Increase in power

Quoted post said:

Originally Posted by POGATA [IMG]/img/forum/go_quote.gif[/IMG]

Wiggins has marginally more talent than most people.

With a perfect training programme, minimum muscle mass/body fat, an adult male(age 20-35) can crack at least 5 w/kg, after several thousand hours of training.

Hard work is not the key, doing what makes you ride faster is the key. Alot of people think being constantly tired when riding is the key to being faster, i.e. always going hard.

Define talent. Is it the physiological and genetic makeup of an individual that allows for greater adaptation? Is it the intangible capacity to remain focused on a single goal over a long macro cycle? Is it the capacity to dig deeper and suffer more than anyone else when the time comes with available resources?

Stating any adult male can attain world class is hypothetical. It's like saying any American citizen can become President. Possible, but unlikely even for those who spend their careers trying.

I think most folks who have made it past the entry level Cats know always going hard is not the key to improving, and most certainly any folks being coached or doing any real research on coaching methodology are aware of this. And then what is defined as hard work? Different intensities need to be inserted into a well rounded training plan as different energy pathways need to be brought to maximum efficiency to prevail competitively. Just ask Lon Halderman, RAAM winner, who in in retrospect said he had squandered his best years and believes he didn't reach his max genetic potential riding his long easy miles. Regardless, to get better one has to go longer and harder than they did before, whatever that 'before' is, or there is no adaptation.

Quoted post said:

Originally Posted by bgoetz [IMG]/img/forum/go_quote.gif[/IMG]

... but I am going to say a lot of people don't have the ability to crack 4 watts/kg. Again this is just really a guess, but I have seen enough hard working individuals never crack this mark.

There was a discussion on this topic back on the Wattage lists a couple of years ago. IIRC, Andy C. offered a swag that the 'average' human being, after a lot of hard focused work would top out around 3.9 w/kg for FTP. That estimate was based on population distributions for VO2 Max, GME, and FTP as a percentage of p_VO2 Max. By 'average' I mean the mean of the normal curve so half the general population could reach an FTP above that mark and half would not.

I understood that to be an estimate of the population average for human beings, not necessarily those that find satisfaction in and put time into endurance sports. IOW, you might expect the average cyclist that actually finds enough early success and enjoyment to stick with it for the long haul to be a bit higher as people have a tendency to invest time and energy into the things that they're good at. Whereas folks naturally very low on the VO2 Max distribution curve might be less likely to commit such a large portion of their lives to endurance training as someone a bit higher on the curve that sees more early success in the sport. That's total speculation, but it makes sense to me.

I wouldn't be surprised that if the mean on the FTP normal curve for humans in general is around 3.9 w/kg (again after a lengthy and productive training program, not right off the bat) then cyclists and particularly active racing cyclists probably have a mean that's a bit higher than 4 w/kg but not a lot higher. Still that's the mean so 50% of the well trained cycling population would be below that mean and 50% above.

FWIW, IME most adult male cyclists I've worked with have reached or exceeded 4 w/kg FTP but it typically takes several seasons of good training and not too much time off the bike between seasons but again maybe that's because the folks I've worked with are racers who love to ride their bikes and that alone is probably a bit self selecting.

-Dave

Quoted post said:

Originally Posted by alienator [IMG]/img/forum/go_quote.gif[/IMG]

You're in no position to say that, especially when you tell giant whoppers like that tale you just made up.

I guess your motivation is directed toward internet barbs rather than training. Hope you reach your personal goals.

Quoted post said:

Originally Posted by bgoetz [IMG]/img/forum/go_quote.gif[/IMG]

Do you have any evidence to support this? I would say anyone willing to dedicate basically everything for 5+ years (assuming that by several thousand you mean 5-7 thousand), has the talent to break 5 watts per kg. IOW to have that much dedication one has to be getting results, the ones that are not talented enough to get results would be weeded out by the training program alone.

Just a guess.

So the talented ones would then hit 6.5, and the not so talented could end up at 5, if they did the training.

Quoted post said:

Originally Posted by danfoz [IMG]/img/forum/go_quote.gif[/IMG]

Define talent. Is it the physiological and genetic makeup of an individual that allows for greater adaptation? Is it the intangible capacity to remain focused on a single goal over a long macro cycle? Is it the capacity to dig deeper and suffer more than anyone else when the time comes with available resources?

Stating any adult male can attain world class is hypothetical. It's like saying any American citizen can become President. Possible, but unlikely even for those who spend their careers trying.

