Powerlevels / FTP: Pros vs humans

[Lovegoat]

Hi all!

I`m what could be considered as a forum lurker in a number of forums, and I dont post that often. But one issue is really bothering me. Well, bothering might not be the right term, but anyway, something seems off to me. That something is the alleged FTP of the pros vs the alleged FTP that numerous forum-active amateur cyclist seem to boast.

First, to start with the pros: I`m not going to claim that i have all the insight in this, and my knowledge of the pros ftp is mostly picked up in forums and online articles. However, from what I`ve read, it does not seem all that far off to assume that alot of the pros come in the range of 350 - 450 watts (speaking in terms of absolute FTP), and 4,7/4,8 - 6 w/kg (speaking in relative terms). Ref f.ex the thread on Lances ftp, where i see there is alot of guesswork putting him at somewhere above 400w, and close to 6 w/kg. Also, i know saxo-bank posts some of their riders FTP at the SRM-webside where they share the powerdata from the TdF. (se July 12, Stage 9: Saint-Gaudens - Tarbes 160.5km- Chris Anker Sorensen where Chris Anker Soerensen is listed with a threshold of 380 w).

To me this is, by all means, impressive. Those wattages I mention above are above what i can sustain for even a few minutes, and I`m heavy at 80 kg!

However, beeing impressed by the numbers of the pros, I cant get over the suspicious feeling I get reading numbers that different "amateurs" are posting in various forums. A number of what I would call amateur riders post FTP`s in the 350`s (absolute), and above 5 w/kg (relative). These riders are probably - by all means - super-fit and way above my level, but the way I see it they should be no where near the pro-league. In one forum I read a mid 40`s masters racers who posted FTP`s of 350 w @ 70 kg. In another, I`ve read a "collage racer" posting an FTP of close to 400w. On another webpage, i read about this "up and coming" young rider (19-20) with an FTP at 395w, but weighing in at only like 65 kg!

As I said, I have no noubt all these forum-guys are superfit and skilled cyclist, but I cant grasp the fact that there isnt more of a difference between the "amateur-level" and the pros.

The questions I`m really left with, are these:

1) Is the difference between 4,7-5 w/kg and up so large that only the "elite" could achieve FTP`s from 5 w / kg and up? Do those relavively small - on the paper - differences in FTP amount to the great difference in performance that separate the pros for us mere mortals?

2) Are the pros able to perform much closer to their FTP for an increased duration (i.e. more than an hour)? f.ex - will the amateur with an FTP of 350w be toast after 90 mins of 330w, while the pro with an FTP 380 watts sustain 350 for 3 hrs?

3) Are forum-boasters generally overestimating/lying when posting own FTP?

4) Other explanations?

Please discuss - and enlighten me

 

[JibberJim]

Do those relavively small - on the paper - differences in FTP amount to the great difference in performance that separate the pros for us mere mortals?

Yep, there's surprisingly little numbers difference in getting dropped and contesting the win. It's why bike racing needs to be so graded, a small lack of power can get you dropped, or having to work so much harder than others in the group to close small gaps that differences are amplified significantly.

2) Are the pros able to perform much closer to their FTP for an increased duration (i.e. more than an hour)?

Certainly a bit, but possibly not by that much, they'll probably combine it more with strong 5 minute and other short duration power better than the very highest amateur FTPs. They'll also likely have better ability to repeat it day after day - only the absolute best FTP's get a Pro licence if they can't do work day after day (i.e. Boardman)

3) Are forum-boasters generally overestimating/lying when posting own FTP?

Possibly, also remember pro's don't necessarily care or really be willing to give out the info to everyone, so take all numbers with a pinch of salt. Also remember a pro may be giving his winter number when he's been tested, but the amateur is very much giving the best they've ever done.

I think if I can get my w/kg up to 4.5 and my weight down to 72, then I'll be competitive in 2nd Cat races here in the UK.

 

[Tapeworm]

You are correct in that the power difference between the very good and the pro is very small, often amateurs can match that of pros.

And here's the "BUT", but professional racing is oh-so-much more than FTP values. If racing was decided by power only there would be many pros out of a job.

