You can see where lockdown kicks in pretty clearly there… You can also see how much more consistent the gradient is compared to 2019.
2019 was a particularly bad year for work travel for me, although my annual total was pretty much the same as 2015-18. I more or less doubled by time-in-saddle in 2020 and 2021 (507 and 521hrs) compared to previous years (around 240-280hrs). That’s 4.6-5.2hrs/week up to 9.75-10hrs/week.
This is my all-time monthly bar (since 2012, although anything pre-2014 is not really relevant I just couldn’t see how to stop VV from showing it). Upward arrow shows lockdown. I think it very clearly shows the week-on-week consistency though - 40hrs a month is about 10hr/week, and I was hitting that consistently. Before that it’s really variable.
What I find interesting is that people seem to float in an FTP range. I started doing FTP tests in 2017.
My first FTP was 175 and the range for a couple of years was 175-200. That is between winter-summer peak.
By 2019-2020 the range had drifted into the 200-220 range.
I did a new tempo training build this year and the range has been 220-250. This has been the largest single uptick in wattage in a single build cycle.
I can hang with a very tough crowd on a hard hitting group ride at only 2.7 watt/kg. Being that I’m 56, weight challenged a little but still fitter and slimmer than 99% of my age bracket, I’m pretty happy with what I’m doing.
The frustration is that I can’t really say what extact training led to the upticks in FTP. Just more years of consistent volume? I’ve been riding all my life and raced in my 20s and then took long breaks from real training and riding. I’ve been more serious for the last 7-8 years and doing structured training for the last four.
I’m ok with the fact that I have never been a genetic outlier and will never get to 4w/kg in my 50s and beyond.
That makes more sense now. Maximize VO2, then maximize threshold, then maximize TTE to reach your peak potential. I’m guessing very few people have been able to put in the training to do that, congrats!
This is interesting reading - at the back of my mind I thought I’d like to get to 4w/kg.
Lowest weight I’m getting is 74kg though as I have some upper body muscle I don’t wish to lose (I’m 5’9) - so I need to get to 300w ftp on a ramp test.
Last one was 244w ftp - I reckon the next one at the end of next week / start of next should see an improvement but I’m not sure how much. I’m hoping for 260 but we’ll se I guess.
Done SSBLV supplemented generally by 2 mtb rides a week and minus one of the 3 turbo sessions. I’m 41 and a reasonable mtb’er. Turbo training on a proper scheduled plan has made a big difference to my climbing capabilities and I hope to boost this further over the next few months.
As a masters racer (53) i can tell you its a struggle to get to 4.0wkg. I’ve hit it in my 50’s a few times and now below it a 3.8ish. I think the OP should have no problem but the older you get its too easy to shed power and gain weight.
I’ve been a life-long cyclist (raced throughout my adult life) and it must be bad genetics because i just can’t hit the much sought after 4.0
in my mind…when one says one is a 4 w/kg cyclist, that’s the performance one can easily achieve without killing oneself or on a great test day …Almost like you are slightly above, and you would have to greatly alter your training to go below. I think any other way is just ephemeral form.
I’m sitting at 4.3w/kg at the moment. 313 FTP and 160 lbs (72.5 kg). I’ve only been riding hard for 2 years and doing structured training for a year.
However, I do what I consider a LOT of volume and stay consistent. I ride 6x a week, for at least 1.5 hours. 5 structured workouts and either a long ride or race on the weekend with one day of rest.
I’ve also lost 20 lbs at the same time.
Not sure what my limit is, but I am still getting faster. I am 43 years old. 6’0 (183 cm).
I’m with @varmstrong but with only one year. I got back into cycling in early 2021 (thank you, Zwift!), and anything north of 100w was a real effort.
I’m 172cm, 64kg with a 2.8w/kg (180w) FTP (down from 76kg a year ago!). I’m on the bike 6x a week with a cycling coach, mostly indoors due to family/work and time commitments. Usually 1-2 hours and 4+ on the weekends.