I think most folks who have made it past the entry level Cats know always going hard is not the key to improving, and most certainly any folks being coached or doing any real research on coaching methodology are aware of this. And then what is defined as hard work? Different intensities need to be inserted into a well rounded training plan as different energy pathways need to be brought to maximum efficiency to prevail competitively. Just ask Lon Halderman, RAAM winner, who in in retrospect said he had squandered his best years and believes he didn't reach his max genetic potential riding his long easy miles. Regardless, to get better one has to go longer and harder than they did before, whatever that 'before' is, or there is no adaptation.

Physically able, i.e. the OP wants to.

Just a few persons can become president any 4 years, everyone can ride a bike regularly. I.e. a teenage man/man who trains consistently for several years should in my opinion be able to peak anywhere between 5-6.5 in his twenties/thirties.

Most training ain`t hard, just the end of each ride/interval.

Quoted post said:

Originally Posted by daveryanwyoming [IMG]/img/forum/go_quote.gif[/IMG]

There was a discussion on this topic back on the Wattage lists a couple of years ago. IIRC, Andy C. offered a swag that the 'average' human being, after a lot of hard focused work would top out around 3.9 w/kg for FTP. That estimate was based on population distributions for VO2 Max, GME, and FTP as a percentage of p_VO2 Max. By 'average' I mean the mean of the normal curve so half the general population could reach an FTP above that mark and half would not.

I understood that to be an estimate of the population average for human beings, not necessarily those that find satisfaction in and put time into endurance sports. IOW, you might expect the average cyclist that actually finds enough early success and enjoyment to stick with it for the long haul to be a bit higher as people have a tendency to invest time and energy into the things that they're good at. Whereas folks naturally very low on the VO2 Max distribution curve might be less likely to commit such a large portion of their lives to endurance training as someone a bit higher on the curve that sees more early success in the sport. That's total speculation, but it makes sense to me.

I wouldn't be surprised that if the mean on the FTP normal curve for humans in general is around 3.9 w/kg (again after a lengthy and productive training program, not right off the bat) then cyclists and particularly active racing cyclists probably have a mean that's a bit higher than 4 w/kg but not a lot higher. Still that's the mean so 50% of the well trained cycling population would be below that mean and 50% above.

FWIW, IME most adult male cyclists I've worked with have reached or exceeded 4 w/kg FTP but it typically takes several seasons of good training and not too much time off the bike between seasons but again maybe that's because the folks I've worked with are racers who love to ride their bikes and that alone is probably a bit self selecting.

-Dave

Was that both genders, or just men(ref. the 3.9)?

POGATA, what is your actual cycling experience? I feel like you really lack perspective on just how difficult this sport is once you progress to higher levels

Quoted post said:

Originally Posted by bgoetz [IMG]/img/forum/go_quote.gif[/IMG]

POGATA, what is your actual cycling experience? I feel like you really lack perspective on just how difficult this sport is once you progress to higher levels

I`ve been commuting for the last 15 years(10 with powermeters), longer rides on weekends, and can do over 5 at FTP. So with an optimal training program, no work obligations, no upperbody strength training(i.e. no excess upperbody muscle mass) etc which limit myself, I guess most healthy males(i.e. not Stephen Hawking and others with illnesses) are physically capable in their twenties/thirties to do 5-6.5 at FTP after following an optimal training program over several years/thousands of hours, with minimum bodyfat/muscle mass. Most people might be lazy/unmotivated etc, but that doesn`t mean they`re not physically capable.

I think you have an exceptional amount of talent if your FTP is truly over 5 watt/kg, and I think you should have raced. I think you are totally wrong your observation that anyone can get to that 5watt/kg mark, which may be skewed by how easily it came for you. And Dave's perspective is more in line with reality. Just curious what is your weight and watts at FTP?

Quoted post said:

Originally Posted by daveryanwyoming [IMG]/img/forum/go_quote.gif[/IMG]
There was a discussion on this topic back on the Wattage lists a couple of years ago. IIRC, Andy C. offered a swag that the 'average' human being, after a lot of hard focused work would top out around 3.9 w/kg for FTP. That estimate was based on population distributions for VO2 Max, GME, and FTP as a percentage of p_VO2 Max. By 'average' I mean the mean of the normal curve so half the general population could reach an FTP above that mark and half would not.

It was on Slowtwitch wasn't it? ie forum.slowtwitch.comgforum.cgiOpen ↗ but I disagree with the very first part:

"The average healthy but sedentary, college-aged male has a VO2max of approximately 45 mL/min/kg"

Which is believable), but the average healthy but sedentary, college-aged male is also above the weight they would be should they wish to maximise their cycling performance. I would say by at least 10% and possibly more, ie there should've been a reduce the weight 10% in the calculations, which would increase the 3.9 to well above 4. And it's certainly my experience that there are few who are interested and can cycle all year (ie not taking time off or having "seasons"😉 who end up much below 4 and plenty who get well above.

