what is considered a good FTP



Luke Davison

New Member
Jan 15, 2014
2
0
0
Ive been riding for about 2 years, but have only been training seriously for about 4 to 6 weeks. I recently did a 20 minute test to get a gauge of where i am. I produced an average of 302 watts at 65kg for 20 minutes. Taking 5% of this result i can get a accurate estimate of my FTP being around 287 watts and therefore 4.41w/k. I just dont know what this really means, is it good, okay, average. If someone could give me a better understanding of my performance it would be much appreciated. Thanks.
 
I think the description of 95% of a best 20 minute effort as "accurate" estimate of your FTP would not be something most people see, for the majority of folk it would overstate by a lot (5% for me)

4.4 w/kg would put you among the strongest riders in any UK cycling club, so it's pretty good.

Don't measure too much against numbers though, there's a lot more to it.
 
Numbers may also vary between measuring tools. Different results between something say like a p2max/SRM/PowerTap (of which there is even a +/- factor of a couple watts) vs. a local gym's exercise bike are not uncommon. Could be as much as 20-30 watts.

While tracking progress on the same tool is valuable for training, comparing power numbers against one of the available power profile charts may be comparing apples to oranges. Good for ball-parking though.

Example:

 
Originally Posted by JibberJim
I think the description of 95% of a best 20 minute effort as "accurate" estimate of your FTP would not be something most people see, for the majority of folk it would overstate by a lot (5% for me)
Agree. I have come to the conclusion that 92-93% of your best 20-min. power is a bit more accurate for most. Again, it's just my opinion and splitting hairs a bit. After all, the point of a 20-minute test is to gauge improvement and set intensity zones.
 
Originally Posted by jcm01
Agree. I have come to the conclusion that 92-93% of your best 20-min. power is a bit more accurate for most. Again, it's just my opinion and splitting hairs a bit. After all, the point of a 20-minute test is to gauge improvement and set intensity zones.
Actually, I think the 95% rule of thumb has been redefined over time. The original suggestion was to use 95% of one's regular 2x20 efforts. This has two key elements. One, it is not a rested, "best" effort. Second, it is not a single 20min effort, but rather two 20min efforts with a short recovery duration (e.g., 5mins).
 
Originally Posted by RapDaddyo

Actually, I think the 95% rule of thumb has been redefined over time. The original suggestion was to use 95% of one's regular 2x20 efforts. This has two key elements. One, it is not a rested, "best" effort. Second, it is not a single 20min effort, but rather two 20min efforts with a short recovery duration (e.g., 5mins).
Interesting stuff! So you agree with the 95% rule? But this seems to go against the other commonly referred rule that says when duration doubles, your power goes down by 5%. According to that rule, you would indeed take 95%, but only if you were determining your 40 min power, not your 60 min. power. Again, I know a lot of folks that do take 95% of their best 20 mins. when determining FTP, but it just seems aggressive, at least to me. For example, I did a 20 min. test yesterday. 298W. 95% of this is 283W. I just don't see myself being able to hold 283W for a hour - not even close unfortunately :)
 
The 95% rule doesn't fit me very well because I have a high anaerobic work capacity relative to my FTP. I'm just saying that the original 95% rule of thumb has become distorted over time. Basing FTP on a 20min rested max effort is a lot different than basing it on a daily diet of 2x20s. I tend to be old-school when it comes to setting my FTP. I use a constant power ride to exhaustion at ~60min to set my FTP.
 
Originally Posted by RapDaddyo
I tend to be old-school when it comes to setting my FTP. I use a constant power ride to exhaustion at ~60min to set my FTP.
Very impressive. I would need to take an extra large serving of rule #5 before I could do this! Maybe one day...
 
Originally Posted by jcm01

Very impressive. I would need to take an extra large serving of rule #5 before I could do this! Maybe one day...
A 25 mile time trial, set as an important target of the year, will do very nicely. Testing is training but sometimes you need a bit more motivation to get the numbers nailed. Short of a supremely aerobic lion that can run without overheating for 25 miles chasing you down the road, pinning a number on your back will get the job done nicely. Just don't go nuts in the first few minutes.
 
