Go Back  Bike Forums > Bike Forums > Road Cycling
Reload this Page >

What is considered a good FTP based on my age and weight?

Notices
Road Cycling “It is by riding a bicycle that you learn the contours of a country best, since you have to sweat up the hills and coast down them. Thus you remember them as they actually are, while in a motor car only a high hill impresses you, and you have no such accurate remembrance of country you have driven through as you gain by riding a bicycle.” -- Ernest Hemingway

What is considered a good FTP based on my age and weight?

Old 09-04-14, 01:26 PM
  #1  
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 154
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time in 1 Post
What is considered a good FTP based on my age and weight?

I'm 52, 5'6" generally around 155-160lbs.

Thanks

Gene
kini62 is offline  
Old 09-04-14, 01:59 PM
  #2  
Senior Member
 
HOWSER's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 262
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 12 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Good compared to what? Figure your watts per kilo then refer to this chart.

https://www.livetrainrace.com/wordp/w...ight-chart.png
HOWSER is offline  
Old 09-04-14, 02:11 PM
  #3  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Evanston, IL
Posts: 335

Bikes: Mosaic RT-1, Trek Boone, Cervelo R3 Team, Surly Cross Check, Bike Friday Pocket Rocket

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 70 Post(s)
Liked 5 Times in 2 Posts
Why watts per kilo vs plain watts? I understand that for climbing and accelerating weight matters, and so maybe for racing one wants to compute power/weight. But if one is interested in one's fitness, is there a linear relation between watts and weight?
profjmb is offline  
Old 09-04-14, 02:19 PM
  #4  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Northern VA
Posts: 3,247

Bikes: Moots Vamoots, Colnago C60, Santa Cruz Stigmata CC, and too many other bikes I don't ride

Mentioned: 7 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 152 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 7 Times in 6 Posts
Originally Posted by profjmb
Why watts per kilo vs plain watts? I understand that for climbing and accelerating weight matters, and so maybe for racing one wants to compute power/weight. But if one is interested in one's fitness, is there a linear relation between watts and weight?
Explain what you mean?
dalava is offline  
Old 09-04-14, 02:21 PM
  #5  
Senior Member
 
IronHorseRiderX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 134
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by profjmb
Why watts per kilo vs plain watts? I understand that for climbing and accelerating weight matters, and so maybe for racing one wants to compute power/weight. But if one is interested in one's fitness, is there a linear relation between watts and weight?
Think of watts for rider as of hp for car.
Watts/hp alone will not tell you how fast rider/car is - only combination of both will.
On side it's pure human physiology - bigger rider should produce more total watts (assuming same body fat %: more muscle mass = more power).
So if you measure your own performance (as OP intended) it's important to know which category you fit in hence the whole watt/kg scale.
IronHorseRiderX is offline  
Old 09-04-14, 02:46 PM
  #6  
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 154
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time in 1 Post
Originally Posted by HOWSER
Good compared to what? Figure your watts per kilo then refer to this chart.

https://www.livetrainrace.com/wordp/w...ight-chart.png
First thanks.

Second, not compared to anything really, just wondering what a good number would be.

So based on the above chart and my guestimation from the chart provided with my trainer (Cycle ops SuperMagneto Pro) I'm around 3.6 watts/Kg for the 20 minute column. That's if the info on the trainer curve and rear wheel speed is fairly accurate.

So, not too bad IMO.
kini62 is offline  
Old 09-04-14, 02:46 PM
  #7  
Powered by Borscht
 
ovoleg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: SoCal
Posts: 8,342

Bikes: Russian Vodka

Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Everyone is different dude. My 5s is way higher than that chart @ 18.11 W/kg, but my 20min is only 4.05 W/kg. My 1min is closer to 10 W/kg.

What matters is what you wanna do with the numbers you have and which ones you want to improve. Not many people can top out in every single category. Most climbers I know have awesome 20min W/kg, but subpar 1min and 5s.

Raw numbers don't really matter as much as W/kg.
ovoleg is offline  
Old 09-04-14, 02:48 PM
  #8  
Powered by Borscht
 
ovoleg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: SoCal
Posts: 8,342

Bikes: Russian Vodka

Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by kini62
First thanks.

