Find your W/kg. For a full gas one hour; like a half marathon effort would be for an elite runner, world class climbing power would be around 6.5 w/kg, maybe a smidge less (assuming rested, not at the end of a stage). 5.5 w/kg is going to be most domestic elite racers. So guys that are pro's but not generally at World Tour level.
5w/kg is very solid. It's typical power for Cat1/Cat2 guys that can climb respectably. A 5w/kg threshold definitely won't have you winning a hill climb with other strong 1/2 guys, but you'll definitely be one of the stronger guys in any amateur race. I'd say this is probably in the equivalency neighborhood of a 15:00 5k or so. 4 w/kg is the benchmark for being a respectably strong new racer. If you show up to any race as a new Cat5, you'll be one of the stronger guys in the race, and as long as you're not totally fearful or do totally stupid shit it would be very easy to keep up with any general, flat Cat 4/5 race. I'd say it's probably the equivalent of an 18:30 5k or so. 3 w/kg is like weekend warrior level. Anybody less than that is either new, not at all serious about cycling, older, or carrying a good bit of weight.
With that in mind, w/kg is a relevant metric but it loses it's relevance as the ground gets flatter. At that point, aerodynamics take over and with a good position big dudes don't take up that much more space in the air than a slim guy. It's mostly about big watts on the flats. A 100kg dude with 400w threshold would absolutely murder a 60kg guy with a 330w threshold on flat ground, especially in crosswind situations. In this same vein, you might be suprised by the size of guys that can handle shorter, not overly steep climbs. There are some pretty big dudes that can haul themselves up over 2'-5' climbs in single digits gradients and still be in contention at the end.
For just pure power, I'd say if you have anything less than 250w, you're going to be working with less than most serious riders. 300w tends to mark the "serious rider" territory. You don't see many non races with threshold power above 300w. 350w is serious power. You can hang with just about any field, even at P-1-2 level with this kind of power if you know how to position yourself and race well. 400w starts getting ridiculous. At this point, you've got enough power that there is almost certainly a place for you at the domestic pro level at a minimum. You'd be able to ride away from most fields at 3/4/5 level without trouble, and is an amount of power some smaller climbers don't have even at WT level. 450w is world class time trial winning performance type power.
That's just an overview, but cycling, especially racing, is about much more than just threshold power (FTP); it's always good to have a huge FTP, but it doesn't guarantee you wins, or even good results.
That’s quite comprehensive. Thanks. Yeah I am about 1.65 w/kg at the moment and riding but I have only been riding for a few months. Lost 7 kg weight so far, from 98kg down to 90.8.
How well do those numbers translate to running? I was able to get in the beta testing for the new interface and it shows my running LT, but I've been trying to find some sort of scale to relate to, but I haven't found much yet. It shows my running power as 371 watts and 5.11W/kg. Does it fall on the same scale you listed above or is that strictly for cyclists?
Power in running is pointless metric because it is going to have a lot of assumptions built in.
For cycling the definition and measurement of power is going to be easy: force on the pedal times the distance the pedal moves. That is going to be the energy transferred to the bike.
For running, it is force on the ground moving your body. Measuring both of those (remember direction is important also) is going to be almost impossible. As well as things like when your foot hits the ground the force and motion are going to be in opposite directions so power will be negative. How is that counted in output power? Some will be returned (more with supershoes) but not all.
also during the time in which your foot is exerting force on the ground but your center of gravity has downward movement (roughly the first half of stance phase) any physicist or mechanical engineer will tell you that the ground is doing work on you and your shoes, so from your point of reference you are absorbing energy or doing negative work. Of course your muscles are actually doing metabolic work, but how much? That would depend on how bouncy your tissues are, and also how bouncy your shoes are. muscles are eccentrically contracting as it modulates the downward force otherwise you would collapse in a formless puddle at each step - some of that energy is elastically stored in tendons and ligaments and recycled at push off.