Originally Posted by Luke Davison
Ive been riding for about 2 years, but have only been training seriously for about 4 to 6 weeks. I recently did a 20 minute test to get a gauge of where i am. I produced an average of 302 watts at 65kg for 20 minutes. Taking 5% of this result i can get a accurate estimate of my FTP being around 287 watts and therefore 4.41w/k. I just dont know what this really means, is it good, okay, average. If someone could give me a better understanding of my performance it would be much appreciated. Thanks.
Go enter a few road races and find out.

At such a light weight you might do OK on some of the longer hills (longer than 15 minutes) but you may find your sell out powered on the flat by bigger guys, where power to weight really doesn't matter as much - more power to aero, tactics and a big pair of hairy plums to get you around the corners as fast as required.
 
Originally Posted by Luke Davison
Ive been riding for about 2 years, but have only been training seriously for about 4 to 6 weeks. If someone could give me a better understanding of my performance it would be much appreciated.
Considering that many people have years of serious training and you have only a few weeks, I would say that you have a long way to go.

When you are asked "How long can you go at 95%?" and your answer is "As long as I need to," you can perform.
 
Originally Posted by swampy1970

A 25 mile time trial, set as an important target of the year, will do very nicely. Testing is training but sometimes you need a bit more motivation to get the numbers nailed. Short of a supremely aerobic lion that can run without overheating for 25 miles chasing you down the road, pinning a number on your back will get the job done nicely. Just don't go nuts in the first few minutes.
Good advice. Thanks swampy!
 
~300W for sustained periods is strong. Not riding guys off your wheel on the flats power but not getting dropped (or put under much pressure) in a fast rolling group. When the road tilts up for more than a handful of minutes... A select few guys will be with you. If you've been riding in groups and haven't seen this then there may be a question of accuracy of your PM, a very not optimal position on the bike, not optimal position in the group, or you could be riding in a very strong group. If you want to race you have plenty of aerobic motor.
 
Originally Posted by Luke Davison
Ive been riding for about 2 years, but have only been training seriously for about 4 to 6 weeks. I recently did a 20 minute test to get a gauge of where i am. I produced an average of 302 watts at 65kg for 20 minutes. Taking 5% of this result i can get a accurate estimate of my FTP being around 287 watts and therefore 4.41w/k. I just dont know what this really means, is it good, okay, average. If someone could give me a better understanding of my performance it would be much appreciated. Thanks.

It's a good number, but it might not be all that meaningful.

What's important when racing or doing well on group rides is your 1-5 minute power. And what's even more important than that is your ability to continually reproduce high 1-5 minute power.

You want to attack, you want to respond to an attack, you want to bridge, you want to sprint: that high-end, short-term power is what really matters.

Your 4.41 is great, don't get me wrong, but when someone drops 8 kg/w for a minute or two up a climb, where will you be? That's what's important in racing. Being there to make your strengths work for you.

There's a huge fascination with ftp but it just isn't that important in the majority of scenarios when racing or riding with a group unless it's just so much higher than everyone else's to the extent that you can just ride away from everyone.
 
Originally Posted by needmoreair


It's a good number, but it might not be all that meaningful.

What's important when racing or doing well on group rides is your 1-5 minute power. And what's even more important than that is your ability to continually reproduce high 1-5 minute power.

You want to attack, you want to respond to an attack, you want to bridge, you want to sprint: that high-end, short-term power is what really matters.

Your 4.41 is great, don't get me wrong, but when someone drops 8 kg/w for a minute or two up a climb, where will you be? That's what's important in racing. Being there to make your strengths work for you.