Second, not compared to anything really, just wondering what a good number would be.

So based on the above chart and my guestimation from the chart provided with my trainer (Cycle ops SuperMagneto Pro) I'm around 3.6 watts/Kg for the 20 minute column. That's if the info on the trainer curve and rear wheel speed is fairly accurate.

So, not too bad IMO.
My outdoors 20min is 4.05 W/kg, but indoors its closer to 3.7. Grinding it all out for 20mins indoors sounds hard.
ovoleg is offline  
Old 09-04-14, 02:50 PM
  #9  
Custom User Title
 
RPK79's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: SE MN
Posts: 11,239

Bikes: Fuji Roubaix Pro & Quintana Roo Kilo

Mentioned: 40 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2863 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 31 Times in 14 Posts
12
RPK79 is offline  
Old 09-04-14, 03:29 PM
  #10  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Evanston, IL
Posts: 335

Bikes: Mosaic RT-1, Trek Boone, Cervelo R3 Team, Surly Cross Check, Bike Friday Pocket Rocket

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 70 Post(s)
Liked 5 Times in 2 Posts
Originally Posted by dalava
Explain what you mean?
OK

There are at least two different questions that could be asked. First, what is a good FTP for one's age and weight in terms of predicting performance in a race? Second, what is a good FTP for one's age and weight in terms of health? It makes more sense to me that performance requires taking weight into account linearly (by dividing by weight) than that health does. But I don't know, which is why I'm asking. I think that some kind of percentile table is what I have in mind.
profjmb is offline  
Old 09-04-14, 03:37 PM
  #11  
Senior Member
 
IronHorseRiderX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 134
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by kini62
So based on the above chart and my guestimation from the chart provided with my trainer (Cycle ops SuperMagneto Pro) I'm around 3.6 watts/Kg for the 20 minute column.
That table does not look right.
Here's what Andrew Coggan uses in his books Just How Good Are These Guys? | CyclingTips
Also note that 20min power is not FTP, FTP is 60min power.
There's formula to translate 20min to FTP but it is approximation.
You can visit TP forums at Forum Home - TrainingPeaks Forums 3.0 to find more details on that.
There's number of threads related to power vs age relation as well.
IronHorseRiderX is offline  
Old 09-04-14, 03:41 PM
  #12  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Allen, TX
Posts: 1,916

Bikes: Look 585

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 25 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 2 Times in 2 Posts
the OP asked about Functional Threshold Power, which is not the same as Watts/Kg -- both are important but not the same thing. If you want to know your FTP, the best way to find out is to test yourself. There are various ways. Here's one:

How to Find Your Functional Threshold Power for cycling. Two Test to get started using FTP
bikepro is offline  
Old 09-04-14, 03:48 PM
  #13  
Senior Member
 
IronHorseRiderX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 134
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by profjmb
First, what is a good FTP for one's age and weight in terms of predicting performance in a race?
Depending on the type of race knowing your FTP may or may not help much - for individual events it works well (climbs, TT) but for road races and crits it is not enough.
You will need to know your 5s, 1min and perhaps 5min power as well to make better predictions and of course power alone will not substitute riding skills/strategy/experience.

You may have Cat 3 FTP and still be casually dropped on descends or at the final sprints ridging with Cat 5 guys

Same goes for healthy weight vs power thing.
What is considered "healthy weight" is a broad term, common numbers anywhere from 15% body (fit average male) to low 5% (fit competitive athletes).
You can call any number between these two "healthy" but your pure cycling performance 15% vs 5% will be very much different.
IronHorseRiderX is offline  
Old 09-04-14, 03:57 PM
  #14  
Senior Member
 
Dunbar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: SoCal
Posts: 3,079

Bikes: Roubaix SL4 Expert , Cervelo S2

Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 85 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time in 1 Post
Originally Posted by kini62
So based on the above chart and my guestimation from the chart provided with my trainer (Cycle ops SuperMagneto Pro) I'm around 3.6 watts/Kg for the 20 minute column. That's if the info on the trainer curve and rear wheel speed is fairly accurate.
Surprised that nobody else picked up on the bolded part. The answer is heck no, it's not accurate but it's fine training indoors and for tracking changes in power. The only way to know your true FTP is to test on something that accurately measures power.