I have seen amateurs put out over 350 watts in a lab, yet my ~280 watts beats them in a TT, simply because my position is good, their's sucks.

Then you have the dynamics of actual racing and the tactics that can be bought to bear. Pros have to back up multiple events, day after day, for a whole season, often not having the luxury of being able to tailor a whole years training to one event.

So in short I am sure there are those out there which have pimping FTPs, and maybe they could bring it to A pro race, but this is only just one piece that makes a professional.

 

[LMN]

There really is some vastly over-estimated/exaggerated FTP numbers posted in forums. I have tested a lot of people and have only seen FTPs over 5.0 watts from very, very fast riders.

That being said the numbers you see in the Tour are at least a full watt/kg lower then what the riders test at. Even those guys suffer from fatigue and in a three week race fatigue is the name of the game.

 

[RoyalDutchShell]

But to what extent can we draw conclusions when you have some "assistance" factored in? A pro on a "full program" probably has a big advantage over a pro with no money on a small team. A promising amateur with lots of "support" might have a big advantage over another promising or strong amateurs who are more niave/honest/poor.
Or is this just being cynical?

 

[Lovegoat]

But to what extent can we draw conclusions when you have some "assistance" factored in? A pro on a "full program" probably has a big advantage over a pro with no money on a small team. A promising amateur with lots of "support" might have a big advantage over another promising or strong amateurs who are more niave/honest/poor.
Or is this just being cynical?

If you by "assistance" or "support" are thinking of EPO and the likes, I believe there is a sticky-post in this forum giving a pretty decent view on how tour-wattages have varied, and discusses whether or not these changes can give any clues as to if the peleton is less "assisted" today than it was in the late 90`s.

On another note, i certainly get the point of other posters here stating that fatigue is the name of the game, and that the pros are able to produce 5 w/kg day in day out in 3 week stage races. I also get the point that the mere FTP-number itself - neither absolutley or in w/kg - will win you any races. Thank god for that by the way - it would suck to get the GC-standings just by looking at the rooster and plotting inn the w/kg of different riders and comparing to the stage profile

But that point aside - does anyone know if there exists some kind of "record book" for best wattage held for various durations? It probably doesnt have much use, but it would be interesting reading none the less. Im thinking - what are the best absolute wattages that can be delivered from an athelete - fully rested - when trying out a - say 20 min - test under optimal circumstances. That would really give me an understanding as to how far behind I am ;p

Another - more unrealistic wish - would be for the best pros to actually publish their power-readings from great rides. I for one would love to have access to the files where:

1) The last km or so of a tour stage a couple of years ago, when Cancellara did a superb flyer, powering off from the front of the peloton.

2) Contadors mountain-top finishes from last years TdF

3) Hausslers solo-break away from last years Tdf - soloing off to beat the peleton by minutes, not seconds.

4) Hushovds solo-break over the two cat 1`s to secure his green jersey.

5) Boasson Hagens final kilometeres from tour of britain - both 09 and 08, where he "routinley" schooled the rest of the field.

anyone else?

I understand - thought - that the pros will be reluctant to publish these files - but maybe they should be obliged to free them up after say - 3 years - to everyones joy and pleasure!

 

[acoggan]

does anyone know if there exists some kind of "record book" for best wattage held for various durations?

See the top row of the tables found here:

Power Profiling

(Note: the folks at TrainingPeaks still need to update those tables to version 5, but the changes are small.)

 

[Lovegoat]

See the top row of the tables found here:

Power Profiling

(Note: the folks at TrainingPeaks still need to update those tables to version 5, but the changes are small.)

I`ve checked out those tables before, but are those wattages number actually performed (and recorded, verified etc) by the worlds top athletes, or are they more numbers "in the vicinity" of what the top could perform. On the more philosophical note, I guess there has to be some kind of limitation as to what the human body can achieve, factoring in "perfect" genes and all (and factoring out the "assistance" described in a post above ). I guess I`ve always viewed the top rows of the profiling chart as some sort of the "top limitation", and not so much the "best achievements". But this could be wrong, no?

