WHAT IS A GOOD FTP? BENCHMARKS BY AGE, WEIGHT, AND CATEGORY

You have typed "what is a good FTP" into Google. You have probably already read two or three articles that gave you a number — 200 watts, 250 watts, 300 watts — without bothering to ask how much you weigh, how long you have been training, or what you plan to do with the answer. And now you feel either quietly satisfied or quietly inadequate, depending on which number you landed on.

Here's the thing nobody tells you: asking "what is a good FTP" without context is like asking "what is a fast marathon time" without mentioning whether you are 25 or 55, whether you have been running for ten years or ten weeks, and whether you consider "fast" to mean winning your age group or finishing before the road reopens.

The number on its own means almost nothing. The context around it means everything.

This is the guide that gives you the context. Coggan's power profile, realistic benchmarks by age and weight, what W/kg actually means in practice, and — maybe most importantly — why the only FTP comparison that actually matters is against your own previous result.

Why "What's a Good FTP?" Is the Wrong First Question

The question itself is natural. You have a number. You want to know where you sit. That is a completely human impulse and there is nothing wrong with it.

But it leads you somewhere unhelpful almost every time.

A 250-watt FTP tells you nothing in isolation. It does not tell you whether that rider weighs 60 kg or 95 kg. It does not tell you whether they tested indoors on a Wahoo KICKR or outdoors on a 6% gradient with a tailwind. It does not tell you whether they did a proper ramp test or just looked at their best 20-minute power from a group ride and multiplied by 0.95.

When someone in a forum says "my FTP is 280 watts," you have no idea what to do with that information. And when you compare it to your own 220 watts and feel a sinking feeling — that comparison is completely meaningless. You might be the stronger rider per kilogram. You might be riding in 30°C heat while they tested in a 15°C garage. You might have been cycling for eight months while they have been at it for eight years.

The better first question is: what does my FTP tell me about my own training and my own trajectory?

And the better second question is: where does my W/kg sit, and what does that mean for the riding I actually want to do?

Understanding W/kg vs Raw Watts

This is where most of the confusion lives, so let me break it down simply.

Raw watts — the number your power meter spits out — measures your absolute power output. It is the force you apply to the pedals multiplied by how fast you spin them. It is a real number, it is repeatable, and it matters for certain things. Flat time trials, for instance, reward absolute power because aerodynamic drag dominates and gravity is not pulling you backwards.

Watts per kilogram (W/kg) — your power divided by your body weight — measures your relative power. This is the number that matters the moment the road points uphill, which in most real-world cycling is quite often.

Here is the arithmetic that makes this concrete:

• A 75 kg rider holding 250 watts has an FTP of 3.33 W/kg
• A 65 kg rider holding 220 watts has an FTP of 3.38 W/kg
• The lighter rider produces 30 fewer watts in absolute terms but will climb faster

This is not a minor academic distinction. It is the entire reason that Grand Tour winners tend to weigh between 60 and 70 kg despite the fact that heavier riders can push more raw watts. On a 10% gradient, roughly 90% of the energy you produce goes into fighting gravity. Body weight is the dominant variable, not absolute power.

For amateur cyclists — and particularly for masters riders over 40 — W/kg is the metric that tells you something useful. It is the number coaches use. It is the number researchers use. It is the number that determines whether you hold the wheel on the club run or watch the group ride away on the first proper climb.

When someone asks "is 250 watts a good FTP," the only honest answer is: it depends what you weigh.

Coggan's Power Profile Explained

Dr Andrew Coggan's power profile chart is the most widely referenced framework for categorising cycling power output. If you have ever seen terms like "Cat 4" or "Domestic Pro" thrown around in reference to power, this is where they originate.

The chart maps rider categories across multiple durations — five-second peak power, one-minute power, five-minute power, and functional threshold power (roughly equivalent to one-hour power). Each cell gives a W/kg range. There are separate tables for male and female riders.

