There is no single “good FTP” in watts because body weight changes what the number means. For comparing cycling power between riders, FTP in watts per kilogram (W/kg) is usually more useful. Garmin’s current FTP ratings classify 2.79–3.92 W/kg as Good for men and 2.36–3.32 W/kg as Good for women. A 3.0 W/kg FTP is therefore a solid recreational benchmark, while 4.0 W/kg falls in Garmin’s Excellent category for both men and women.
If you searched for an average cycling FTP, whether 200, 250 or 300 watts is good, or what FTP you should aim for, this guide gives you the context that raw watts are missing. You will find W/kg benchmarks, weight-specific FTP tables, practical interpretations for beginners and triathletes, and the reasons two riders with the same FTP can still have very different speed.
Use the free Cycling Power Zone Calculator to turn your FTP into practical training zones. If you are looking for the definition of FTP rather than benchmarks, start with What Is FTP in Cycling?.
What counts as a good FTP in cycling?
A good FTP depends on what you are comparing. Absolute FTP tells you how many watts you can sustain around your threshold. Relative FTP divides that power by body mass and expresses it in watts per kilogram.
For your own training, absolute FTP is valuable because it sets workout targets. For comparing differently sized cyclists, W/kg gives far more context. A 250 W FTP can represent a very different performance level at 55 kg than it does at 95 kg.
Use watts when...
You are setting your own training zones, tracking your own progress, or thinking about power on flatter roads where aerodynamic drag is a major resistance.
Use W/kg when...
You are comparing riders of different body sizes or evaluating climbing performance, where moving body mass against gravity becomes increasingly important.
The best benchmark is two-dimensional: know both your FTP in watts and your FTP in W/kg. Neither number tells the whole story on its own.
FTP W/kg benchmarks by cycling level
The table below uses Garmin’s current FTP classifications. Garmin states that its ratings are based on the Allen/Coggan power-profile framework. These are performance classifications, not population averages, so they are better used as broad context than as a claim about what the “average cyclist” produces.
| Rating | Men | Women | Practical interpretation |
|---|---|---|---|
| Superior | 5.05+ W/kg | 4.30+ W/kg | Exceptionally high relative threshold power |
| Excellent | 3.93–5.04 W/kg | 3.33–4.29 W/kg | Very strong cycling fitness |
| Good | 2.79–3.92 W/kg | 2.36–3.32 W/kg | Strong recreational performance range |
| Fair | 2.23–2.78 W/kg | 1.90–2.35 W/kg | Developing cycling fitness |
| Untrained | <2.23 W/kg | <1.90 W/kg | Little specific cycling training or a new starting point |
They are the names used in the reference table. A new cyclist may improve quickly, while an experienced cyclist may have a lower W/kg but still be very fast on flat terrain because of higher absolute power, better aerodynamics or stronger fatigue resistance.
Is 2, 3, 4 or 5 W/kg a good FTP?
2.0 W/kg
This is a perfectly normal place to begin for many people who are new to structured cycling. It is below Garmin’s “Good” band, but a first FTP is a baseline—not a final score.
3.0 W/kg
Yes, 3.0 W/kg is a solid recreational FTP. It sits inside Garmin’s Good category for both men and women and is enough to support strong recreational riding when combined with endurance and bike skills.
4.0 W/kg
4.0 W/kg is very strong. In Garmin’s table it is classified as Excellent for both men and women. At this level, differences in aerodynamics, durability and race execution become increasingly important when comparing actual speed.
5.0 W/kg
Five W/kg is an exceptionally high amateur-level number. Garmin places 5.0 W/kg near the top of Excellent for men and above its Superior threshold for women. It still should not be equated directly with professional race performance.
FTP watts by body weight: the useful comparison table
If you know the W/kg level you want to understand, multiply it by body mass in kilograms. This table shows the absolute FTP required for common W/kg values across a range of rider weights.
| Body weight | 2.0 W/kg | 2.5 W/kg | 3.0 W/kg | 3.5 W/kg | 4.0 W/kg |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 50 kg | 100 W | 125 W | 150 W | 175 W | 200 W |
| 60 kg | 120 W | 150 W | 180 W | 210 W | 240 W |
| 70 kg | 140 W | 175 W | 210 W | 245 W | 280 W |
| 80 kg | 160 W | 200 W | 240 W | 280 W | 320 W |
| 90 kg | 180 W | 225 W | 270 W | 315 W | 360 W |
| 100 kg | 200 W | 250 W | 300 W | 350 W | 400 W |
FTP in W/kg = FTP in watts ÷ body weight in kilograms
Example: 280 W ÷ 80 kg = 3.5 W/kg.