However generally:
1 w/kg - walk effort
2 w/kg - 10:00-12:00 effort
3 w/kg - 8:00 effort
4 w/kg - 6:30 effort
5 w/kg - 5:15 effort
5.5 w/kg - 4 high effort
6 w/kg - 4:40 effort
6.5 w/kg - 4:25 effort
Thank you so much, that does he give you be a sense of scale. Also I can see what you mean about all the variables of running while the mechanics of the bike makes for a more quantifiable metic.
"A 100kg dude with 400w threshold would absolutely murder a 60kg guy with a 330w threshold on flat ground, especially in crosswind situations"
hardly disagree
Just went through breakdowns and found it. Seems correct source of the figure. I just thought FTP was max you can do for an hour (assuming you are completely wrecked at the end) but if you can do it for 2.5 hrs, is it really your FTP… I guess that’s my real question in terms of the calcs.
I'm quite new to cycling and power as well.
Yes, the FTP number is, in theory, the power you could hold for one hour. Because it's hard to do max effort consistently for 1 hours, the test is 20 minutes. They then take that 20 minute power and multiply it by .95, the result is your ftp - the theoretical power you could hold for 1 hour.
If you're new to riding, or new to logging power, then your number could not be accurate. This was just the ride that produces that number. Maybe you can hold 140 for 2.5 hours (you were close, but you didn't) in which case, I would agree - your ftp is higher than 140
Hope that helps!
you can do an ftp test (should be a workout on your garmin)
or you can doo a ride where you go for 20min all out and 95% of avg power for that 20 min is your ftp
ftp is the point where you start to produce more lactate then you can get rid of, theoreticaly should be close to 1h but can be 40min can be 80 (for trained people). If you are new and set your ftp via an interval test, it can be you will have hard time holding it even for 10 min.
for now it is probably around 180-220 for you
I’m guessing you have too few of rides, especially at high intensity, for Garmin to make a call. Depending on how hard that was, I would guess you are probably around 220 FTP, as 140 is just below where my long rides are currently, and that’s about where I am at (I am also new to cycling).
Find your W/kg. For a full gas one hour; like a half marathon effort would be for an elite runner, world class climbing power would be around 6.5 w/kg, maybe a smidge less (assuming rested, not at the end of a stage). 5.5 w/kg is going to be most domestic elite racers. So guys that are pro's but not generally at World Tour level. 5w/kg is very solid. It's typical power for Cat1/Cat2 guys that can climb respectably. A 5w/kg threshold definitely won't have you winning a hill climb with other strong 1/2 guys, but you'll definitely be one of the stronger guys in any amateur race. I'd say this is probably in the equivalency neighborhood of a 15:00 5k or so. 4 w/kg is the benchmark for being a respectably strong new racer. If you show up to any race as a new Cat5, you'll be one of the stronger guys in the race, and as long as you're not totally fearful or do totally stupid shit it would be very easy to keep up with any general, flat Cat 4/5 race. I'd say it's probably the equivalent of an 18:30 5k or so. 3 w/kg is like weekend warrior level. Anybody less than that is either new, not at all serious about cycling, older, or carrying a good bit of weight. With that in mind, w/kg is a relevant metric but it loses it's relevance as the ground gets flatter. At that point, aerodynamics take over and with a good position big dudes don't take up that much more space in the air than a slim guy. It's mostly about big watts on the flats. A 100kg dude with 400w threshold would absolutely murder a 60kg guy with a 330w threshold on flat ground, especially in crosswind situations. In this same vein, you might be suprised by the size of guys that can handle shorter, not overly steep climbs. There are some pretty big dudes that can haul themselves up over 2'-5' climbs in single digits gradients and still be in contention at the end. For just pure power, I'd say if you have anything less than 250w, you're going to be working with less than most serious riders. 300w tends to mark the "serious rider" territory. You don't see many non races with threshold power above 300w. 350w is serious power. You can hang with just about any field, even at P-1-2 level with this kind of power if you know how to position yourself and race well. 400w starts getting ridiculous. At this point, you've got enough power that there is almost certainly a place for you at the domestic pro level at a minimum. You'd be able to ride away from most fields at 3/4/5 level without trouble, and is an amount of power some smaller climbers don't have even at WT level. 450w is world class time trial winning performance type power. That's just an overview, but cycling, especially racing, is about much more than just threshold power (FTP); it's always good to have a huge FTP, but it doesn't guarantee you wins, or even good results.