The Categories

Untrained (Level 1): Someone who has not been doing any structured physical activity. Male FTP sits below roughly 2.0 W/kg. Female FTP below roughly 1.5 W/kg. This is the genuine starting point for someone new to cycling.

Fair (Level 2): A rider who cycles recreationally — weekend rides, some commuting, no structure. Male FTP around 2.0-2.5 W/kg. Female FTP around 1.5-2.0 W/kg.

Moderate (Level 3): A rider who trains with some regularity, perhaps 4-6 hours per week with occasional harder efforts. Male FTP around 2.5-3.0 W/kg. Female FTP around 2.0-2.5 W/kg.

Good (Level 4): This is where structured, consistent training shows up. Male FTP around 3.0-3.75 W/kg. Female FTP around 2.5-3.2 W/kg. Most serious club cyclists who train with purpose sit in this range. If you are reading this article, this is probably where you are or where you are headed.

Very Good (Level 5): Competitive amateur level. Male FTP around 3.75-4.5 W/kg. Female FTP around 3.2-3.8 W/kg. This is the territory of strong local racers, regional time trial contenders, and riders who are routinely at the sharp end of sportives.

Exceptional / Domestic Pro / World Class (Levels 6-7): Male FTP above 4.5 W/kg, up to 6.0+ W/kg at the World Class ceiling. These are professional-calibre numbers. If you are reading a blog post about whether your FTP is "good," these categories are not relevant to your training and you should not be comparing yourself to them.

What the Chart Actually Tells You (and What It Does Not)

Here is the part that gets missed in every forum discussion about Coggan's chart: you almost certainly do not sit in the same category across all durations.

A rider might be "Good" at five-second power (solid sprint), "Moderate" at five-minute power (limited VO2max), and "Good" again at threshold. That profile tells you something far more useful than a single label — it tells you that your five-minute power is your limiter and that VO2max work will produce the biggest return on investment.

The profile was designed as a diagnostic tool, not a ranking system. When Dr Coggan and Hunter Allen published it in Training and Racing with a Power Meter, the intention was to help riders and coaches identify strengths and weaknesses across the power-duration curve. The internet turned it into a leaderboard. That was never the point.

Realistic FTP Benchmarks by Age

Here is where I need to be careful, because the last thing I want to do is hand you another table that makes you feel bad about a number. These ranges represent what the research and coaching data suggest is achievable for continuously trained cyclists — meaning people who train with some structure, year-round, without extended breaks.

Riders in Their 30s

This is typically the decade of highest absolute FTP for most cyclists, though many riders in their 30s are also juggling young families and demanding careers, so training volume often sits below optimal.

• Well-trained male: 3.5-4.5 W/kg
• Well-trained female: 2.8-3.8 W/kg
• Recreationally active: 2.5-3.2 W/kg (male), 2.0-2.7 W/kg (female)

The gap between "recreationally active" and "well-trained" is entirely explained by training structure, not talent. A rider doing 6-8 hours per week of structured training with proper intensity distribution will sit at the top of these ranges. A rider doing the same volume but always at the same moderate pace — the classic grey-zone problem that Professor Seiler has spent his career documenting — will sit at the bottom.

Riders in Their 40s

The physiological research (Peiffer et al., 2008; Ransdell et al., 2009) shows that VO2max begins declining at roughly 5-10% per decade from the mid-30s in sedentary adults. But here's the good news: in continuously trained athletes, that decline runs closer to 5% per decade. And the decline in threshold power — which is what FTP approximates — is even slower than the decline in VO2max because threshold is a percentage of VO2max, and that percentage can actually increase with training age.