Originally Posted by profjmb
Why watts per kilo vs plain watts?
Height/weight provide context. If Chris Froome had Nairo Quintana's FTP he wouldn't be getting paid to race bikes.

Last edited by Dunbar; 09-04-14 at 04:07 PM.
Dunbar is offline  
Old 09-04-14, 04:22 PM
  #15  
Senior Member
 
LucF's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Montreal, Canada
Posts: 94

Bikes: Cervélo R3, Trek Wahoo

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
FWIW, I'm 54, 5'11", 185 lbs. I train regularly and ride long distances but I don't focus that much on performance. My FTP for 20 minutes is 225 watts, which would yield 209 watts for an hour using a .93 factor. I doubt, however, that I could sustain 209 watts for an hour. 200 would be more realistic for me and over many hours I'm happy with 175.

My watts/kg numbers put me in the bottom fifth of the charts in all columns but I still have a ball on the road and can climb pretty much everything, given enough time.

The numbers you aim for will depend on what your goals as a cyclist are. For me, it's doing long rides (100 to 1000 km), keeping it enjoyable, feeling reasonably strong and not hurting myself. Although I strive to constantly improve (too many years doing TQM in business, I guess) I'm quite happy with marginal improvements and don't care much for my position on charts.
LucF is offline  
Old 09-04-14, 04:31 PM
  #16  
Thread Killer
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Ann Arbor, MI
Posts: 12,344

Bikes: 15 Kinesis Racelight 4S, 76 Motebecane Gran Jubilée, 17 Dedacciai Gladiatore2, 12 Breezer Venturi, 09 Dahon Mariner, 12 Mercier Nano, 95 DeKerf Team SL, 19 Tern Rally, 21 Breezer Doppler Cafe+, 19 T-Lab X3, 91 Serotta CII

Mentioned: 30 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3022 Post(s)
Liked 1,614 Times in 990 Posts
Profjmb's questions lead me to wonder a couple of things. First, how many cyclist to Coggan survey to construct the table, and how does that impact comparisons to data one might glean from the tens of thousands-- hundreds of, maybe even?-- Strava users? Within that framework, what does the Veloviewer Score tell us that the Coggan chart doesn't?

Secondly, as a percentage of total cycling population, do USAC licensed racers constitute .1%? More? Less? And what percentage pros? If, say, 94% of all cyclists test an FTP of sub 2.5w/kg, a 3w/kg FTP rider, while placing amongst the top 10% of all riders, still barely breaks Coggan's lowest tier, Untrained.

My point being that, while the Coggan chart may be useful for comparing one's self to pro cyclists, it doesn't say much about how you'll stack up on the road against those you're likely to ride with and run across.
chaadster is offline  
Old 09-04-14, 05:06 PM
  #17  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Tariffville, CT
Posts: 15,395

Bikes: Tsunami road bikes, Dolan DF4 track

Mentioned: 36 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 383 Post(s)
Liked 173 Times in 97 Posts
Originally Posted by kini62
First thanks.

Second, not compared to anything really, just wondering what a good number would be.

So based on the above chart and my guestimation from the chart provided with my trainer (Cycle ops SuperMagneto Pro) I'm around 3.6 watts/Kg for the 20 minute column. That's if the info on the trainer curve and rear wheel speed is fairly accurate.

So, not too bad IMO.
I was curious about the wattage/speed on my CycleOps Fluid 2. I am pretty consistent with tire pressure, I use the same wheel/tire on the trainer (as on the road), and I ride the trainer a lot. I typically ride at lower wattages, 120-150w avg. I found that a 39x19 @ 90 rpm, about 14.1 mph, I do about 160w. In a 39x17 @ 90 rpm, about 15.2 mph, I do about 190w. It's obviously a very coarse type measurement but it gave me some idea of what to expect and what I did.

