So, I've got to get off the computer and go do over/unders, which is a really good work out to raise FTP

I guess a sub 50 kg rider would be at 5+ W/kg at 250W, but 200W still looks low. But I bet there are few of those down at that weight.

Are you sure your powermeter is accurate? At 170 watts (roughly similar weight and bike), I average above 30 km/h on flats in slow wind. At 300 Wats (if I could), I would exceed by far 40 Km/h for 1 hour. I think that such performance can be achieved starting with second tier professionals below (roughly) 40 years old - that's not me.
And still... with my poor performances, Garmin says I'm well above average VO2max for my age (pros excluded, I assume)

As someone at 60-61 kg, I can confirm. At 250 watts I could climb pretty well, but not fast enough to keep up with a decent cat 2. A cat 1 or pro? Forget it!

Yes, I’m sure my power meter is pretty accurate. I have several power meters to compare over the last 5 years and they are all within a few percent.

According to Bike Calculator, 170 W is 29 kph and 300 W is 37 kph. That’s on a dead flat road with no wind, riding on the hoods. That seems about right to me.

I would never ride on the road at a 300 W average for an hour unless I was doing a TT. But I have averaged 300 W over an hour on my indoor trainer several times. Most of my road rides are averaging around 180-200 W, but usually over several hours. My best average speed over 100 miles is 33 kph on a fairly flat, but windy course on mixed quality roads. Average power just under 200 W. I’m nowhere near pro level or Cat 1 racers. Not even close.

Yes, this was my thought too. A 60 kg pro rider with a sub 250 W FTP is going to get dropped on any sustained climb. Just doesn’t make sense.

My understanding after watch Dylan Johnson’s latest video is that FTP is losing favor as an index. Two riders may have the exact same FTP for a supposed hour, but how good are they over efforts well over an hour? They may both post the same time for the first hour, but one may trail off significantly over the second/third since they don’t have - the new word - durability. Durability may be a far better indicator of a rider’s ability over the long haul. How is it measured? The ability to ride at of above one’s lactate threshold over time. Unfortunately measurement at this time is a bit elusive but should get there with time.

I totally agree. But if a pro rider can only produce 200-250W over approx 1 hour, then it gives them no chance against a similar weight competitor who can haul 400W+ over the same duration.

It’s a different story when you are comparing 2 guys with a similar FTP. One of those guys could potentially have much better endurance than the other or much better sprint power.

FTP is a useful training metric but not really specific to any racing disciplines outside of time trial, as Psimet2001 alluded to. I think the highly anaerobic efforts are what is most often selective in racing, around here at least (SCNCA). In the GCN Zwift Academy videos, the Alpecin Deceuninck coaches said that they highly valued 4 minute power.

I am not a big engine type, my FTP varies from 4.1 - 4.5 w/kg depending on how well trained I am. I am a 66 kg, 38 year old Master's racer (qualify for 40+ next year USAC). But I can punch above my pay grade on short climbs, and roll some breakaways or other over/under efforts with some elite riders.

Someone once told me locally that you need 5 w/kg FTP to ride in the (domestic) pro field. My best ever 20' test was around 5.0. I will probably never see that again, and that's ok. Kids man, they're not good for the legs :). Thank god for Master's racing as I am not realistically competitive in P/1/2 but I can surf the elite field and maybe even shake it up in a move or two if I'm in top form.

Can confirm.

Well this is alot of info lol right I only did a ftp as a point of index me starting training and I might do one next year to see what the diffrence is ? And yes I'm untrained on the bike, I've ridden bikes for years off road but I'm sick of broken bones now and I work for myself so don't really want time off ha. I stopped riding about 10 months ago but I still regularly do 20,000 steps a day with work and 4-5mile dog walks so I'm generally fit 😁 I'm starting road/gravel because I can ride out the door and do a couple hrs get back and get on with my day but I'll also be doing turbo 3 times a week. Tbh I'm just feeling my own mortality a bit and want to keep active as u get older and no I no ill never win races but I like to have goals that's how my brain works 👍 where I live is very hilly so thus zone 2 stuff really has to be done on the turbo unless I want to be crawling up hills and I mean crawling lol, but I'm just really enjoying been active and getting out again 😁 oh as a side note I did watch Paris nice and see some of sprinters doing 1700w plus that's impressive I'm atleast 700w short lol Thanks for all the replies u all sound like a good bunch alot of forums are full of arrogant idiots it's a nice change 😊

So, if you want to do a structured program, use that FTP number to set your zones. Retest it in a few weeks to see if you need to adjust your zones.

