broad and I still carry a reasonable level of upper body muscle (under the blubber) despite not having lifted any weight in over 4 years. I find I put on muscle mass from any sort of training pretty quickly compared to my immediate peer group.

To your last point, yes I would agree that losing fat-weight will be at least initially (relatively) easier than gaining power (but both still challenging).

[Peter_Graham]

According to Dr. Andrew Coggan the averge male should be able to get to 3.9W/Kg. If you are a good distance above this then there is every chance that you have been blessed with above average genetics. Some people will hit heights others can only dream of regardless of the work/dedication put in.

I was 240W at 70Kg after 6 months off the bike. I was 285W at 63Kg (4.52W/Kg) after 6-7 months. A lot people in this forum would be more than happy with that according to Nate’s post on The Bell curve of cyclists - how fast is the average TR User. This potential is genetic. Do I have the potential to be 5W/kg, possibly. 5.5WKg almost certainly not. There are

I would caution anyone against claiming that only hard work stands in the way of 5w/Kg.

Slowtwitch link

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

Last edited by: [Andrew Coggan](https://forum.slowtwitch.com/Slowtwitch_Forums_C1/Triathlon_Forum_F1/Unknown%20Tag:%20’GForum::SEO::url(params%20=>): May 18, 10 9:12

[ryanhnelson]

@dsirrom, appreciate the response. There were clearly some details I missed in the post, but that makes sense as you are putting it — 14% during a heavy lifting period and decades of experience is plausible, especially a few kilos down.

You’ve got a couple of years on me, but I had a scare about a decade ago with my knees and I wanted to trim some weight anyway, and taking those 15-20kg off really seemed to help keep joints happier. It’s been a great decision in that respect, though I also have a long ways to go before I would ever see the far side of 4w/kg, much less five!

[ryanhnelson]

That’s good information from Dr. Coggan. And if one believes Alan Couzens about the further potential trainability of VO2 Max, then there may be even more ‘average’ potential than Coggan accounted for:

How ‘Trainable’ is VO2 Max Really?

Here he discusses some of the structural changes he triggered in an athlete by pushing trainable parameters of the oxygen pathway like cardiac volume. Interesting stuff, and in his N=1 case it results in a 40% increase.

[dsirrom]

@ryanhnelson

You’ve got a couple of years on me, but I had a scare about a decade ago with my knees and I wanted to trim some weight anyway, and taking those 15-20kg off really seemed to help keep joints happier. It’s been a great decision in that respect, though I also have a long ways to go before I would ever see the far side of 4w/kg, much less five!

Cool

I’d actually be genuinely interested to know what you did (main things plus any tips) that you think contributed to your successful loss of bodyfat, and more importantly maintaining it.

I’ve found creating a calorie deficit does work to a degree (past success) and also some intermittent fasting 1 or 2 days a week (17 hour window of no calories) also helps, but I’m curious how you managed such a decent loss and over what time period that manifested.

Working on the basis any extra real-world steer from someone who has been there before me can only help …

[grwoolf]

@dsirrom

As noted, the 14% was a few years ago when I was 89Kg.
My lowest bodyweight over the last 20 years.
At that point I was very into lifting weights.

You might have been at 14% bf (or lower) and been in very good shape, but that doesn’t mean you couldn’t still drop a bunch of weight if you wanted to optimize your body for cycling. If you were “very into lifting weights” at the time, it’s reasonable to assume that you were carrying a bunch of muscle mass. That’s great if it’s your goal, but I would challenge your assumption that it’s your lowest healthy weight. You can be ripped and sub 10% body fat, but that doesn’t mean you still don’t have a bunch of potential muscle mass to lose to optimize your body for running or cycling. Whether you want to or not - that’s a valid question.

You might take a listen to the most recent successful athletes podcast. This guy was a long time cross-fitter and dropped a bunch of mass and transformed his body. They didn’t get into details on how much fat vs. muscle he dropped, but it sounds like he dropped a bunch of both (I think it was like 40 lbs).

Off The Couch to Sub-9 Leadville in 9 Months with David Curtis – Successful Athletes Podcast 008

[Peter_Graham]

That change in V02 Max would shift the needle from 3.9 to 4.2W/Kg. It seems like a minusclue return on the hours doubling to around 20hours per week.

[dsirrom]

@grwoolf

You might have been at 14% bf (or lower) and been in very good shape, but that doesn’t mean you couldn’t still drop a bunch of weight if you wanted to optimize your body for cycling.

@grwoolf that’s a very good point.

The lower goal of 4W/kg and my own view it will be hard to drop sufficient weight to make the relevant corresponding FTP target at all achievable has, I guess within it, a tacit assumption that I would only lose body fat.

Ironically I imagine losing muscle in later years (at 47 I feel like the big 5-0 is looming like a dark cloud) may not be a problem (relatively speaking).

For example, 85Kg would mean I only needed to hit my previous best FTP of 340w, which clearly is likely to be more realistically achievable. Even 90kg (just shy of 200lbs) means a smaller if still challenging 20w increase in ‘best’ numbers that ought to be within reach over the coming couple of years.

So yes, you are right. I think I need to review how I plan my goals. The more I reflect on comments on this thread, the more I think I should be challenging myself to ‘at least’ reach 4W/Kg and aspire to exceed this in due course.

A stretch target along with manageable interim milestones and a simple but easy to follow plan to reach each one in turn, with room for ‘life’ eventualities, is something I can get behind.

I do believe I feel ‘re-motivated’

Thanks

[Stringwise]

@djhnz

For reference, 340ftp, 67kg, 5’11", so not like i’m especially powerful, or especially lean.

I would say with a 340 ftp for a 147 lb person is a testament to your hard work and is great power, very impressive.

Saying that you are not especially lean, well that’s another story. You are taller and lighter than Amber if you listen to the podcast? I have not weighed 147 lbs since I was 16. I have LBM of 164 lbs at around 10% BF and most people say I look very (too) lean. I weight 182 at 5’ 11" and we have the same FTP and I work as hard as you on the bike. But I’m not going to weigh 147 lbs unless I donate a leg and that would probably be a pretty good hit to my FTP. My SO thinks I look gaunt when I cut to get to 175 for events at elevation. That’s almost 30 lbs heavier than you! I could probably get to 8% BF but I’m mid 40’s and I just don’t look healthy that ripped.

So I would say that not having any idea of your genetic athletic potential, your genetic bike physique potential is pretty dialed and like a lot of others are saying in this thread, it’s a lot easier to get to 5 w/kg when you are naturally a lightweight rider. Maybe you intentionally lost muscle to get to 147 I don’t know but if 150 ish is your “normal” weight, I would say your genetic disposition for being a lightweight is helping you a lot. Not taking away from your work, just saying on a w/kg basis you are a full point higher than me for the same work and same FTP.

Genetically I could be 200 pounds and look fit and I add muscle mass very easily. I honestly don’t think there is any possibility for me to weigh 147 other than starvation and eventually if I touched a weight or ate anything I would be over 147.

So in some capacity, you were born with good cycling genetics as watts to kg is a ratio meaning both elements are equally important and you clearly have some natural ability in both.

[elvis]

A general remark on the trend of this thread. I have been following it to find out how people get to 5.0 w/kg and what I can adapt…The other discussions are also interesting but I feel another thread may be suited better…thanks

[djhnz]

Being lighter definitely makes it easier to be at a high w/kg, but i also do think people overvalue w/kg. Being 5wkg doesn’t win most races (unless its a mountain finish etc).

Everyone i know with good race results has a good 1min/5min power rather than a high wkg.