I've raced 30+ seasons. I'm basically a life time Cat 3. I could never climb with the others (Cat 4s, 3s, and M55 women non-racers on local shop rides… seriously), never really TT (best 40k was a 1:03:30 or 23.5 mph), but because I can sprint I've been competitive in select races. Also group riding on flat roads masks FTP, reducing it to a single value, which I'll explain in a bit.

I'm 5'7", 175 lbs, 46 (just about 47). I'm probably much fatter than you unless you're a really fat skinny person. I'm a regular fat person, realistically in the 23-25% body fat range.

My FTP is about 200-220, it was about 220 when I upgraded to Cat 2 in 2010 (I downgraded in 2011). It's closer to 200w now but I haven't done a proper test in a year or two. Based on my average power in races I think it's about 200w now. This puts me under 3.0 w/kg.

Incidentally I think I was in the 13-14% range when I upgraded to Cat 2, at 155 lbs. The reality is that 5% is highly unlikely for a normal person. 10% is getting down there. This is based on real measurements, not just skin fold etc.

I think for "performance riding" knowing your FTP relative to your drag is important. For example a shorter/smaller rider with a 300w FTP might be a better time trialer than a taller rider with a 400w FTP. I'm not very good FTP-wise but I'm short/efficient on the bike, meaning I have a reasonably aero position so I'm more optimized than not.

On the other hand I can mask my low FTP in flatter mass start races. I have a reasonable sprint (20s power) so I can get up short hills and I can finish a race well. However I can't play in breaks, I've stopped entering hilly road races (and crits), and I generally use races for hard training rides.

2010, FTP about 220w, weight about 155 lbs. Training, for that year, was 450 hours for the year, last year before we decided to try to start a family. This was the best race I got on video. I upgraded to Cat 2 in August of this year. I downgraded after a very sparse 2011, plus we were expecting when I downgraded.

2014, FTP about 200w, weight about 175 lbs. Training, at the time, about 1 hour a week. I've done about 1700 miles, about 110 hours this year so far. This was a good race for me this year, especially considering how little I've been training. We have a 2 1/2 year old now

My 2010 training isn't up on Strava but 2014 is up. All my rides from April 2012 until now are online. You can see what it takes to be competitive, sort of, in Cat 3s or M45s.

I hope this helps encourage you.
__________________
"...during the Lance years, being fit became the No. 1 thing. Totally the only thing. It’s a big part of what we do, but fitness is not the only thing. There’s skills, there’s tactics … there’s all kinds of stuff..." Tim Johnson
carpediemracing is offline  
Old 09-04-14, 05:11 PM
  #18  
Senior Member
 
Makel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 2,875

Bikes: Cannondale CAAD 9, Specialized Transition, Specialized Fate, Specialized Crux

Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 92 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 14 Times in 8 Posts
Originally Posted by RPK79
12
13
Makel is offline  
Old 09-04-14, 05:34 PM
  #19  
Senior Member
 
wphamilton's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Alpharetta, GA
Posts: 15,280

Bikes: Nashbar Road

Mentioned: 71 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2934 Post(s)
Liked 341 Times in 228 Posts
Originally Posted by chaadster
Profjmb's questions lead me to wonder a couple of things. First, how many cyclist to Coggan survey to construct the table, and how does that impact comparisons to data one might glean from the tens of thousands-- hundreds of, maybe even?-- Strava users? Within that framework, what does the Veloviewer Score tell us that the Coggan chart doesn't?

Secondly, as a percentage of total cycling population, do USAC licensed racers constitute .1%? More? Less? And what percentage pros? If, say, 94% of all cyclists test an FTP of sub 2.5w/kg, a 3w/kg FTP rider, while placing amongst the top 10% of all riders, still barely breaks Coggan's lowest tier, Untrained.

My point being that, while the Coggan chart may be useful for comparing one's self to pro cyclists, it doesn't say much about how you'll stack up on the road against those you're likely to ride with and run across.
Maybe someone should do a Strava chart (with its estimated power numbers) to get an distribution for normal people. Normal Strava people anyway.

