I was just responding when you corrected it to 5K times.
I run & ride and I am a much better cyclist. I was a cat 1 early on and could never get close to a sub 14 5K. When I was a cat 1 I struggled to get under 17:00.
^ to clarify, I am more of a sprinter and a crit specialist. My quads & hamstrings probably weigh as much as what some lean distance runners weigh in total. A small cyclist could torch me on the hills but couldn't get close to me in a sprint. I don't think it's an easy conversion since there are so many different types of cyclists and you're only comparing them to distance guys.
There is no correlation. Biking and running are different skills with slightly different physiology amongst elites in each sport. Assuming an elie endurance runner and an elite endurance cyclist have similar relative ability in their own sport, the runner will typically have a 70 VO2max and the cyclist an 80 VO2max.
For me, my peak FTP in W/kg very closely matches my peak running threshold (1h race pace) in m/s. I know it does not make any physiological sense, but I have seen this pattern in other people that have been training both for running and cycling
Your title of comparing ftp (weight adjusted) to 5k time probably makes more sense. Comparing category to 5k time doesn't really work. Lots of weird variables in the upgrade system and until you are cat 2 or maybe even cat1 there is still a lot of strength variability within a category (people who are moving through a category quickly, people who excel at a specific type of racing, people who upgraded in an easy or difficult region).
^ to clarify, I am more of a sprinter and a crit specialist. My quads & hamstrings probably weigh as much as what some lean distance runners weigh in total. A small cyclist could torch me on the hills but couldn't get close to me in a sprint. I don't think it's an easy conversion since there are so many different types of cyclists and you're only comparing them to distance guys.
Quads and hams don’t even weigh a third of total body weight, so you must be well over 300 lbs, which means pretty fat.
Quads and hams don’t even weigh a third of total body weight, so you must be well over 300 lbs, which means pretty fat.
You're pretty obtuse if you took me literally.
As a sprinter, I have big freaking quads and hamstrings. My legs looks a lot more like Peter Sagan's or Robert Foerstemann's than they do Yomif Kejelcha's or Paul Chelimo's. If you don't know who Sagan or Foerstemann are, google them.
My point is that fast 5K guys are lean. Cyclists that specialize in sprinting are quite muscular.
I think the point is to compare the skill level. The skill level of a cat2 is equivalent to the skill level of a 16min 5k runner. Not that you can do them both.
Similarly, I was a cat 2 (breakaway rider, decent crit racer, not a climber) with a 4.2 w/kg threshold at my peak (which was several years ago), but I'm not nearly as skilled a runner and am probably good for a low 17s 5k.
I think the prior poster is saying that a 4.20 w/kg ftp equates to a 4:20mm running threshold which doesn't make a lot of sense...
Quads and hams don’t even weigh a third of total body weight, so you must be well over 300 lbs, which means pretty fat.
You're pretty obtuse if you took me literally.
As a sprinter, I have big freaking quads and hamstrings. My legs looks a lot more like Peter Sagan's or Robert Foerstemann's than they do Yomif Kejelcha's or Paul Chelimo's. If you don't know who Sagan or Foerstemann are, google them.
My point is that fast 5K guys are lean. Cyclists that specialize in sprinting are quite muscular.
Muscle weighs a lot more than fat, bright boy.
I like when posters call each other names, it makes me happy.
Quads and hams don’t even weigh a third of total body weight, so you must be well over 300 lbs, which means pretty fat.
You're pretty obtuse if you took me literally.
As a sprinter, I have big freaking quads and hamstrings. My legs looks a lot more like Peter Sagan's or Robert Foerstemann's than they do Yomif Kejelcha's or Paul Chelimo's. If you don't know who Sagan or Foerstemann are, google them.
My point is that fast 5K guys are lean. Cyclists that specialize in sprinting are quite muscular.
Muscle weighs a lot more than fat, bright boy.
So does one pound of muscle weigh more than one pound of fat?
I think the point is to compare the skill level. The skill level of a cat2 is equivalent to the skill level of a 16min 5k runner. Not that you can do them both.
Similarly, I was a cat 2 (breakaway rider, decent crit racer, not a climber) with a 4.2 w/kg threshold at my peak (which was several years ago), but I'm not nearly as skilled a runner and am probably good for a low 17s 5k.
I think the prior poster is saying that a 4.20 w/kg ftp equates to a 4:20mm running threshold which doesn't make a lot of sense...
The idea is that cycling 1h best effort expressed in W/kg sorta/kinda matches running 1h race pace expressed in m/s. For me, my FTP when focusing training on cycling is 4.5 W/kg, while my running 1h race pace when focusing on running is 4.7 m/s which translates to 3'32"/km or 5'41"/mile. When training for multisport, both values are lower but the relationships holds true
The translations from running to cycling are weird and I think they are overestimated in Velo Chad's initial post from a racing perspective because fewer people race bikes compared to running.
I was a bad overtraining (100-110mpw leading to injuries) d1 runner in college for xc / track w/ PBs around 1:52-800m, 3:57-1500m, 14:30-5000m, 25:10 - 8km xc. Best race in this era was actually probably 54:50 for 10 miles on the roads. Took several years off from running, got into cycling a couple years w/ mostly easy riding around ~10hrs/week, and am much better in cycling. I did a century race on a hillyish course at >22mph, just behind some pros and semipros. My FTP w/kg fluctuates from 3.5-3.8.