• Well-trained male: 3.2-4.2 W/kg
• Well-trained female: 2.6-3.5 W/kg
• Recreationally active: 2.3-3.0 W/kg (male), 1.8-2.5 W/kg (female)

When I had Joe Friel on the podcast, he made a point that I think about constantly: many cyclists set their lifetime FTP records in their 40s. Not because they have magically defied ageing, but because they have finally stopped training randomly and started training with structure. A 42-year-old with three years of structured, periodised training will outperform a 35-year-old who has been doing the same Thursday night chain gang and Sunday café ride for a decade without a plan.

Your 40s are not the decade of decline. For most amateur cyclists, they are the decade of finally getting serious.

Riders in Their 50s

This is where the gap between trained and untrained cyclists widens dramatically. The sedentary 55-year-old has lost roughly 20-25% of the aerobic capacity they had at 30. The continuously trained 55-year-old has lost maybe 10-12%.

• Well-trained male: 2.8-3.8 W/kg
• Well-trained female: 2.3-3.2 W/kg
• Recreationally active: 2.0-2.7 W/kg (male), 1.6-2.2 W/kg (female)

A well-trained 55-year-old male holding 3.5 W/kg at 75 kg is producing 262 watts at threshold. That is comfortably in the "Good" category on Coggan's chart, regardless of age. That number drops him into club racing territory, makes him competitive on any non-mountainous sportive, and puts him ahead of the vast majority of cyclists of any age who do not train with structure.

The 50s are also the decade where recovery becomes non-negotiable. The same training stimulus requires more recovery time. That is not a weakness; it is physiology. The smart 50-something rider trains fewer days but makes each session count, and respects rest days with the same discipline they bring to intervals.

Riders in Their 60s and Beyond

The data here is sparser, but the pattern holds. Continuously trained riders in their 60s show roughly 5% further decline per decade from their 50s values.

• Well-trained male: 2.5-3.3 W/kg
• Well-trained female: 2.0-2.8 W/kg
• Recreationally active: 1.7-2.3 W/kg (male), 1.4-2.0 W/kg (female)

A 65-year-old male holding 3.0 W/kg is a formidable cyclist by any reasonable standard. He is faster than most riders half his age. And the research consistently shows that the rate of decline can be partially offset by increased training focus — particularly by maintaining high-intensity work rather than shifting exclusively to long, easy rides.

Why Most Amateurs Are Undertrained, Not Limited

Let me be really clear about this, because it is the single most important section of this entire article.

If you feel your FTP is "low" — relative to where you think it should be, relative to what your mates produce, relative to what the internet tells you is normal — the most likely explanation is not your genetics, not your age, and not some fundamental ceiling on your physiology.

The most likely explanation is that you are undertrained.

Not under-riding. You might be putting in 8-10 hours per week on the bike. But hours alone do not produce adaptation. Structured hours produce adaptation. And for most amateur cyclists, the training week looks something like this:

• Monday: rest
• Tuesday: club ride at moderate-hard intensity
• Wednesday: rest or easy spin
• Thursday: club ride at moderate-hard intensity
• Saturday: long ride at moderate intensity
• Sunday: group ride at moderate-to-hard intensity

Everything sits in the same intensity band. Nothing is truly easy. Nothing is properly hard. There is no periodisation. There is no taper. There is no progressive overload across weeks and months. There is just riding, at roughly the same effort, week after week.

That is the grey zone Professor Seiler has been warning about for two decades. You are working hard enough to feel tired but not specifically enough to force adaptation.

Here is what actually moves FTP:

Consistent volume at properly easy intensity. Zone 2, for real. Heart rate below your aerobic threshold. The pace that feels embarrassingly slow. This builds mitochondrial density, capillary networks, and your aerobic engine — the foundation that FTP sits on top of. Most riders never go easy enough for this to work.

Targeted high-intensity intervals. VO2max efforts, threshold work, over-unders. Two to three sessions per week, properly structured, with clear work-to-rest ratios and progressive overload across a 4-6 week block. Most riders do intensity, but they do it randomly rather than systematically.

Recovery that matches the training load. Sleep, nutrition, stress management. An interval session produces the stimulus; adaptation happens during recovery. Train hard, rest hard. Most riders train moderately hard and recover inadequately.

