I am also 69 and on the cusp of 7-0. My second FTP test in 2020 was 228 (the first didn’t count since I didn’t know what I was doing). Now my estimated value - per Garmin is 212 with a lactate threshold of 172 and VO2 Max of a sedentary 20 year old. All are not great but they are not terrible either. I seldom get passed on my rides, but was really spanked the other day on a 12 mile TT, but at least he was a good rabbit that helped me achieve 5 PRs which I was hunting.

What I enjoyed in my 30s (FTP? What was that?) was doing centuries and doubles and something in between with 7,000’ of climbing. But what I REALLY enjoyed was attacking short steep climbs out of the saddle and powering over them. It has taken me a few years, but I am regaining the ability to power over those short climbs and what a great feeling it is. I no longer do long distances, as it just becomes tedious after 60 miles. I do still enjoy 50 miles and most of my rides vary between 25 and 35, which gives me a good workout. I take more rest days and do more core and strength activities.

I have met people my age and am rather shocked by most, who look so haggard and old. Cycling may not be a fountain of youth, but it certainly helps. My parents are both in their 90s (not cyclists) one going strong and the other hanging in there. The one going strong (dad) can never sit still and is always working on projects (construction, landscaping) but was an avid skier and backpacker. He just turned 92. Wonder what my future holds if I don’t get smacked by a vehicle or some other unforeseen occurrence?

The good news, from what I have read, is that people who are relatively healthy into late life (diet and exercise) tend to die relatively quickly when the time comes, rather than having prolonged terminal illnesses. That is my goal. Go out fast regardless of FTP.

Max Vo2 is largely genetic based and if you got the right genes then even if out of shape you can get back in better than ordinary person. You can improve your Max Vo2 but the upper limit is really genetic and can be specific to a sport. My 25-year son was a 1:58 800-meter runner. Not super fast but near division 1 college material. He goes weeks on end and not do anything and then go out and run 7 minute miles for 5 miles with no problem. Once he gets in training shape they drop to 6 minutes and you don't want to have to race him in the final 400 meters. He has another gear and i think his max vox is in the high 60s. Beyond what we can train to meet.

Got 'roun toit on Zwift's new FTP test segment, The Grade. Up from 213.
At 78.9 Kg, 221 W is 2.8 W/Kg. My stretch goal for this 6 month training block is 3.0 W/Kg, 236 W.

https://cimg4.ibsrv.net/gimg/bikefor...d2e8121368.jpg

Well I must not have mine really what it could be. Today on just a power ride and no prep I manage to do 154 watts in one hour and Garmin suggested I move my FPT to 162. Makes sense I put out 170 watts for 20 minutes. I really did not wipe myself out but I was more work than other rides I had been doing. At least this was a bit more encouraging. I finished todays ride total 1 hour and 22 minutes with 142 power output.

I don’t know mine yet, but am looking at getting a smart trainer and will do the test to set my zones. I’ve been training by feel and HR for awhile and want to see what the power based plans can do for me.

Acclimate yourself to the trainer for a while before you do the test. The trainer should become second nature and not impact your results.

That's an awesome number @ 69. Good on you!

What I find amazing is power data is how far Strava is from getting power even close. I don't have a power meter on my road bike but Strava always has me well ender what I do on the Tracx trainer. I check it against some data and the power meter is accurate. If I go ride a similar ride outside it is crazy. So far after 3 months using it a few times a week when I cannot get out my average power is about 115 watts in a 25 mile ride. Outside on Stava it has me a like 90. I am work different outside more dynamic but cannot think thre is that big of a different If anything more because I have not done any climbing on the trainer. I cannot do any climbing in Illinois but at least some grades.

deacon mark, There's no coasting and no stop signs on a trainer. I'm not surprised you see a 15-20% difference. I have PM on my bike and here's 2 very close Sweet Spot workouts from Strava, the first snip is outside for 1:15 and the second is inside for 1:07. Outside weighted ave power is 166 and inside weighted ave is 184. The inside one has more time at SS and less warm up, but still illustrative.


https://cimg5.ibsrv.net/gimg/bikefor...b5e1247e91.jpg

--------------
https://cimg8.ibsrv.net/gimg/bikefor...6525789ea2.jpg

So what is a better work out as such? Not that I am training for anything all I am doing is working on beer, steaks. and donuts. I don't train for anything other than I like to ride and get sweaty.

Without a doubt, the outside workout is better.
My outdoor intervals, pulling like a banshee on a wide open MUP are a joy, a rush, like a steep ski run. The workout on the trainer is better for the FTP and I do find it fun, but for me it's a means to an end.

I believe Strava power numbers are really rough estimates and should be treated as such unless you have a power meter on your outdoor bike which feeds data to Strava. I would take your pure Strava outdoor rides with a huge grain of salt.

I have 4iii Power Meters on two bikes and find them relatively close to ZWIFT numbers.

We could be twins. Also 69 at least for this month, with a former FTP of 236 and now 212. After having a cardiac incident, I have not been tempted to measure it again, but do run my heart up to the 170s occasionally. I’m 6’1” and 167 lbs - or was until my 5 week hiatus after foot surgery.