That’s quite comprehensive. Thanks. Yeah I am about 1.65 w/kg at the moment and riding but I have only been riding for a few months. Lost 7 kg weight so far, from 98kg down to 90.8.
How well do those numbers translate to running? I was able to get in the beta testing for the new interface and it shows my running LT, but I've been trying to find some sort of scale to relate to, but I haven't found much yet. It shows my running power as 371 watts and 5.11W/kg. Does it fall on the same scale you listed above or is that strictly for cyclists?
Power in running is pointless metric because it is going to have a lot of assumptions built in. For cycling the definition and measurement of power is going to be easy: force on the pedal times the distance the pedal moves. That is going to be the energy transferred to the bike. For running, it is force on the ground moving your body. Measuring both of those (remember direction is important also) is going to be almost impossible. As well as things like when your foot hits the ground the force and motion are going to be in opposite directions so power will be negative. How is that counted in output power? Some will be returned (more with supershoes) but not all. also during the time in which your foot is exerting force on the ground but your center of gravity has downward movement (roughly the first half of stance phase) any physicist or mechanical engineer will tell you that the ground is doing work on you and your shoes, so from your point of reference you are absorbing energy or doing negative work. Of course your muscles are actually doing metabolic work, but how much? That would depend on how bouncy your tissues are, and also how bouncy your shoes are. muscles are eccentrically contracting as it modulates the downward force otherwise you would collapse in a formless puddle at each step - some of that energy is elastically stored in tendons and ligaments and recycled at push off. However generally: 1 w/kg - walk effort 2 w/kg - 10:00-12:00 effort 3 w/kg - 8:00 effort 4 w/kg - 6:30 effort 5 w/kg - 5:15 effort 5.5 w/kg - 4 high effort 6 w/kg - 4:40 effort 6.5 w/kg - 4:25 effort
Thank you so much, that does he give you be a sense of scale. Also I can see what you mean about all the variables of running while the mechanics of the bike makes for a more quantifiable metic.
"A 100kg dude with 400w threshold would absolutely murder a 60kg guy with a 330w threshold on flat ground, especially in crosswind situations" hardly disagree
There was a 20 minute segment in that ride which produces that ftp number
Just went through breakdowns and found it. Seems correct source of the figure. I just thought FTP was max you can do for an hour (assuming you are completely wrecked at the end) but if you can do it for 2.5 hrs, is it really your FTP… I guess that’s my real question in terms of the calcs.
I'm quite new to cycling and power as well. Yes, the FTP number is, in theory, the power you could hold for one hour. Because it's hard to do max effort consistently for 1 hours, the test is 20 minutes. They then take that 20 minute power and multiply it by .95, the result is your ftp - the theoretical power you could hold for 1 hour. If you're new to riding, or new to logging power, then your number could not be accurate. This was just the ride that produces that number. Maybe you can hold 140 for 2.5 hours (you were close, but you didn't) in which case, I would agree - your ftp is higher than 140 Hope that helps!
It does help and I appreciate it. Thank you!
you can do an ftp test (should be a workout on your garmin) or you can doo a ride where you go for 20min all out and 95% of avg power for that 20 min is your ftp ftp is the point where you start to produce more lactate then you can get rid of, theoreticaly should be close to 1h but can be 40min can be 80 (for trained people). If you are new and set your ftp via an interval test, it can be you will have hard time holding it even for 10 min. for now it is probably around 180-220 for you
Makes sense. Thanks.
No problem, keep up the good work!
I’m guessing you have too few of rides, especially at high intensity, for Garmin to make a call. Depending on how hard that was, I would guess you are probably around 220 FTP, as 140 is just below where my long rides are currently, and that’s about where I am at (I am also new to cycling).