Untrained FTP for a New Cyclist

[Cleanneon98]

Yes those are certainly words

[old_but_not_dead_yet]

And they certainly describe the facts of the situation.

[GettinOld]

Pretty good number! You are young ´and free´

I started at 42 and had a ftp of 180. I have small kids, job, obligations etc… I cant see fast track to rise my ftp, but not having family commitments and genetics in your favour, you can be a fast hobby rider or even a great competitor if you sharpen your fitness because in the ftp alone cant win you a podium.
Whatever bro, make good use and fun of it! cheers.

[mattonabike]

Ha, what broscience? OBNDY explained very well where the OP lies in a distro of VO2Max. Interesting but also not an answer to the question. The OPs actual question was:

@Aussie1

What sort of level is this at for someone untrained with no previous cycling or endurance experience?

The answer to that question is not answered by OBNDY nor my second response. It is more accurately answered by the first of my 2 responses. What level is that for someone untrained? Untrained.

My second response was also we have no idea, but pointing out there are some obvious extremes that may make it an even more unanswerable question. How far you can go is controlled by how strong a response to training stimulus your body has and how well it can recover from that stress. If we could predict that from your starting point based on a v02max test the reality of pro sports recruiting would differ from our current system. I stand by my answer. How long is this string.

[anon13702412]

No it was not! OBNDY provided an science backed overview of where OP is. Exactly what OP was asking. To recap: slightly above average in his age group.

@mattonabike

Dont let these folks tell you anything. If you are 5’3" have never run a mile in your life and are pretty obese at 80kg and you are at 257 day 1 you may have the tour in your future. If you are 6’ and cut, been running 30 miles and week and play D1 ball your ftp is pretty low for just starting out. Anything in the middle, nobody can tell a damn thing about how far you can go from where you start.

What you wrote on the contrary was completely arbitrary. Also you answered a question OP wasn’t asking. Hint: he didn’t not ask how far he can go. Also your examples were useless as OP specified his background. So yeah, enough said.

[AJS914]

What are you measuring power on? I ask because I started off on a cheap “smart” trainer. I thought my 20 minute power was 300 watts but in reality, it was never close.

My only advice is that if you are getting serious, make sure you are testing and training on good reliable and accurate equipment.

[mattonabike]

@anon13702412

OBNDY provided an science backed overview of where OP is. Exactly what OP was asking. To recap: slightly above average in his age group.

No he didnt. He didnt claim to. He showed where the OPs vo2max lies on the bell curve of TR users (many of whom are NOT untrained). Its interesting data but does that answer “what sort of level is that for someone untrained.” OBNDY tends to be fairly precise in his answers so one possible assumption is he gave an interesting piece of information because the actual question cant be answered.

@anon13702412

Also your examples were useless as OP specified his background.

Also not true. I made up my (fake, intentionally snarky and stupid) scenarios as possible within the dataset provided. He didnt give height just weight so we have no data on body comp so i picked short and fat (fits our data) and taller and lean (also fits the data). I assumed no previous athletic experience of any kind and I assumed a LOT of experience in a way that would not be ‘endurance training’ which is all he said. Hell, I didnt even pick a sport just “D1 ball” which could easily mean several things and most of the people who play them would not consider themselves “endurance athletes”.

[anon13702412]

Let’s start with what you and OBNDY wrote.

@mattonabike

No he didnt. He didnt claim to. He showed where the OPs vo2max lies on the bell curve of TR users (many of whom are NOT untrained). Its interesting data but does that answer “what sort of level is that for someone untrained.” OBNDY tends to be fairly precise in his answers so one possible assumption is he gave an interesting piece of information because the actual question cant be answered.

@old_but_not_dead_yet

Pretty average, maybe slightly above. One thing to be aware of is that at your age, the TR ramp test is especially likely to overestimate your FTP.

@old_but_not_dead_yet

They correspond to a VO2max of 45-50 ml/kg/min. For a 19 year old male, that’s only slightly above average.