Also, I`m starting to get intrigued (hm, did I get that spelling right?) by absolute watts vs watts/kg:

The top row of the profile-chart lists 6.40 watts pr kg at FT. For a pantani-like rider this would be in the area 380 watts, but for more powerfull, muscular guys like Cancellara, Ulrich, Indurain etc it would mean over 500 watts! This leads me over to thinking the highest w/kg numbers ought to be reached by lightweigt riders, and that it would be (nearly) impossible for an 80 kg rider (like me ) to reach a w/kg of 6 or above. On the other hand, I guess it would be "unfair" if the 80 kg guys could reach the same w/kg as the climbers, as it would take alot of the fun out of cycling for athletes like "the chicken" and his breed of climbers (not being able to drop the big guys in the climbs, and getting schooled on the flats and in the TT*s)

 

[acoggan]

are those wattages number actually performed (and recorded, verified etc) by the worlds top athletes

Yes.

 

[tonyzackery]

But to what extent can we draw conclusions when you have some "assistance" factored in? A pro on a "full program" probably has a big advantage over a pro with no money on a small team. A promising amateur with lots of "support" might have a big advantage over another promising or strong amateurs who are more niave/honest/poor.
Or is this just being cynical?

This fact should not be overlooked or forgotten...this very fact (IMO) puts pros into another stratosphere...

 

[LMN]

Yes.

Mens and Womens?

 

[Lovegoat]

Last night watching Paris - Nice on Norwegian television, I heard the commentary speak a little of Gilberts threshold-watts. The commentary said he had seen tests putting Gilbert at a threshold of 560 watts! Im not sure if the commentary was speaking of threshold as FTP the way coggan defines it, because in another sentance he said Gilberg could hold 560 watts for 20-30 min. But nonetheless, even with a 20 min power of 560 watts his FTP should be well over 500! Anyone know what where the commentary (Kaggestad - Tv2) might have this information from?

 

[Tapeworm]

A problem with these supposedly ultra-high wattages sustained for long periods is heat. Its all very well producing 500 watts for over an hour but this is a LOT of heat that needs to be dealt with by the body. Given the human body is roughly 25% efficient this means approx 2000 watts of heat is being produced. Not an issue for a short effort, major issues for 20mins or more.

I am not saying its not possible, but even with doping, PEDs etc, some of the claimed values start to reach into the realms of the impossible.

FWIW I think a lot of commentary or general articles on pro wattages are propaganda. At best.

 

[acoggan]

Last night watching Paris - Nice on Norwegian television, I heard the commentary speak a little of Gilberts threshold-watts. The commentary said he had seen tests putting Gilbert at a threshold of 560 watts! Im not sure if the commentary was speaking of threshold as FTP the way coggan defines it, because in another sentance he said Gilberg could hold 560 watts for 20-30 min. But nonetheless, even with a 20 min power of 560 watts his FTP should be well over 500! Anyone know what where the commentary (Kaggestad - Tv2) might have this information from?

Fantasyland.

 

[Lovegoat]

Fantasyland.

Hehe, after pulling out the good `ol calculator, and guessing Gilbert at a weight of +/-70 kg, I kinda figured that an FTP of 7++ w/kg seemed pretty darn high. Good to know.

I think I`ll settle with the fact that my own FTP of 3.x w/kg is definatley attainable without amazing genes and intake of steroids. This gives me a healthy buffer up to the powerlevel of the pros, which should keep my motivation for training up. Just dont start talking of genetic potential etc..

 

[SolarEnergy]

but I cant grasp the fact that there isnt more of a difference between the "amateur-level" and the pros.

For sure there may be some over estimation here and there. But one thing that strikes me in your analysis or I should say in your comparison is that you compare "amateur-level" and top pros.

In my opinion, "amateurs" can be further sub categorized. There are the age group not so talented folks, just like me, and there are very talented elite riders who may have had enough talent to ride as pros, but that overall, just didn't have the resources to stay at this level.

Some riders on Cycling forums regularly visit Montreal's famous Mardi Cyclistes super fast crits. I have little doubt about their posted FTP numbers. Yet, they don't race as pros. They have their butt sitting between two chairs. There was a talented junior few years back posting here on a reg basis. He came here in Abitibi to ride the Tour. It's a world renown very hard Junior stage event.