There's a huge fascination with ftp but it just isn't that important in the majority of scenarios when racing or riding with a group unless it's just so much higher than everyone else's to the extent that you can just ride away from everyone.
Repeatable power is certainly important for racing, but wouldn't an FTP greater than one's peers be helpful for crossing gaps that take longer than 10 minutes to bridge especially when doing so alone, prevailing on longer climbs when the hammer goes down where wheel-sucking expertise is less helpful than on the flats, and spending less overall time depleting glycogen stores and more drawing partially on fat reserves for fuel during a longer road race? Wouldn't less time at red line mean a deeper reserve of short term power at the end of the race? And all things being equal, i.e. compared to a rider with similar 5 minute power and aerodynamic/wheel-sucking efficiency, wouldn't a deeper FTP allow one to recover faster once the gap is bridged as the rider will effectively be riding at a lower intensity of their overall power?

In the past I have finished shorter flatter races (35 miles or so) on par with some of my teammates (or even better) who are markedly better time trialists with a higher FTP than myself, however I have more years of racing than they do (albeit spread out over decades without the benefit of cumulative gain) and can hold a tighter wheel and move around the group out of the wind more effectively, and because of my physical makeup can beat a few of them in a sprint. I even had one comment on barely being able to hold my wheel once during a VO2 type effort, but at a race like the 65 mile Nancy Morgenstern memorial with a bunch of climbs those guys have trashed me. What you indicate about strengths working for one as I've described above holds true, but as I'm already pretty lean my deficiencies seem like they would be clearly addressed by raising my FTP, no?
 
Originally Posted by danfoz

Repeatable power is certainly important for racing, but wouldn't an FTP greater than one's peers be helpful for crossing gaps that take longer than 10 minutes to bridge especially when doing so alone, prevailing on longer climbs when the hammer goes down where wheel-sucking expertise is less helpful than on the flats, and spending less overall time depleting glycogen stores and more drawing partially on fat reserves for fuel during a longer road race? Wouldn't less time at red line mean a deeper reserve of short term power at the end of the race? And all things being equal, i.e. compared to a rider with similar 5 minute power and aerodynamic/wheel-sucking efficiency, wouldn't a deeper FTP allow one to recover faster once the gap is bridged as the rider will effectively be riding at a lower intensity of their overall power?

In the past I have finished shorter flatter races (35 miles or so) on par with some of my teammates (or even better) who are markedly better time trialists with a higher FTP than myself, however I have more years of racing than they do (albeit spread out over decades without the benefit of cumulative gain) and can hold a tighter wheel and move around the group out of the wind more effectively, and because of my physical makeup can beat a few of them in a sprint. I even had one comment on barely being able to hold my wheel once during a VO2 type effort, but at a race like the 65 mile Nancy Morgenstern memorial with a bunch of climbs those guys have trashed me. What you indicate about strengths working for one as I've described above holds true, but as I'm already pretty lean my deficiencies seem like they would be clearly addressed by raising my FTP, no?

You want to be as strong as you can. If you can get your FTP higher, then go for it. But I'd suggest not doing that at the detriment of your supra threshold power. How many of us know strong triathletes with fairly high FTPs that get dropped on any acceleration or climb? I've known quite a few.

The point I was trying to make is that an ftp number in and of itself means nothing. Just because you have a decent ftp doesn't meant you can race well. Conversely, just because you don't have a high ftp doesn't mean you can't race well. If you can respond to attacks, cover moves, rotate through a paceline, and the drop a sprint., you can be the world's worst time trialist but still rack up tons of wins. That's because just an ftp number isn't going to mean anything (unless you're doing really long climbs or something, or are trying to solo in).

Racing is too dynamic for that.

As for your issues with a 65 mile road race, then I'd suggest that FTP probably isn't the problem as much as endurance. If I were you I'd focus on getting at least one longer (4+ hour) ride a week, or building up to it if you can't already do it. Once you can handle those without feeling wiped, start trying a workout in the last half of the ride. Or maybe ride an hour or two before doing a good group ride. If you're racing with power you can also go back and see the numbers you were putting out when you got dropped. You can go back and see how many matches you'd burnt previously. Would hiding in the pack longer and waiting until the crucial moment came to get active help you make the move? Are you being held back by anaerobic capacity? Your ability to go hard and recover, etc? Analyze, modify, train, and race again.
 
