yes… really, your gifted (and the definition of “active” might vary a lot too…)
3 Likes
So then why isn’t everyone that’s stayed active during their life an A grade rider?
6 Likes
Is 4W/KG A grade? UK Crit racing’s lowest level - Cat 4 most riders are around 4W/KG.
3 Likes
4W/Kg is not so special. Just ride more. Keep training, keep riding and you will get there.
Think more Watts, not less Kg !!
7 Likes
For me it took ~3 years. Being always slightly more muscular/explosive type, no endurance sports. Starting point: 44yo, 72kg (stable 68kg since 2020), 174cm, 2.8W/kg.
- 2019: 185h, Z1+Z2/66% Z3+Z4/30% Z5+/4%, 3.3W/kg
SSBHV on repeat, beginner’s gains, frequently overreached but did not understood it myself - 2020: 589h, Z1+Z2/73% Z3+Z4/23% Z5+/4%, 3.8W/kg
Modified SSBHV + stock SusPBHV (weekly hardest 2xSS progression + 4xZ2)
Lesson: overreached during build, do not try to keep up base TSS during build with additional Z2, focus on high quality intervals - 2021: 564h, Z1+Z2/76% Z3+Z4/22% Z5+/2%, 3.9W/kg
TBHV 1+2 and TR POL
Lesson: 6wk periods are too much for me, frequently lost motivation during 4-5th loading week - 2022: 201h Z1+Z2/76% Z3+Z4/22% Z5+/2% 4.1W/kg (zone distribution not final yet, still in lower intensity phase with couple VO2max oriented weeks in Feb)
Attempt with my own plans 1xSS + 1xZ3 + 4xZ2 → 1xZ4 + 1xSS + 4xZ2 → 1xVO2max + 1xZ4 + 4xZ2, with 4wk cycles
Lesson: cap Z2 by HR (for me, at 70% of cycling MaxHR), not power. Not far into season yet but seems have been more consistent than earlier years
9 Likes
If you are younger than say 55, I think it’s quite possible for you. You’ve only been training for 8 months. I think in your situation I would probably stick to your current approach until you hit a plateau, and then try one of several options (all of which have helped me over time).
Stepping back, I’m a 51 year old male who has oscillated around 3.9 for several years, though I have not really focused on hitting 4.0 per se. I have about 10 years of riding under my belt, the last three of which have incorporated structure. While genetics I’m sure is a boost or limiter for everyone, I don’t think it’s been a boost for me. I’ve not met any accomplished athletes in my extended family. Over the past few years, I’ve typically rode 3-5 hours per week in the winter and 6-9 per week in the summer. I think that with a bit more winter volume and if I stayed injury free for a year, I’d hit 4.0, but it’s not a key goal for me.
Here are the changes that have been helpful for me when I’ve plateaued:
*Switching from 6 rides per week to 4, and adding 2 days of yoga or strength training.
*Gaining weight. I’ve been at ~3.9 w/kg both at 66 kg and at my current 73 kg—the latter is a healthier weight for me, and the higher FTP is very helpful in many situations.
*Optimizing on-bike nutrition, including incorporating 90 gms of carbs per hour on intense multi-hour rides.
*Trying a more polarized approach. I tried the TR polarized plan, and it worked well for me even without a ton of weekly volume.
3 Likes
Not sure I’d agree with that assertion, the 4W/kg guys I know tend to move through cat 4 very quickly (unless they have big limiters in terms of bike handling or group skills!). 4W/kg is nothing special at cat 3, though with decent skills/tactics/sprint it’s enough to be competitive and I know cat 3s who are <4W/kg and still do ok. Cat 2 races and above 4W/kg is pretty much the minimum requirement to not get dropped I think, certainly on any course that isn’t pan flat.
Do think that 4W/kg is achievable for many if not most men under ~40 (and plenty over 40!) who are healthy, lean and commit to a decent cycling training plan for a few years. I don’t know many people who have taken their cycling seriously and not got to that level. Equally I don’t know many people with sufficient natural talent to be at 4W/kg just from being generally active. Unless “generally active” includes training seriously for another endurance sport, in which case yes I know plenty of ex-rowers (and some runners and swimmers) who have hit 4+W/kg with very little cycle training.
6 Likes
You’ve been riding for 8 months. The first couple of years you’re in newbie gainz phase and can pretty much look at a bike and get better.
Being small and light works in your favor on the wkg calc. Getting to FTP to 4wkg at 100kg is much more difficult than your 62kg. But truth be told, you have no direct way to make yourself 4wkg or know if it is possible or how much work it will take without doing it. So focus on the things under your control: volume, training plan adherence, consistency, etc. and let things fall where they may.