Is 200 watts a good FTP?
It can be. At 100 kg, 200 W equals 2.0 W/kg. At 80 kg it equals 2.5 W/kg. At 65 kg it equals 3.08 W/kg, which falls inside Garmin’s Good rating for both men and women. Raw watts cannot be interpreted properly without body mass and riding context.
Is 250 watts a good FTP?
For many recreational cyclists, 250 W is a useful and respectable absolute FTP, but the relative result changes considerably with weight. It is 2.78 W/kg at 90 kg, 3.13 W/kg at 80 kg, 3.57 W/kg at 70 kg and 4.17 W/kg at 60 kg.
That means the same 250 W can sit around Garmin’s Fair-to-Good boundary for a heavier male rider, squarely in Good for many riders, or in Excellent territory for a lighter rider. This is exactly why “Is 250 W good?” has no one-word answer.
Is 300 watts a good FTP?
Yes—300 W is strong absolute threshold power for a recreational cyclist. At 100 kg it equals 3.0 W/kg, at 80 kg 3.75 W/kg, at 75 kg exactly 4.0 W/kg and at 60 kg 5.0 W/kg.
But a 300 W FTP does not guarantee a particular race speed. On flat terrain, the rider’s aerodynamic drag and position can change the speed produced by those 300 watts dramatically.
Average FTP for men and women: what the numbers can and cannot tell you
Searches for “average FTP for men” or “average FTP for women” often produce precise-looking tables. The problem is that there is no single representative worldwide dataset of all cyclists. A database made from indoor-training users, racers or people who own power meters is already selecting a specific type of cyclist.
For that reason, this guide uses Garmin’s sex-specific classification ranges rather than pretending they are population averages. The ranges provide useful context without implying that every male or female cyclist should sit at one exact value.
Garmin “Good”: 2.79–3.92 W/kg
Absolute watts will vary greatly with body mass. A 70 kg rider at 3.0 W/kg has a 210 W FTP; a 90 kg rider at the same relative level has a 270 W FTP.
Garmin “Good”: 2.36–3.32 W/kg
The same principle applies: relative and absolute power answer different questions, so both numbers are worth tracking.
Average FTP by age: why age tables are often misleading
Age affects endurance performance, but it is not useful to assign every 30-, 40- or 50-year-old cyclist one expected FTP. Training history, weekly volume, body composition, genetics, injury history and years in the sport create enormous variation inside every age group.
Research in trained masters cyclists also shows why simple age charts can be misleading: aerobic cycling performance can be maintained substantially better with training than a generic age-based decline would suggest, while some anaerobic qualities decline differently. The useful conclusion is not “your FTP should be X at age 45.” It is that age should be interpreted alongside training status.
If you are comparing your FTP over time, compare yourself with your own recent history first. A 5% improvement measured with the same setup is more actionable than being above or below an internet age table built from a different population.
What is a good FTP for a beginner cyclist?
A beginner does not need to hit a particular W/kg before training “counts.” Your first FTP has three jobs: establish a baseline, set sensible training zones and give you a number you can retest later.
-
Test only when you can ride consistently
You do not need a maximal test on your first week of cycling. Build basic comfort on the bike first, then test when the result can actually help structure training.
-
Use the result to scale workouts
A lower FTP is not a problem. It simply means your endurance, tempo and interval targets should be lower until your fitness improves.
-
Repeat the same test method
Progress is easiest to interpret when you use the same power source, protocol and similar conditions each time.
When you have a usable FTP, the Cycling Power Zones guide explains what each percentage range is for, while the Power Zone Calculator does the arithmetic automatically.
Absolute watts vs W/kg: which predicts cycling speed better?