I have a hard time believing the "untrained" section of Coggan's table.
wphamilton is offline  
Old 09-04-14, 05:54 PM
  #20  
Senior Member
 
caloso's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Sacramento, California, USA
Posts: 40,865

Bikes: Specialized Tarmac, Canyon Exceed, Specialized Transition, Ellsworth Roots, Ridley Excalibur

Mentioned: 68 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2952 Post(s)
Liked 3,105 Times in 1,417 Posts
According to Coggan, I should be downgraded.
caloso is offline  
Old 09-04-14, 06:29 PM
  #21  
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 154
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time in 1 Post
Thanks (I think ) for the replies. I don't race. I've done one road bike race in my life and that was this year as the bike person on an Olympic distance tri relay team. I'll probably do the same next year. My 40K time with a flat that took about 4 minutes to get fixed was 1:08 something. The course was out and back with about 400' of gain over miles 4-12 on the way out. And it was in a pouring rain. Other than that I ride for fitness and do 99% of my riding/training on my trainer. It was mostly a curiosity thing.

My only goals are to lose some weight for next years race and hopefully be faster.
kini62 is offline  
Old 09-04-14, 10:28 PM
  #22  
Powered by Borscht
 
ovoleg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: SoCal
Posts: 8,342

Bikes: Russian Vodka

Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by bikepro
the OP asked about Functional Threshold Power, which is not the same as Watts/Kg -- both are important but not the same thing. If you want to know your FTP, the best way to find out is to test yourself. There are various ways. Here's one:

How to Find Your Functional Threshold Power for cycling. Two Test to get started using FTP
We answered the OP. Raw Watts means nothing, its all about W/kg when looking at FTP. Guys that put down 250W FTP but weigh only 130 lbs will drop me anyday.

l2read.
ovoleg is offline  
Old 09-04-14, 10:45 PM
  #23  
Senior Member
 
Drew Eckhardt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Mountain View, CA USA and Golden, CO USA
Posts: 6,341

Bikes: 97 Litespeed, 50-39-30x13-26 10 cogs, Campagnolo Ultrashift, retroreflective rims on SON28/PowerTap hubs

Mentioned: 9 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 550 Post(s)
Liked 324 Times in 225 Posts
Originally Posted by kini62
I'm 52, 5'6" generally around 155-160lbs.

Thanks

Gene
It depends on how much you'd weigh without any noticeable body fat. My 215 pound peak following a broken leg and current 167 pounds don't improve my potential beyond what I had at 145-150.
Drew Eckhardt is offline  
Old 09-04-14, 10:57 PM
  #24  
Senior Member
 
Drew Eckhardt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Mountain View, CA USA and Golden, CO USA
Posts: 6,341

Bikes: 97 Litespeed, 50-39-30x13-26 10 cogs, Campagnolo Ultrashift, retroreflective rims on SON28/PowerTap hubs

Mentioned: 9 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 550 Post(s)
Liked 324 Times in 225 Posts
Originally Posted by ovoleg
We answered the OP. Raw Watts means nothing, its all about W/kg when looking at FTP. Guys that put down 250W FTP but weigh only 130 lbs will drop me anyday.

l2read.
Except on flat ground where it's about power to drag and down-hill where it's sectional density. 235W levitates 145 pounds up mountains but isn't good for much speed on flat ground when you're 5'10" with a freakishly long torso.
Drew Eckhardt is offline  
Old 09-04-14, 11:13 PM
  #25  
Powered by Borscht
 
ovoleg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: SoCal
Posts: 8,342

Bikes: Russian Vodka

Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Drew Eckhardt
Except on flat ground where it's about power to drag and down-hill where it's sectional density. 235W levitates 145 pounds up mountains but isn't good for much speed on flat ground when you're 5'10" with a freakishly long torso.
typically guys who weigh 130 lb dont' have freakishly long torsos.

You'd need lots and lots of watts to drop someone who has a 5.0 W/kg FTP on the flats, even if they weigh 130 lbs. Not many people I know look like Chris Froome, and his FTP is likely north of 6.0 W/kg.
ovoleg is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service -

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.