5 Likes
laughs in UK
2 Likes
Dr Andrew Coggan provided this insight on the Slowtwitch Forum that the average achievable FTP for college aged men was around 3.9W/KG. He knows better than most I would imagine.
https://forum.slowtwitch.com/forum/?post=2830698#p2830698
I this basis I would imagine any male over college age has a less than 50:50 chance of achieving 4W/KG and the more factors that are against you the less likely it becomes.
Rather than fixating on a number focus on the things you are willing to do (time, diet, sleep etc) and be comfortable that with consistent training you will be the best you can be in the circumstances. There is always someone faster out there.
8 Likes
At 62kg and 5’10 I think its inevitable that you WILL reach 4wkg
IF
You stay consistent, what that means? Different to everyone.
3 Likes
You probably have more muscle.
I was 175cm at 64kg with a little bit of a belly.
I started gym and lost fat (but didn’t have any noticeable muscle changes that I could see visible) and my weight went up to 67kg in about 3 months of strength training…
Wonder if its bone mass? Cause I don’t see any muscles on my upper body 
We had this discussion over at the „What does it take for 5Wkg“ thread.
I really wonder how they determined the human potential of a large sample of people. I have trained a good two thousands hours, and checked all the data for at least that time again, and I have not much of a clue, where my own human potential is.
2 Likes
Thanks for the replies everyone. Im 33 years old, so this definitely seems possible if I just continue riding.
I know ftp is just a number. I don’t race, or plan to. I don’t even ride with others, so performance is pretty much just for my own “fun”. I just really enjoy the measurable parts of cycling that many other sports do not offer.
I’ve felt a tons of improvement outdoors, but very little improvement on the trainer. Maybe my test-taking mentality is a bit weak, and I give up too early 
1 Like
Go ride with other people - they will push you through plateaus!
1 Like
OP, I would lift weights and eat more. 5’10 62kg is too thin IMO. Most pros who are lean like that get that lean when riding 20-30hpw for years, not starting there.
I personally started riding with 4w/kg at no endurance training like others have been mentioning (lifted weights, did sprints in T&F and played team sports). I quickly went through the race categories. I don’t think the average entry level bike rider actually has anywhere near 4w/kg ftp (tho maybe they think they do). I gained 20% in ftp w/kg over a year or two of serious training (structured ~8-10hpw with racing). I started at 75kg and dropped down towards 72.
I’d focus on building muscle while keeping your endurance work that you already have in place going. I think you can get to 4w/kg for sure, but you don’t want to get funny about weight given you are at such a low number to begin with. Bulking up a bit can be a game changer for you
1 Like
Are you doing a ramp test or a longer format like a 20min or 40-60min effort? If you are just doing ramp tests that means your max aerobic power / power at vo2max might not have improved (as that is what the ramp test effectively measures) but doesn’t tell you if your functional threshold power is increasing relative to MAP.
As a fellow non-racer who’s been riding for a bit, I think it is more useful to track mean/maximal power over certain durations (ex: 5min, 20min, 40+min) to assess progress as well as my ability to replicate those efforts while not fresh (i.e. after several hours / x kJs burned.)
There is some genetic basis to body composition and hunger signaling. What is the harm of someone being that size if that is what their body naturally prefers, they aren’t hungry all the time, they aren’t restricting and performance metrics are good?
1 Like
Gaining weight might not be super conducive to the goal of becoming better at Wkg, but undereating is definitely hampering performance.
When I was 17, I started lifting weights and I hardly gained weight throughout the first year. I wasn’t hungry, but I wasn’t making massive gains either. I just had no clue what I was doing, just following some bb.com training plan and eating CBR all the time.
I had settled on the „well, I’m an ectomorph, that’s just how it is“ rationale.
I needed a push in „you gotta eat to grow“ direction, before finally progressing properly.
It took me around 1-2 years to finally find my sweetspot of where I had a good feeling of how much I needed to eat to perform well in the gym, without gaining too much soft weight.
Fast forward five years, I went through the same process again with cycling, and I needed to force myself to properly eat, especially fueling workouts well, in order of not getting too thin (and weak).
In the end, it’s horses for courses. If your goal in cycling is being the best climber, you’ll need to be light at some point. If your goal is just improve power, it’s better to eat a little too much than too little.
Brad Wiggins went from over 80kg for the gold medal in the TT to just over 70kg for le Tour.
For most of us, the middle ground is likely where it’s at.
1 Like
Reckon they just looked at the bell curve of college cyclists to come to that conclusion.
But there’s also this thing about this being an average, and while you can calculate the average from individual datapoints, you can’t really deduct the individual from the average.