Neither one predicts speed on its own. Cycling speed is the result of power overcoming aerodynamic drag, rolling resistance, gravity and mechanical losses. Which metric matters most changes with terrain.
| Situation | More useful FTP metric | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Long steep climb | W/kg | Body mass has a large effect when working against gravity |
| Flat time trial | Absolute watts + aerodynamics | Air resistance dominates at higher speeds |
| Rolling road race | Both | Power, weight, accelerations and drafting all matter |
| Triathlon bike leg | Sustainable watts + aerodynamics | The goal is speed at a power that still leaves a usable run |
| Comparing differently sized climbers | W/kg | Relative power gives body mass context |
This is why weight loss is not automatically the best route to a better cyclist. If body mass falls but training quality and absolute power fall with it, the real-world result may be neutral or worse. Improving power while maintaining a sustainable body composition is often the more productive performance goal.
For a practical example of how aerodynamics changes the watts-to-speed relationship, see our Road Bike vs Triathlon Bike analysis.
What is a good FTP for triathlon?
Triathlon adds another problem: you are not trying to produce the highest possible bike power. You are trying to produce the fastest bike split that still lets you run well afterward.
Short-course triathlon
Higher relative and absolute FTP can directly support faster bike racing because the event is shorter and you can ride at a higher fraction of threshold.
Half- and full-distance triathlon
FTP remains useful, but durability, aerodynamics, fueling and the power you can hold comfortably in the aero position become increasingly important.
Track long-ride power, heart-rate drift, fueling tolerance, aero-position comfort and how you run off the bike. A rider with a slightly lower FTP but better durability can be the faster triathlete.
Read Cycling for Triathlon for the complete training and pacing context.
Why two FTP tests can give different results
FTP is a practical training estimate, not a perfectly interchangeable laboratory threshold. Research supports the repeatability of a well-controlled 20-minute protocol, but studies also show meaningful individual differences when FTP estimates are compared with physiological thresholds.
| FTP method | Strength | Main limitation |
|---|---|---|
| 20-minute test | Repeatable and widely understood | The common 95% conversion is not equally accurate for every rider |
| Ramp test | Short and easy to pace | Can be influenced by the rider’s short-duration cycling power profile |
| Long time trial | Directly tests sustained power | Demanding and highly dependent on pacing |
| Automatic model | Uses normal ride data | Only as good as the recent efforts and model behind the estimate |
In one laboratory study, the 20-minute time trial itself showed very high repeatability, but using the traditional 95% correction still produced an average 12 W bias relative to maximal lactate steady state in that small trained sample. Another study found that 20-minute FTP and 60-minute FTP had wide individual limits of agreement despite similar group averages. The practical lesson is simple: use one FTP protocol consistently when tracking change.
For the testing procedure and the tradeoffs between protocols, use our dedicated guide: Ramp Test vs 20-Minute FTP Test.
How to improve your FTP
Benchmarks are most useful when they lead to better training rather than comparison alone. Build your next block with the practical guide to improving FTP, including workout progressions, weekly templates and plateau troubleshooting.
If the benchmark has made you want a bigger number, avoid turning every ride into threshold work. Sustainable FTP improvement usually comes from a mixture of aerobic volume and selected harder sessions.
Build aerobic volume
Easy endurance riding lets you accumulate training without the recovery cost of making every ride hard. See Zone 2 Cycling for practical power and heart-rate guidance.
Progress threshold work
Intervals near threshold improve your ability to sustain high aerobic power. Increase useful time at intensity before simply making the target harder.
Use VO2 work selectively
Hard intervals above FTP can provide a strong aerobic stimulus, but they create substantial fatigue. One productive session is better than several sessions you cannot recover from.
Retest after a training block
Do not chase a new FTP every week. Let training accumulate, then retest under conditions that make the result comparable with your previous test.
What a “good FTP” does not tell you
FTP also cannot tell whether a ride was steady or repeatedly surged. Read Normalized Power versus average power together to separate the mean output from the estimated cost of variability.
FTP is useful because it compresses a lot of cycling fitness into one number. That is also its limitation. It does not directly measure:
- aerodynamic efficiency
- fatigue resistance after three or five hours
- sprint and anaerobic power
- technical descending or cornering
- fueling and hydration execution
- comfort in an aerodynamic position
- your ability to run after the bike in triathlon
A higher FTP is useful, but the fastest cyclist is not always the rider with the highest FTP or W/kg. Course profile, aerodynamics, durability, tactics and execution decide how power becomes speed.
Frequently asked questions
What is a good FTP for the average cyclist?