Strava power and calories burned numbers are to be taken with a huge grain of salt.

Strava gets it's numbers from either my Garmin or Zwift. I have dual sided Garmin power pedals - Strava never matches. Both the overall and normalized power listed on Strava are lower - sometimes 5-10% lower - than my real power. Same for the power figures it receives from Zwift.

I'm not sure how this works - data is data. Strava ignores the data and makes up its own.

Where Strava is really off - estimations of my rides when I don't use a power meter. Strava is way low from what my butt meter is telling me.

Strava also doubles my estimated calorie burn when I don't ride with a power meter. Somehow their software assumes less power and double the calorie burn.

Jug, that's very weird that Strava prints different numbers than the source of the data. Very weird indeed.
Unless the comparison is between Garmin's Normalized Power and Strava's Weighted Average Power, which are slightly different calculations.

My attitude with all the differing power numbers is to just pick one that is consistent across all ride types. For me that has been RidewithGPS. I'll ride Zwift, Rouvy, Sufferfest, MyWhoosh indoors, or ride using my Wahoo Bolt outdoors but when I load them to RWGPS I get a consistent result. My Wahoo Kickr Core generates the power numbers for indoor, my Assioma Duos for outdoor. All of the various software gives different results in their own interfaces but RWGPS makes them all line up. And since I'm not comparing myself to anyone else it doesn't matter if it is off by +/-10%.

OTOH, before I had a power meter all of the results were garbage. ZwiftPower was waaaay too high, Sufferfest too. And when I ride outdoors on the bike without a meter I always manually adjust the results by setting my average HR down to 80 for the ride as that gets it into the ballpark. My rule of thumb is 25kCal/mile and based on the formula you can work back to avg watts over time.

watts*seconds/1000*.239/25. That .239/25 gets you from Joules to kCal assuming you are 25% efficient on the bike. You may be more or less but the formula has to use something. And again, as long as the formula is consistent it doesn't matter to me as I'm not comparing myself to anyone else. My goal is always to get to 3500kcal/week, and why 3500? That's the number of calories contained in a pound of body fat. If you hit that number you will lose weight. At 25kC/mile that's 140 miles, but usually it is more like 120 because of hills so somewhere in there.

Hmmm. Do you use Strava to record during your ride? I don't. My power data (and speed/HR/cadence) get recorded by my Garmin head unit, and when my rides are over they get automatically uploaded to Strava; so the data in Strava and on my Garmin are always the same. If you use Strava during the ride, you can configure it to take data from your power meter but I don't usually do it this way.

I do the same, Garmin head unit -> Garmin Connect -> Strava. Even so, the power numbers Garmin and Strava report are different. From yesterday:

Garmin Connect:

• Avg Power 163
• Max Power 807
• Normalized Power 165

Strava:

• Avg Power 146
• Max Power 807
• Weighted Avg Power 154

Then there's Training Peaks:

• Avg Power 163
• Max Power 807
• Normalized Power 163

Strava appears to be the outlier.

Nope, Strava only receives data uploaded from my Garmin or Zwift. Looking closer at it now, Zwift info seems to transfer well, but not Garmin.

See Terrys post, that's about what I usually see. Even my max power numbers can be different.

I don't really care about it - was just pointing it out to the OP.

Hmmm. That's interesting. Here are my data from a ride I did a couple of days ago:

Elapsed time Connect: 1:45:41 Strava 1:45:42
Joules Connect: 718kJ Strava: 718kJ
Avg watts: Connect 113W Strava 113W
Max watts: Connect 936W Strava 936W
NP: Connect 175W Strava 175W
Distance Connect 35.06km Strava 35.06km

Now I'm bothered by the difference in elapsed time.

Smoothing raw data

Data from the power meter can be messy, with lots of change from second to second.
So Garmin, Strava, etc, need to do at least some smoothing of speed and power data.

Here's a summer ride, with power data from my left crank Stages. The chart is from the free and useful Golden Cheetah.
Each dot is one second of the ride. Lots of change from one second to the next.

https://cimg0.ibsrv.net/gimg/bikefor...184c0addb8.jpg

~~
The same ride data, but with 10 second averaging. Quite a difference.
What's the correct answer? Too much smoothing, and peaks and valleys are trimmed off. Not enough, and there's fake short term spikes.

https://cimg6.ibsrv.net/gimg/bikefor...b2b4edf4e1.jpg

I will be dipped.
My outside ride has a big delta, recorded on a Wahoo Elemnt Bolt. 155 in RideWithGPS, 155 in Wahoo, 157 in TrainingPeaks, and 137 in Strava.
The Zwift ride is closer to equal across the platforms, 158 in Zwift, 158 in TrainingPeaks and 159 in Strava.

I know one of my devices/programs doesn't exclude the zeros so a big downhill doesn't bring the average down, or something like that.

Lot's of variables in this one- actually it's loaded enough with variables that it becomes increasingly difficult to calculate.
(I try to make stiff headwinds an outbound thing- just so's I have enough steam to get home)

-D.S.

Garmin Forums On difference of ave speed between Garmin and Strava.