Quoted post said:

Originally Posted by JibberJim [IMG]/img/forum/go_quote.gif[/IMG]

It was on Slowtwitch wasn't it? ie forum.slowtwitch.comgforum.cgiOpen ↗ but I disagree with the very first part:

"The average healthy but sedentary, college-aged male has a VO2max of approximately 45 mL/min/kg"

Which is believable), but the average healthy but sedentary, college-aged male is also above the weight they would be should they wish to maximise their cycling performance. I would say by at least 10% and possibly more, ie there should've been a reduce the weight 10% in the calculations, which would increase the 3.9 to well above 4. And it's certainly my experience that there are few who are interested and can cycle all year (ie not taking time off or having "seasons"😉 who end up much below 4 and plenty who get well above.

Thanks for the link, yeah I guess it was ST.

Interesting take on the untrained weight of college students. I'm not Andy so I can't guess if that does or does not impact things but I did notice his analysis does not adopt the 45 ml/kg/min number above but used a 50 ml/kg/min estimate which is already about 10% higher. You also have to wonder how much of the VO2 Max improvement from training (the 25-30%, set to 30% for this estimate) is associated with weight changes as opposed to purely O2 uptake or heart stroke volume changes. IOW, is some of the weight loss with focused endurance training already accounted for in Andy's 3.9 w/kg estimate?

But assuming your point on untrained weight holds you're talking about something close to 4.3 w/kg for the average. I've certainly seen a lot of adults including older adults hit or come close to that number after a few years of good training so maybe that's closer to what folks might expect if they train well, train consistently, and manage their weight. I definitely don't think it's the 5 w/kg value offered by someone earlier in this thread, sure some folks get there, but not nearly as many as crack the 4 w/kg threshold.

Bottom line, it does seem like something close to 4 w/kg is a pretty reasonable long term performance goal for most adult males. Of course not everyone will reach it, some for genetic reasons but I expect more fall short from either training consistency, training quality or attention to the kg part.

-Dave

P.S.

Quoted post said:

...Was that both genders, or just men(ref. the 3.9)?...

Just men. Glancing at the power profile chart for both genders I'd guess that the equivalent number for women is something around 3.5 w/kg not considering JibberJims good point above that the number might be a bit higher.

Quoted post said:

Originally Posted by POGATA [IMG]/img/forum/go_quote.gif[/IMG]

"I guess most healthy males(i.e. not Stephen Hawking and others with illnesses) are physically capable in their twenties/thirties to do 5-6.5 at FTP after following an optimal training program over several years/thousands of hours, with minimum bodyfat/muscle mass. Most people might be lazy/unmotivated etc, but that doesn`t mean they`re not physically capable."

Most people will NEVER hit 5-6.5 not matter how much they train. The best in the world in their Cats/Age Groups aren't anywhere near 6.5. The best amateurs in the world might be hitting 5.5 (e.g., Kevin Metcalfe - NCal based M50+ Multi-time District and Nat Champ), but they are THE BEST....in THE WORLD.

If you are hitting those nums give your parents a big hug, or check the calibration on your PM.

It's probably people like me that bring down the average to ~3.9 w/kg [IMG]/img/vbsmilies/smilies/smile.gif[/IMG]

Quoted post said:

Originally Posted by Felt_Rider [IMG]/img/forum/go_quote.gif[/IMG]

It's probably people like me that bring down the average to ~3.9 w/kg [IMG]/img/vbsmilies/smilies/smile.gif[/IMG]

Aren't you in one of the groups who have to take the winter off though? I find there's a huge difference on what you can do when you can cycle year round without any off-season compared to the folk who get a few months snowed off, to the extent that I could well believe it knocks well over 0.5w/kg off their FTP. (both from the missed training opportunity and the much lower volumes that you can then sustain in the summer)

Quoted post said:

Originally Posted by JibberJim [IMG]/img/forum/go_quote.gif[/IMG]

Aren't you in one of the groups who have to take the winter off though?

I am not in that group [IMG]/img/vbsmilies/smilies/smile.gif[/IMG]

I am pretty diligent with training on a structured schedule year round using a PM as a guide for intensity. I have missed more time in December due to life events, but typically I do about 10 hours per week with L4 intervals during the time crunched week and long mixed intensity rides on the weekends weather permitting.