Originally Posted by needmoreair
This is helpful info. The year I struggled at the Morgenstern RR I also placed dead last in a TT, but had managed a few top tens in my category, with not much of a problem managing accelerations and short climbs but getting to the finish a little too pooped to do any real dirty work... shallow FTP and light on endurance. I had been off the bike for a decade or so and returned to competition on one of the short interval based plans, and the long days weren't much more than 2.5 hours... max of 8 hours a week.

This year I'm doing more of a substantial plan which has plenty of 4-4.5 hour rides and much more saddle time at up to 15 hours/wk or so. I don't have a PM, but using speed figures verified by another forum member on my E-motion rollers via SRM (same resistance, tires + tire pressure), FTP itself has increased about 30 watts or so and still 2.5 months to go for my target. The plan really addresses my historical weaknesses, but also plenty of VO2 and anaerobic work so should have some decent fitness come race day. At the same time since I've temporarily quit boozing I've dropped enough weight without trying that watts/kg currently has me in the stronger half of my category using the Coggan chart, at least on paper.
 
Bike racing is different than running. In running the person who wins 1-200 meter sprints is nowhere to be found at the end of a 5k, 10k, or marathon. The runners winning long distances simply aren't built to compete at sprinting, and 800 meter and milers... Also different animals. In a bike race though there are ways for most types to find success. If FTP is your strength, and at 4.4W/kg it's not a weakness, tactics should be to break away or attack on sustained selective areas. The middle distance bodies (maybe a pursuiter or all rounder) can do fliers or try to be the best sprinter in the break. And, of course sprinters (or all rounders with good endgames) will surf the pack and try to win the bunch sprint. To say that FTP isn't critical makes me cringe, if you don't have enough FTP it is critical. But, while FTP is necessary it is not sufficient for a LOT of race situations. Edit: I have high FTP/5min mmp (~cat 2 on the chart) and low 1min/5sec (cat 4 on said chart). I've won, regularly place well in, TTs including the NCNCA district championship (M30-34) but I have yet to put it together and win any road races or crits. If my tactics aren't very reserved, ie if I push the pace and try to break away a dozen times, the last 2 laps of a crit put me in a lot of pain but the normal attack and surges are nothing to worry about.
 
Originally Posted by quenya


To say that FTP isn't critical makes me cringe, if you don't have enough FTP it is critical. But, while FTP is necessary it is not sufficient for a LOT of race situations.

Edit: I have high FTP/5min mmp (~cat 2 on the chart) and low 1min/5sec (cat 4 on said chart). I've won, regularly place well in, TTs including the NCNCA district championship (M30-34) but I have yet to put it together and win any road races or crits. If my tactics aren't very reserved, ie if I push the pace and try to break away a dozen times, the last 2 laps of a crit put me in a lot of pain but the normal attack and surges are nothing to worry about.
I'm the opposite. I have a low ftp for my category but very high anaerobic capacity, exceptional endurance, and the ability to repeatedly hit high numbers for short durations over and over again. So FTP isn't critical to win or place well. Knowing how to race and when to use your strengths is.

I never place well in TTs and just quit doing them. I've never soloed in on my own. But I've won races from whittled down groups and breaks.
 
Originally Posted by needmoreair

I'm the opposite. I have a low ftp for my category but very high anaerobic capacity, exceptional endurance, and the ability to repeatedly hit high numbers for short durations over and over again. So FTP isn't critical to win or place well. Knowing how to race and when to use your strengths is.

I never place well in TTs and just quit doing them. I've never soloed in on my own. But I've won races from whittled down groups and breaks.
Don't want to get at this again, but think you are hitting your true FTP over and over again, that is why you feel it is not hard and you can recover fast and repeat it several times. You have just not learnt the psychology to sustain that.

Hitting high ATP+CP+Muscle Glycogen levels repeatedly is impossible for more than 10 minutes for most of us, following at least two days to restore. That is the fastest way to loose a race.

As always, here is some reference from folks who know more:

http://www.americanroadcycling.org/TheBook/TrainingProgram.aspx?frm=MenVert

http://www.brianmac.co.uk/energy.htm
 

Similar threads