@old_but_not_dead_yet

The OP provided their estimated FTP, from which it is possible to estimate their VO2max. They wanted to know where their aerobic fitness currently stands, and I answered them correctly and factually.

His statement has nothing to do with the bell curve of cyclists on TrainerRoad. Hint: google VO2Max by age group and gender.

Now to your second paragraph:

@mattonabike

Also not true. I made up my (fake, intentionally snarky and stupid) scenarios as possible within the dataset provided. He didnt give height just weight so we have no data on body comp so i picked short and fat (fits our data) and taller and lean (also fits the data). I assumed no previous athletic experience of any kind and I assumed a LOT of experience in a way that would not be ‘endurance training’ which is all he said. Hell, I didnt even pick a sport just “D1 ball” which could easily mean several things and most of the people who play them would not consider themselves “endurance athletes”.

His height and sports history are completely irrelevant. Thanks to research we have a pretty good understanding of average VO2max values by age group, gender, and fitness background (e.g trained and sedentary). Including the corresponding standard deviations (google it!). As we know OPs FTP we can approximate his VO2Max and assess where he is currently at.

So yes, not only did you not answer his question you also tried to discredit people who actually did for the sake of stroking egos.

[Cleanneon98]

Well it’s turned into another one of “those” threads.

[NasiLemak]

Exactly my point - even with smart trainers or if you forgot to calibrate them - number changes from person to person and really can’t be compared as people make it up to be. I personally use an Infocrank both outside and on my smart trainer and has helped tremendously with consistency. but even with the same power meter my outdoor and indoor power are quite different. so; what is 250watts anyway? who knows but let go of numbers and put some miles in (to the poster).

[NasiLemak]

This post is a battle of the poster trying to seek a bit of encouragement, those not willing to give encouragement, those willing and people like me who are just here to be entertained.

[Jesse_Euton]

Comment might be targeted at the “new” aspect vs the “untrained” aspect. For someone who is new to cycling I would recommend the same. Ride, have fun, and explore your limits. Having goals and formulating a “why” is an important precursor to structured training.

[Aussie1]

I did the test on my bike out on a flat section of road (I have Assioma pedals if that helps).

[RecoveryRide]

Then your result is probably pretty damn accurate. You’re starting from a decent place - now enjoy the journey!

[RecoveryRide]

@mattonabike

The answer to that question [is not answered by OBNDY

Well… post 1:

@Aussie1

What sort of level is this at for someone untrained with no previous cycling or endurance experience?

Post 9

@old_but_not_dead_yet

Pretty average, maybe slightly above.

So it’s fairly hard to argue he didn’t answer the question, and it’s hard to argue with the maths/calculations/research base behind it.

If you don’t like the phrasing or consider the response unhelpful, that’s a different argument altogether (note: I’m not saying those things, I’m inferring what other people may actually be taking issue with).

[bbarrera]

@RecoveryRide

So it’s fairly hard to argue he didn’t answer the question, and it’s hard to argue with the maths/calculations/research base behind it.

Depending on two assumptions:

• Efficiency
• % VO2max at FTP

the VO2max (relative) can vary quite a bit:

and here are the standards for VO2max by age

Source: Edge 530 - VO2 Max. Standard Ratings

In any case, you can see there are wide swings in VO2max based on your fractional utilization (FTP as % of VO2max) and efficiency. One of several reasons that FTP is considered the single largest determinant of performance.

[old_but_not_dead_yet]

@bbarrera

Depending on two assumptions:

• Efficiency
  - % VO2max at FTP

the VO2max (relative) can vary quite a bit:

If the OP’s FTP estimate is based on TR’s ramp test, there is no such assumption involved.

[bbarrera]

good point! If using TrainerRoad’s Ramp Test to estimate FTP, that leaves relative VO2max only subject to variations in efficiency:

[old_but_not_dead_yet]

That spreadsheet assumes that Wmax* equates to 100% of VO2max, which isn’t correct.

*Avoiding the equivalent terms of MAP or Pmax to minimize confusion.

[bbarrera]

even so, the point should be clear.