But I do have some things about me that make the w/kg a challenge. To name a couple of the challenges:

• Former competitive bodybuilder that has lost some size, but still weigh more than 20 lbs than a cycling buddy of the same height and skeletal frame. He is a 4 w/kg cyclist. I still lift weights as a cross fit goal. I don't race in cycling.
  
• 49 years old with a couple of years of structured endurance cycling.
  

I rode with a well known cycling coach in my area yesterday for the first time. He is about 6'3" and thin as a rail. I think I outweigh him at my 5'6" stature. I will probably continue to lose size as the years go because I cannot lift at the same training load like I did when I was younger.

Most of my data is on my blog or here is kind of an insight connect.garmin.comfeltriderOpen ↗

I'm also in the group with ftp/weight below 4 and it will be lot of hard work to get into range of 4. How often do you do FTP workouts (like 2x20 @ FTP)? Can you do it 3 days in a row? Five times a week? Currently I'm doing 4-6 sessions per week. Most sessions are about one hour and has about 50-60 % in L4 or above. Sometimes lega are a bit stiff the day after and if i do workouts 3 conseq. Days it is harder to keep the wattage. Since the workouts are short I think that My body Seouls be able to handle the stress. I try to make an easier week one in a while...

Quoted post said:

Originally Posted by matt76 [IMG]/img/forum/go_quote.gif[/IMG]

...How often do you do FTP workouts (like 2x20 @ FTP)? Can you do it 3 days in a row? Five times a week?...

I've occasionally done structured L4 work three days in a row but never attempted 5 days per week and generally wouldn't advise that approach.

Two to three days per week of structured L4 work is pretty typical, match that with something like two days of somewhat longer Tempo rides and one longer yet endurance ride and perhaps one easier day of recovery riding and you've got a pretty good five or six day training week.

IME, it's better to really hit somewhere around 90-95% of your current FTP on the structured L4 days and then back it down a notch and stretch the sustained duration a bit on the more moderate days so you can really focus on the next set of hard days. When in doubt, longer but a backed off a tad is better than very short while blowing yourself up. IOW, that could be a set of 2x20 or 3x20 efforts around 90% rather than a single effort at 100+% and then blowing up for some below par efforts or it could be a day of 1x60 or 1x90 at mid to high Tempo if you're not feeling up to a solid 90% or higher set.

I would say that 5 rides per week is a big breakthrough for many riders, just that they don't all have to be hard rides and it helps if at least one or two of them are on the longer side relative to the more focused days. I'd also add that around 8 to 10 hours per week seems to be another breakthrough of sorts for folks that have been doing something like 4 or 5 one hour rides each week. But the key is consistency for the long haul so not just a week or two like that, but think about months like that with the occasional easier week as you noted.

-Dave

I started a Strava account somtime last year and yesterday upgraded to the Premium account mainly out of curiosity for the extended power analyzing tools. WKO+ is and will remain my primary software. Has anyone else here become a premium member? I am not really sure if what I see at this point is any help to me, but thought I would see what others thought. I suppose it is calculating the same way WKO+ does for the zone distribution chart. Probably just a simple if/else statement that is breaking data at the very definitive line of the zones.

Yesterday I did what I thought was a fairly solid effort with a 2 x 20 then a 1x10 (could not hold 91% past 10 and had to back it down a bit). For the entire session including warm up and cool down time I still ended up with my avg. pwr. at 91% because I was high on the first two intervals. I felt pretty good about that, but looking at the "Zone Distribution" chart it had half of my time in Z3/Tempo. I suppose that I need to just ignore this because by trying to stay near the 91% mark and using e-Motion rollers I am bouncing between the high 80% and mid 90%. With my display showing watts 3s for a little smoothing I try to lean toward the higher side. I also have on my display lap power and try to go just above the 91% mark. If I were to attempt to use this chart to govern my session I would have to ride at or above the L3/L4 mark and that would put my intensity too high for consecutive days of L4.

I just wanted to check again as my goal is to be more consistent this year and try to clean up the quality of each indoor training session if possible. I missed some days in December and with a lot of work deadlines coming up I am managing to squeeze in training with a 10 hour work day. At least so far.

As far as Matt's question. I am currently doing 3 consecutive days (T, W and Th) of L4 intervals with a goal of 91% to 95% on at least two intervals and three if possible. On the third if I hit into the high 80% I am still happy. Lately I am attempting 3x20's and will start extending duration time again to 2x30's then 1x40, 1x20 then 1x60. When I can hold 60 pretty good I look at adjusting my FTP and repeat the process again starting with 2x20's and increase the duration time. Not sure if this is the best process, but it seems to work. My classification is a recreational cyclist trying to get about 10 hours a week.

