Meh, I don’t think that’s super accurate.
The only way to know how “fast you are” is to line up at the start line and race. To know how your FTP or w/kg compared to others is a good, general, starting point, but, FTP =/= race results. I likely had the lowest FTP of the top 10 finishers of the crit I won last week. A friend who has an FTP 50 watts higher than me got pulled w/ 4 to go.
That’s actually very interesting. I sit at about 4 W/kg, and during my first race earlier this month I was barely able to hang on in Japan’s JCBF’s lowest tier for amateur bike racers, E3. I was one of the last riders who finished the race (the rest was DNFed). That puts things into perspective.
Also, total power is more important on the flats than specific power. And in most races you need other skills such as efficient drafting, being able to work together with strangers, coming up with strategies and so forth. Nevertheless, it is an indicator that strongly correlates with performance.
I think the Hunter Allen/Andy Coggan power profile chart is a better representation of how you can fair against other cyclists at higher level competitive racing.
For example 4.1w/kg ftp puts you at the lower level of cat 2 racing.
As others have pointed out there is a lot more than just this number to predicting performance.
What are you looking for, then? In the context of what’s being discussed, it’s as good as it’s going to get.
Again, having that power is not a good indicator of your ability to be competitive or even race in the Cat 2 races. The profile chart is just an average of people in those categories, but, I would be willing to bet that most early season races will have Cat 5s, 4s & 3s w/ Cat 2 power and either murder the field or get dropped. Additionally, there are some big boys who can put out lots of power, but, have poor w/kg numbers who crush the field on flat courses.
I think there’s a big enough spread that we’d get good data. But we could look in at like first gen kickrs vs 2nd gen and see if the bell curve moves. We could also do that with power meters and stuff like that.
That might tell us two things:
- A certain trainer/PM reads higher than the norm
or - People with higher watt/kgs tend to use certain trainers/PMs
I’m a little late to the party here. Loving all the data, thanks @Nate_Pearson for making the effort of digging through the data and making it accesible for everyone here.
And what a surprise, with a w/kg somewhere in the 15th to 20th percentile I consistently place in the 15th to 20th percentile in my age group!
Coggan got it right in the first place. He, and Allen, looked over thousands of users and created a bell curve.
As has been said, and as Coggan and Allen and anyone with any sense has said since the table first saw the light of day, your w/kg values do not equal your race results. Most USCF races end in sprints – so you had better have a high 5sec and 1min, and have a combination of good race sense (know what wheels to follow and when) and enough 20min not to get dropped (which is surprisingly little – I’ve known Cat 1-2 riders who are 4 w/kg at FTP, but know how to get their wheels in the right place).
The chart is just a measure of fitness.
With regards to PMs, everyone claims accuracy within 2%, but the actual variance between units is much higher (and some brands are not very consistent in their day-to-day values).
Don’t get lost in the numbers. Are you faster? Are you thinner? Are your results better? Forest and trees and all…
iirc that chart includes data from ALL cycling disciplines, not just road. the shorter efforts will be inflated by the track cyclists. so not really comparing like for like.
still interesting though!
Hi Nate…THANK YOU!!! As soon as I heard you mention this analysis on a recent podcast, I went right to the site. I’ve been looking for this data for two or three years. Strava and Zwift must have this but won’t share. Coggan’s data is basically great as a starting point but really isn’t helpful for us older folk to use as a normative value and to set goals. I’m 63 and rode a lot from 39-50 years old but my hip died and I had to be replaced due to the ATN (crushed by a horse at age 38). I started riding more about 3 years ago when my weight started creeping up and by doing Zwift training and motivation through Strava, I got my FTP up by about 15-20% (152 to 172-192 (2.65-2.87 w/kg) depending on method and time of year) and thanks to your data, I can now say I’m firmly middling for my age for power.
Two questions:
-
Are there enough members in the 60-70 and 70+ age bands to stratify the top end of you data? Given the aging US population there will likely be more people in 60-70 year old population and mixing them in with the 70+ group may distort the performance data.
-
Is there similar data for estimated VO2max? I think this would be very interesting to compare to the general population.
Finally, thanks again for sharing this data to both you and the TrainerRoad community and users.
70+ is a small group. I’m not sure if it’s statically significant. We don’t have VO2 Max data either…I’d like to see power at Vo2 Max in the future though. We’re putting some stuff in place for that now.
Nate: in a year or two, you’re going to have to create an 80+ group!
Hi Nate:
Thanks for the courtesy of the reply. I very much appreciate the communication at such a high level.
One follow up question… While the 70+ group is too small to break out on its own, is it significant enough to distort the averages in the 60-70 group (the VO2 data by decade that Ive seen shows a major drop off 70+)_… and I lied…lol other questions… is the power curve decline linear or logarithmic if you plot it in smaller increments like every 5 years and… does the failure to respond to training with an increase in strength or VO2 max with age follow this curve or there is another age break point or variable where the failure to respond to stimulus happens
When I have a few minutes will plot your data
I do wonder how much of the rapid decline as we age is associated /caused by weight gain, as Watts/kg and VO2 both (obviously) have weight as a major factor in the calculations and its harder to train as you get heavier and weight can be associated with other disease states that can impede function.
Joe Friel in Fast after 50 notes that high intensity workouts (with shorter durations) are able to slow the decline greater than moderate intensity longer duration training….so long as you tolerate them. He also quotes several studies in the book looking at the VO2 decline and there is a major drop off after 70.
Also
https://2peak.com/archive/training_past_50.php
and im in process of listening to your podcast from 218 where you discuss aging and performance
Regards, Joe
Taking the lazy TL:DR approach to this one (Even though I was the OP on this thread) What is a good power for 1 min or 2 mins? I worry that i am sadly lacking in this department - Mainly since watching @Nate_Pearson nail it in the TR race videos!
I have an FTP of 327W (4.3W/kg) but my 1 min max is 530W and 2 mins is 420W. I’m in my first season of racing and when i’ve gone for a flyer off the front i have this mental image of the peloton ambling along behind me giggling before they catch me.
What’s a “Good” 1 min power?
If you look at Coggan’s power profiling chart, then at 4.3W/kg FTP an equivalent 1 minute power would be 8.7W/kg so ~660W. So your 530W is maybe a relative weakness compared to your FTP (for bike racing - doesn’t matter at all in triathlon or TTs). Also depends when you set your PR, if it was at the end of a race when you had already done a fair bit of work then you could likely set a higher max if warmed up but fresh. I take that chart with a pinch of salt, but that FTP to 1 minute ratio does seem to be broadly in line with good riders that I train and race with. I certainly know guys smaller and with lower FTP than you who can put out 6-700W for a minute.
Nobody will be giggling at you taking off at >500W. Might be worth trying to improve your 1 minute power though. Also learning when to use it most effectively - e.g. attacking when another break has just been caught and everybody’s recovering and not so keen to chase again straight away.
Has this feature come out?
I could see as part of an interesting metric to assess oneself as some people are risk takers while others play it safe. Which approach is preferable?
- Your reach exceeds your grasp or
- You don’t challenge your limits
I’d vote for a long term FTP evolution vs failed workouts analysis (for a given followed plan). This deserves a coach Chad deep dive if there’s not one already.
For the record I have about six months or so of power data I’d like to cut out of my TR career because I was riding on a faulty smart trainer that was about 20-30 watts too high (imagine my shock when I finally got a power meter).
I would guess that there’s enough faulty power meters and smart trainers out there to throw off the average FTP by at least a few percent. Especially when you take wheel-on smart trainers into account.
You can exclude rides from TSS and personal records. That would make us not look at them.