Reasonable guess, and close, but it's wrong. Coggan has said exactly how he anchored the top and bottom of that chart. The top is anchored at the highest observed w/kg for athletes specializing in events that value that output; that is, world-class sprinters for the short time intervals and world-class endurance athletes for FTP. Being world-class in one discipline basically ensures that you won't be world-class in all, so the top of the columns come from different people. The bottom of the chart is anchored at non-sedentary, active, non-cyclists, such as you might find if you took someone who regularly jogged or played tennis -- not a couch potato, but not anyone who is training to be a racing cyclist. Think of someone who doesn't race or play team sports and is thus "untrained" but who has an "active lifestyle." The "distance" between the top and bottom anchor was split into 40 equal-sized steps, each 2.5% of the total overall distance. Female tables are simply the male tables scaled down by a constant.

I explain all of this not to criticize Kopsis, but to point out that the construction of the original chart was pretty arbitrary and it has been misused over the years (and from the first moment he released it). Coggan put it together at a time when there was little other information available but those days are long past. He tried a couple of times to delete the "cat" labels but people kept adding them back in. He barely pays attention to the profile anymore, and I'm guessing he's not interested in updating it. For the purposes of "performance profiling" he's moved on to other measures. Most of us probably should, too.