I personally like to alternate days to allow a bit of rest, but as long as you can hit your goals. My normal week is 12-14hrs and looks something like this with regard to L4 work: T-1x60@85-87% a.m. then again p.m., R-2x15-20@100% a.m. then again p.m. (duration increases each week of my 3 week blocks), Sun-2-3hr blocks @ 85-87% and fill in with other work specific to my focus for where I am at in my training (VO2, AWC, lactate tollerance, etc) total time is 4-5hrs. My Wednesdays, Fridays, and Saturdays are active recovery typically short 1hr workouts that try to focus on specific skills like pedal stroke, high cadence, etc. As I get closer to my peak I will start trying to do more intensity based workouts on these days. You can see that my approach and Felt's are pretty different with him doing a bit less in the training stress department, which allows him to do consecutive days. I kinda like the destroy myself/recover approach from the perspective that if I can make my workouts close to has hard as races then the races don't seem so hard. IDK, that one way is better than the other and both ways likely yield similar results, unless of course my way leads to burnout, which with how difficult the workouts can be is more of a possibility. Felt, I am not sure how the heck you do L4 work on your rollers, the must have more resistance than mine. I am at 115rpm in 52x12 to get to an L4 type effort, bouncing all over the place. I can only do that for about 5 minutes before I nearly bounce myself off the rollers.

Quoted post said:

Originally Posted by bgoetz [IMG]/img/forum/go_quote.gif[/IMG]

Felt, I am not sure how the heck you do L4 work on your rollers, the must have more resistance than mine.

I am using the e-motion rollers that have 3 resistance settings. I am on #1 using a 50/~15 combo for my selected cadence at power. If I were to turn off the resistance or set #0 it would be as you describe.

In fact last night the intervals felt tougher than normal and I thought it was fatigue, but at the 2nd interval I checked the resistance and I had slightly bumped the lever where it was just slightly above #1. I set it back down until it clicked into place and was surprised how much better (or normal) it felt. The biggest struggle is keeping my power output as tight and steady as it would be using a KK trainer, but I think I am still close enough in the range to be okay. Kind of what I was wondering on post #36.

Also my FTP is super low compared to most of you guys. I have a lot of growing room on these rollers.

Quoted post said:

Originally Posted by Felt_Rider [IMG]/img/forum/go_quote.gif[/IMG]

I am using the e-motion rollers that have 3 resistance settings. I am on #1 using a 50/~15 combo for my selected cadence at power. If I were to turn off the resistance or set #0 it would be as you describe....

+1 on the e-motion rollers having plenty of resistance for most workouts. I typically use setting 1 as well but setting 2 feels more like climbing a hill and is useful for harder work, I've only occasionally used the max setting and it's pretty hard work for modest speeds. Here's the power charts supplied by the manufacturer, these are a bit higher power numbers for a given speed than I typically see but they also assume 220 pounds for total rider plus bike.

[IMG]cyclingforums.com1000Open ↗[/IMG]
-Dave

Quoted post said:

Originally Posted by matt76 [IMG]/img/forum/go_quote.gif[/IMG]

I recently started training with power (power tap). As a beginner I have a fel question...
I have used the power tap for about a year. My best 20 minutes are at 265 watts, last week I managed 251 watts on the trainer indoors.
If I train good (hard) how much can I Increase My FTP or 20 min in à month, quarter or half à year? What are Your experience?
It also seems like it is harder to perform on the trainer. Is it just lack of motivation or something else?
Thanks!
// Matt

Plenty of good stuff from the guys here.

I've seen FTP improvements from 5% to 50% inside of 6 months, so really it's impossible to say what any individual is capable of sight unseen, there are so many variables at play. Main thing is to apply yourself to a good process and the outcome will be what it is.

Here's a sample I grabbed from a presentation on ways to track performance changes. Can't recall if that's me or a client. lol

[IMG]cyclingforums.com700Open ↗[/IMG]

This was me after I had a bit of a break for injury in 2007:

[IMG]cyclingforums.com700Open ↗[/IMG]

Dave outlined indoor training issues - I summarised those as well in this old post of mine:
http://alex-cycle.blogspot.com.au/2009/01/turbocharged-training.html

As for 5W/kg - that's very very good fitness level, and yes there are plenty who will never see the light of that particular day.

But racing is more than just power too. I've also been underpowered compared to many of my contemporaries, but seemed to make up for it in other ways.