There is no reliable worldwide population average for all cyclists. As a practical performance reference, Garmin classifies 2.79–3.92 W/kg as Good for men and 2.36–3.32 W/kg as Good for women. Use those as broad benchmarks rather than true population averages.
Is 2 W/kg a good FTP?
Two W/kg is below Garmin’s Good classification, but it can be a completely normal starting point for a new or returning cyclist. The most useful question is whether the number improves while training remains sustainable.
Is 3 W/kg a good FTP?
Yes. Three W/kg falls inside Garmin’s Good range for both men and women and is a solid recreational cycling benchmark.
Is 4 W/kg a good FTP?
Yes. Four W/kg is very strong and falls in Garmin’s Excellent category for both men and women.
Is 5 W/kg a good FTP?
Five W/kg is exceptionally strong relative threshold power. Garmin places it near the top of Excellent for men and above the Superior threshold for women. It should not be treated as an automatic proxy for professional race level.
Is a 200 W FTP good?
It depends on body weight. At 80 kg, 200 W is 2.5 W/kg; at 65 kg it is about 3.08 W/kg. The same absolute FTP can therefore represent different relative performance.
Is a 250 W FTP good?
For many recreational cyclists, 250 W is a respectable absolute FTP. It equals 3.13 W/kg at 80 kg, 3.57 W/kg at 70 kg and 4.17 W/kg at 60 kg.
Is a 300 W FTP good?
Yes, 300 W is strong absolute power for a recreational rider. At 75 kg it equals 4.0 W/kg; at 100 kg it equals 3.0 W/kg.
What is a good FTP for a beginner?
There is no required beginner FTP. Use your first reliable test as a baseline, set training zones from it and compare future tests performed with the same method. Improvement and consistency matter more than entering a category immediately.
Does FTP decline with age?
Aging can affect cycling performance, but training status strongly changes the picture. A universal FTP-by-age table is therefore misleading. Compare age together with training history, body mass and years of consistent endurance work.
Should I compare FTP in watts or watts per kilogram?
Track both. Absolute watts are important for training targets and flatter high-speed cycling; W/kg gives more context for rider size and climbing performance.
Does FTP equal one-hour power?
Not exactly for every rider. FTP is often explained using roughly hour-long sustainable power, but studies show that FTP estimates from different protocols are not perfectly interchangeable at the individual level.
Is 95% of 20-minute power always an accurate FTP?
No. The 20-minute protocol can be repeatable, but the 95% conversion does not match physiological threshold equally well for every cyclist. Use the same protocol consistently when tracking progress.
What matters more for triathlon: FTP or W/kg?
It depends on the course. W/kg matters more as climbing increases, while long flat triathlon bike legs reward sustainable absolute power and low aerodynamic drag. Durability and leaving enough capacity for the run are also essential.
Use your FTP instead of just comparing it
Calculate your power zones
Enter your FTP in the free Cycling Power Zone Calculator and get your endurance, tempo, threshold and higher-intensity ranges.
Understand the metric
Read What Is FTP in Cycling? for the definition, physiology, calculations and training-zone fundamentals.
Test it properly
Compare protocols in Ramp Test vs 20-Minute FTP Test.
Apply it to triathlon
Use Cycling for Triathlon to connect FTP with pacing, aerodynamics, endurance and race execution.
Sources and methodology
- Garmin: FTP Ratings — current sex-specific W/kg performance classifications based on the Allen/Coggan framework.
- Lillo-Beviá et al.: Functional Threshold Power and maximal lactate steady state — repeatability of a 20-minute test and limitations of a universal 95% correction.
- Borszcz et al.: Functional Threshold Power in cyclists — comparison of 20-minute FTP, 60-minute FTP and individual anaerobic threshold.
- Valenzuela et al.: Reliability of Functional Threshold Power in competitive cyclists — evidence on repeatability of the standard 20-minute protocol.
- Peiffer et al.: Aging and power in trained masters cyclists — evidence illustrating that age affects cycling performance dimensions differently in trained athletes.
All watt-to-W/kg examples in this article are direct calculations using FTP in watts divided by body mass in kilograms. Benchmark categories are presented as reference classifications rather than population averages. Article comprehensively reviewed and updated by Triathlon Loop in August 2026.
Find the rest of our cycling and power tools in one place.