My real goal is on sustained climbs. My goal is to get to a 6-hour century (where century has between 10k-12k of climbing). I’m at 7 and change right now.
For me being super skinny is definitely genes. I’m 185cm and 68kg in my best shape, but I have ZERO upper body mass and very narrow bones and my joints are very small.
I disagree. We’re all different, but I don’t think 4w/kg is that easy. Who I know most about is me. I’ve been playing sports since I was 8 years old. I am now 44. I’ve played at a high level at American Football, which I played for 25 years. I’ve been riding for 10 years, serious training for 4 years. Did 12 hrs/week last year and I am now at 3.4w/kg. I am at the front of B grade and could probably hang in A grade. I need 60 more watts to get to 4w/kg. It would take a miracle to get there.
I agree with all of that, apart from your conclusion
I would think the more someone rides, the more serious they are, thus the more likely they are to put in large hours indoors in their striving for performance gains. Just my conjecture though.
And the right body. I was having a hell of a time progressing. At my age, I thought I was starting to have heart issues and had a workup from a leading cardiologist in the area. What they found was interesting. All of my arteries and other tubing were clear, no evidence of CAD at all. But they found one of my ‘main vessels’ that feeds the heart was ‘undersized’. I was hoping to get to my maximum, and felt like I was ‘stuck’, and was experiencing slight chest pain, and unable to catch my breath on really hard workouts, and come to find out my plumbing wasn’t capable of anything more. Wow… I was hitting my bodies max, and pounding on the ceiling without even knowing it. I’m not going to be a bike racer. I can only build around that genetic malady, and do what I can. I red lined. I never expected that…
I’d wish for different parents, and better plumbing.
That’s why I’ve recommended that younglings looking to do biking for a career to get a workup. Make sure there isn’t something beyond their control that could end their quest, and potentially end their lives.
But at least I know my arteries are clear. It could have been a lot worse, for sure…
EDIT: The cardiologist said that I would outlive him, and to keep doing what I’m doing. It was doing good. For the main test, they usually have to medicate the victim to get the heart rate down so the system can track it better. Once I hit horizontal, and concentrated, my heart rate went into the low 50’s and they were happy. Medicated people sometimes need to stay for a while to get their BP up again. Yikes…
I raced for years with the largest amount from my 40’s through my mid 50’s. I won the state hillclimb for agegroup in my early 40’s, about 15 lbs lighter than I am now. My FTP was abt 3.2 watts/kg in those years. Currently 67 yo and unable so far to get over 3 watts/kg. I did take almost 9 years off the bike though. Also went through a cardiac workup as a precautionary measure, with no abnormalities noted. When racing, I could occasionally top 5, and rarely podium. Then as now its a barrel of fun, and the fitness is a benefit.
That’s closer to the W/CdA metric. W/kg is a unit that exists because these is an application (higher Watts per kg of weight means faster climbing on steep climbs).
Watts per height don’t affect speed automatically.
Why would this be a better metric?
Watts/kg matters in every form of cycling except pan-flat time trials, in which case watts/CdA/kg matters more. It even matters to a greater or lesser extent in track sprinting because of the need to accelerate.
Because it can compare absolute FTP between people of different heights, regardless of the extra mass they might carry. Personally I don’t want to get the most optimized cycling body but I do like to compare myself with others, usually we use FTP/mass for that but that doesn’t tell the whole story, eg someone with a BMI of 25 and an FTP of 4 W/kg is a much more powerful rider than someone with an BMI of 18 and an FTP of 5 W/kg. It’s a useless metric for pros though
That’s a silly metric. Watts per kg of lean body mass makes miles more sense.
I am shorter than Phil Gaimon but weigh more and have less power.
Comparing us based on height would make me seem even slower than I am.
On the other hand, if you compared us by sheer muscle mass, it would be a much more fair comparison. That I would still lose. By a significant margin.
A BMI-based metric would at least normalize for body type.
As someone in my 40s this correction makes me less impressed with where I’m at right now but also more hopeful for my future!