I think the point several of us are trying to make is enjoy yourself; use ftp as a metric to improve your training if you want to follow a structured program. But don’t worry to much about it as an end itself

At 70, I use FTP as an indicator of effective training. With sarcopenia becoming an issue, trying to be conscious of nutrition, training (riding and weights) and rest. Rest was seldom part of the equation in the past but am finding it is increasingly important. However I also use Training Load as an indicator of effectiveness when comparing the apples and oranges of very different rides.

We ignore proper rest at our own peril.

Most assuredly not a good thing.

I'm only a year behind you. Add to the above, ever lowering max heart rate.

We have a few climbs around here that are a couple of miles long and I can see my efforts on Ridewith GPS over the years. That seems to be a more effective and practical metric that a trainer-derived number.

Comment...
 

I'll be 76 in a couple more weeks. Returned to road bike riding in 2023 after a decade long hiatus. Where I live (and ride!) now isn't anything like the "Flatlandia" where I grew up & started riding bikes back in Illinois.

I bought a wheel-on trainer a year ago last January, didn't use it much due to a bout of RSV then Bronchitis that set me back.

A full summer's riding got me psyched to get with the trainer at the end of biking season last fall. So far this year I'm just over 400 miles, making a good start once the weather turns warmer on my summer of 2025.

Trainers aren't at all a reflection on what riding outside, on real roads & hills, is like. But it beats sitting around for five months waiting to pick up where I left off.

FTP is simply a calculated metric. You can use it to gauge performance improvements. HRV's another, perhaps more telling, why I'm kinda leaning towards it instead of FTP for a more practical 'read' on how my body responds to training AND road bike riding once I can get back outside.

I find HRV totally useless as a performance metric and semi-useless as a recovery metric.

I pay attention to HRV, but only if I take it when I first get up in the morning. If it's significantly low for a couple days in a row, it usually means I'm fatigued (or I'm about to get sick).

My HRV tends to move upwards slowly as my fitness increases, but I don't use HRV to measure fitness. I use it to estimate my readiness to train.

Same for me. My waking HRV this AM tanked and I had great legs for a Zwift race with a lot of climbing. Garmin said it will take 3.5 days to recover. Meh. I am racing again tomorrow and heading off the gym. Age 76. YMMV

Interesting. Thanks for your inputs on this. Adds to my understanding of how others judge their performance potential.

For performance I just look at my power over various timescales and my weight. Those are direct metrics and everything else is indirect. My power has no correlation with my HRV. At best HRV tells me if I’m perhaps a bit fatigued, but even that is suspect. I’ve had plenty of days where my HRV was very low, but I’ve felt great and vice-versa. I find that my resting HR is more reliable in predicting my level of fatigue.

You've been doing this stuff for how long now Pete?

I have a hunch I'm at the bottom of the hill looking up, trusting that I've a lot to learn ahead. Getting my head around HR, FTP, HRV, how they can tell me about my physical status over time and how my performance up on two wheels affects both my body and my mind.

If only there were an existing word, also from the Latin durare (to last), which could be used for this, and has been for decades if not hundreds of years :D

Slightly off topic. I wear a whoop wearable, and interestingly they pushed out an upgrade that estimates VO2Max. I had my VO2Max tested a week ago and the whoop is within 0.5% of the lab test.

Last time I looked at Whoop (admittedly a few years ago) DC Rainmaker gave it a pretty lukewarm review, mainly critical of it’s so so HRM, which is critical to its function. This is his review of V 4.0 and I’m not sure if the sensor has been upgraded since? Maybe the whole platform is just better now, so I might take another look for more recent trusted reviews.

https://www.dcrainmaker.com/2021/11/...rm-review.html