Do they have the talent to grow a high FTP? Sure. Does their training regiment allow them to sustain a long stage event? Probably not.

overestimating/lying when posting own FTP?

Lying? Almost annonimous on a forum? Nahh, they can't be

Funny enough, I remember having fancied organizing a Time Trial event for Cycling Forums (and other forums) members here down town montreal on our Formula One track. This track is so fast that our best triathletes can perform a 90k TT (no drafting) under 2hours on it (yep, that's 45.some kph).

I won't though. Lack of time. Just one of those dreams.

 

[giannip]

I've often wondered about this when reading posts by our local racing crowd.

I recently saw a file where the rider's AP was 400 & NP 425 for a 4.5 hr race. The race had a 4 Pros (highest level in the UK) but not of the ProTour quality (yet!).

It had me wondering whether he forgot to zero the PT......

I've also been looking at the Tour of California race files & wondering how a mainly Amateur race can have a MUCH higher AP /NP than a tour stage ?

Another file posted from last Sunday's race of Time 2:25, Avg Power (inc zeros): 317W ,Normalized Power: 357W

Even that is more than the TOC stages.

Now I assume the drafting effect of a big peloton as opposed to a small group of 25 over a short course with a 7min climb, would have that effect but still...

Is it a case of FTP being very similar yet the Pros are just mroe efficient & can go longer @ more intensity?

 

[JibberJim]

I recently saw a file where the rider's AP was 400 & NP 425 for a 4.5 hr race. The race had a 4 Pros (highest level in the UK) but not of the ProTour quality (yet!).

It had me wondering whether he forgot to zero the PT......

I would suggest that file is extremely dubious unless the guy in question is very heavy. (425/400 for a 4 hour road race is unlikely in any case unless he was solo away for almost all of it)

I've also been looking at the Tour of California race files & wondering how a mainly Amateur race can have a MUCH higher AP /NP than a tour stage ?

Because they're easy for a lot of the riders, particularly the ones we've had data for so far, but even then if you look at portions of the race they're much higher than the headline averages which as you say do look easy, but it's due to just how easy it is for the riders not working a lot of the time. But you're also ignoring weight, here in the UK, 75kg is a typical size of the 360watt FTP guy, whereas the pros are doing that at 65kg, there's quite a difference.

Mostly though, they're not operating at a very high percentage of their FTP as they don't have to, sometimes they will be working though, and those are interesting power files, not the ones where a guy spends 4 hours sitting in a pack.

Another file posted from last Sunday's race of Time 2:25, Avg Power (inc zeros): 317W ,Normalized Power: 357W

Even in 2/3 UK races I have NP's over 300 for 2:30 hours.

 

[giannip]

I would suggest that file is extremely dubious unless the guy in question is very heavy. (425/400 for a 4 hour road race is unlikely in any case unless he was solo away for almost all of it)

.

No he's not very heavy & he was in the main group the whole race, up until the last climb.

Because they're easy for a lot of the riders, particularly the ones we've had data for so far, but even then if you look at portions of the race they're much higher than the headline averages which as you say do look easy, but it's due to just how easy it is for the riders not working a lot of the time. But you're also ignoring weight, here in the UK, 75kg is a typical size of the 360watt FTP guy, whereas the pros are doing that at 65kg, there's quite a difference.
.
Mostly though, they're not operating at a very high percentage of their FTP as they don't have to, sometimes they will be working though, and those are interesting power files, not the ones where a guy spends 4 hours sitting in a pack.

Even in 2/3 UK races I have NP's over 300 for 2:30 hours.

I've been looking at Jakob Fuglsang's data & he is breaking 5,10,20 min PP in the stages and he was also in the front split up the Bonny Doon climb with Lepheimer etc. so it can't be that easy.

His data shows: Average watts: 261w (320w normalized) for the Total Time: 4:26

 

[swampy1970]

I've been looking at Jakob Fuglsang's data & he is breaking 5,10,20 min PP in the stages and he was also in the front split up the Bonny Doon climb with Lepheimer etc. so it can't be that easy.

His data shows: Average watts: 261w (320w normalized) for the Total Time: 4:26

When you're going up hill with a guy who's finished Top 3 in the Tour de France, chances are you'd be hitting your 1 and 5 minute bests too...