Periodisation across months and years. Base phases, build phases, peak phases, recovery weeks. The body responds to training stress that varies over time. Doing the same thing every week for 52 weeks produces stagnation, not improvement.

If you addressed these four points — actually addressed them, not just nodded along and kept doing Thursday night chain gang — your FTP would move. For a rider who has never trained with structure, 15-25% improvement in the first 12-18 months is common. That is not hypothetical. I have seen it in our community repeatedly.

When FTP Comparison Is Actually Useful

I have spent most of this article telling you not to compare your FTP to other people's numbers. But there is one comparison that is truly useful, and it is the one most riders ignore.

Compare your FTP to your own previous results.

Same test protocol. Same conditions. Same equipment. Same warm-up. That is the comparison that matters.

A trend line of your own FTP results over six months — tested every 6-8 weeks at the end of a training block — tells you more about your training than any benchmark table ever will. It tells you:

• Whether your training is producing adaptation (the number goes up)
• Whether you have plateaued and need a new stimulus (the number flatlines despite consistent training)
• Whether you are overtrained or under-recovered (the number goes down despite high training volume)
• Whether a specific training block worked (comparing pre-block to post-block values)

This is how coaches use FTP. Not as a badge of honour. Not as a leaderboard position. As a diagnostic marker that tracks how your body is responding to the training you are doing.

When I had Dan Lorang on the podcast — the coach behind Pogacar and Roglic — he made a point that stuck with me: the absolute FTP number of a professional rider matters far less to him than the trajectory. Is it going up at the right rate? Is it peaking at the right time? Is the rider responding to the prescribed training load? The number serves the process. The process does not serve the number.

That applies to you exactly as much as it applies to a Grand Tour contender.

Cross-Validation Against Real Rides

One underused technique: cross-reference your FTP against real-world efforts. Your best sustained power from a 30-60 minute climb. Your average power from a 40 km time trial. Your normalised power from a hard criterium.

If your tested FTP is 260 watts but you regularly hold 240 watts normalised power for 45 minutes in a road race without blowing up, your FTP is probably accurate — you are pacing below threshold, which is exactly what you should be doing in a race.

If your tested FTP is 260 watts but you cannot hold 230 watts for more than 15 minutes on a climb, your tested number is too high. The test overestimated, likely due to pacing error or anaerobic contribution inflating the result.

Real rides do not lie the way test protocols can.

Real-World W/kg Thresholds

Abstract categories are one thing. Here is what W/kg actually means when rubber meets road.

~2.5 W/kg: Getting Started

You can comfortably complete a 60-80 km ride at a social pace. Moderate hills are manageable. You will struggle to hold the wheel on a moderately paced club run if it includes any sustained climbing. Sportives are finishable but the sharp end is out of reach.

~3.0 W/kg: Holding the Wheel

This is roughly the threshold where a club run becomes manageable rather than a survival exercise. You can sit in the group on rolling terrain, hold your position on moderate climbs, and finish a 100 km sportive without feeling destroyed. You are riding at a level that most non-cyclists would consider seriously fit.

~3.5 W/kg: Competitive Amateur

Now things get interesting. At 3.5 W/kg you can race local road races and not be immediately dropped. You can target a top-half finish in a regional sportive. Hill climbs become tactical — you are choosing when to push and when to sit in, rather than just trying to survive. If you are a masters rider in your 40s or 50s holding this number, you are in the top tier of your age group at most events.

~4.0 W/kg: Regional Contender

At 4.0 W/kg you are competitive at regional-level racing. You are in the front group on most climbs. You can time trial at a level that wins or podiums at club events. If you weigh 75 kg, that is 300 watts at threshold — a number that would have been respectable in professional cycling a couple of decades ago.

