REF-1285 · De Pauw et al., 2013 · International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance · Paper · PubMed

Is 4 W/kg good for a cyclist?

De Pauw's 1-5 levels (untrained to pro) class research groups by lab VO2max and graded-test peak power, not FTP; the numeric bands were not read here, so this entry gives no W/kg cut-off.

Main caveat: Read from the abstract only; the level bands, the search and the included studies could not be checked.
moderate evidenceMeasured on non-athletes to world-class athletes

De Pauw and colleagues reviewed how cycling studies tested and labelled their participants and built a classification system for cycling research. Their database held 130 subject-group descriptions with the pre-experimental maximal cycle-test protocol, the terms used for the group, body size, relative and absolute VO2max, peak power output (PPO) and cycling experience.

Most pre-tests started at 100 W and added 25 W per stage, and the authors judged 3-min stages to give the most reliable and valid measures of endurance performance. Because studies used many overlapping terms, they introduced the neutral "performance levels" 1 to 5 for untrained, recreationally trained, trained, well-trained and professional groups.

Relative VO2max was the parameter most often used to describe groups, so the levels were defined with no overlap on it; absolute PPO was the other significant cycling parameter, and they advised reporting further physiological information and current and past cycling data.

Our reading: this is the ladder many cycling papers (and several entries in this base) use to say who was studied; it is the only peer-reviewed place to put a lab VO2max or ramp peak power on a five-step calibre scale, but the bands describe research volunteers' lab tests, not the field FTP an athlete usually knows, and they were not read for this entry.

Protocol

Design: systematic literature review; a database of 130 subject-group descriptions from cycling-related research.
Data extracted (abstract): pre-experimental maximal cycle-protocol design (initial workload, increment, stage length), the terminology used for the group, biometrical and physiological data (height, body mass, relative and absolute VO2max, PPO), cycling experience and parameters.
Analysis: Kolmogorov-Smirnov tests, one-way ANOVA with Bonferroni post hoc tests (P < .05) and trend lines on height, body mass, relative and absolute VO2max and PPO across the groups.
Not in the abstract: databases and years searched, the sex of the groups, the numeric band of each level, how the bands were drawn, and how many groups fell in each level.
Funding and interests: not in the abstract; Crossref names no funder, and PubMed names none but tags the paper "Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't".

Key Results

Item (abstract)Finding
Most frequent pre-test protocolinitial workload 100 W, increments of 25 W
Stage length3-min stages give the most reliable and valid measures of endurance performance
Terminologyperformance levels 1-5 = untrained, recreationally trained, trained, well-trained, professional
Principal parameterrelative VO2max, the most cited; no overlap between levels on it
Second parameterabsolute peak power output
Also to reportfurther physiological information; current and past cycling data
Numeric bands of each levelin the full-text tables, not read for this entry

Mechanisms

Measured: published cycling studies describe their participants with inconsistent terms and test protocols; relative VO2max is the most common descriptor.
Authors' interpretation: a standard procedure is needed to classify subject groups; they recommend a pre-test protocol, neutral terminology and a set of performance indicators.
Inference: a ladder built from what research groups looked like reflects who volunteers for cycling studies; it is a convention for comparing studies, not a measured distribution of cyclists in the population.
Inference: peak power from an incremental test with 3-min stages depends on the protocol and is not the same number as an FTP or a 20-min power; a field number cannot be placed on this ladder without a conversion the paper does not give.

Practical Application

Is 4 W/kg good for a cyclist? De Pauw's 1-5 levels (untrained to pro) class research groups by lab VO2max and graded-test peak power, not FTP; the numeric bands were not read here, so this entry gives no W/kg cut-off.
Use the levels to read studies: in this system "trained" and "well-trained" are levels 3 and 4; a paper that cites it is saying where its participants sit, so check the reported VO2max before transferring a result (B+, from the abstract).
For an athlete's own calibre, the base's scale is McKay's tiers (REF-529). Not from this paper; the base's own practice: do not map an FTP or a watch VO2max onto these levels; if a lab VO2max is available, the population rank is REF-1284 and an estimate's error is SYNTH-78.
Testing protocol: the review favours 3-min stages for endurance testing in research; the base's field-testing choices are SYNTH-53.

Limitations

Read from the abstract only; the level bands, the search and the included studies could not be checked.
Descriptive data from published research samples; the bands reflect who took part in cycling studies, not the population of cyclists.
Laboratory measures only (relative VO2max, ramp-test peak power); protocol-dependent, and not FTP or field power.
Built from groups that were presumably mostly male (the female levels came three years later in REF-1286); the abstract does not say.
A 2013 snapshot; McKay et al. 2022 (REF-529) later proposed a sport-general framework.
Funding and conflicts of interest not in the abstract or the Crossref and PubMed records.
How this entry was checked and changed
Why this level

a systematic review of published descriptive data (more than 100 group descriptions) that sets a classification convention; it tests no intervention and no prediction. From the abstract (the full text is not open), so the numeric bands, the years searched and the mix of studies could not be checked