~4.5 W/kg and Above: Elite Amateur / National Level

At 4.5 W/kg you are approaching the boundary of what structured amateur training can produce for most riders. National-level time triallists, elite category road racers, and strong U23 riders sit here. If you are a masters rider holding this number, you are exceptional.

These thresholds are approximate and terrain-dependent. A flat criterium rewards absolute power more than W/kg. A mountainous gran fondo rewards W/kg above all else. But as general markers for where your riding sits in the real world — on actual roads, in actual events, against actual riders — they are more useful than any abstract category system.

The Masters Rider Reality: Training Quality Trumps Your Birthday

Here is where I want to bring this back to something that matters to most of the people reading this.

If you are 40, 45, 50, 55 — the internet will tell you that your best days are behind you. Forum posts are full of riders lamenting their FTP decline from their 30s, comparing themselves to younger riders, and treating ageing as a sentence rather than a variable.

The research tells a different story. And so does the coaching data.

The decline is real but it is slow. In continuously trained cyclists, threshold power drops at roughly 5% per decade from the late 30s onward. For a rider holding 300 watts at 37, that means approximately 285 watts at 47 and 270 watts at 57. That is 30 watts across two decades of ageing. For context, a poorly structured training block can cost you 15-20 watts in eight weeks.

Training quality dwarfs the age effect. A 50-year-old who trains with structure — polarised intensity distribution, progressive overload, proper recovery, periodised blocks — will outperform a 35-year-old who does the same rides every week without a plan. Every time. The age-related decline in the research assumes equivalent training quality. In amateur cycling, training quality is not equivalent. It is wildly variable, and it explains far more of the performance difference between two riders than their birth certificates.

VO2max trainability is preserved. One of the persistent myths in masters cycling is that older athletes "cannot do high intensity." The research (Lepers et al., 2016; Tanaka and Seals, 2008) shows that VO2max responds to training stimulus at any age. The magnitude of improvement may be slightly smaller than in younger athletes, but it is significant and measurable. If you have dropped all interval work because you think you are "too old for that," you have left a large performance gain on the table.

Recovery is the variable that changes most. What does change meaningfully with age is recovery capacity. A 25-year-old can absorb five hard sessions in a week. A 50-year-old might handle three. That is not a sign of weakness; it is a physiological reality that demands a different training structure. Fewer hard sessions, more truly easy days, more sleep. The riders who age best are not the ones who train the hardest — they are the ones who recover the smartest.

Body composition matters more, not less. Maintaining lean mass becomes harder with age as testosterone and growth hormone decline. This makes strength and conditioning work — bodyweight exercises, resistance bands, single-leg stability, core work — more important for the masters rider, not less. Not because you are trying to get huge, but because preserving the muscle you have protects your W/kg ratio as the years pass.

When Joe Friel talks about masters training, he comes back to the same principle: consistency over intensity, precision over volume, and the discipline to rest when your body asks for rest rather than pushing through because you feel guilty about a missed session.

That discipline is what separates the masters riders who are still setting personal records at 52 from the ones who peaked at 38 and have been telling themselves it is all downhill since.

Your Number, Your Context, Your Trend Line

Let me leave you with this.

A "good" FTP is the one that represents an improvement over your previous test, conducted under the same conditions, as the result of deliberate, structured training. That is it. Full stop.

The benchmarks and categories and W/kg thresholds in this article are useful as rough orientation — they tell you where you sit in the broad population, they tell you what is realistic for your age and training history, and they give you real-world context for what different power-to-weight ratios mean on the road.

But the number that actually matters is the one on your power meter during your next test, compared to the one from your last test. If it went up, your training is working. If it did not, something in your training needs to change — your intensity distribution, your recovery, your consistency, your nutrition.

That trend line — your trend line, tested under your conditions, on your equipment — is worth more than every benchmark table ever published. Track it honestly, adjust your training based on what it tells you, and stop worrying about what the bloke in the forum claims to hold.

You are not done yet. And neither is your FTP.