I meant that any number of hours can only get you to a certain point. And I am sure he isnāt at the point where 4 hours can get you to.
Riding hard and making progress is not the same thing. Probably pointless to continue discussing here. I am 100% sure you get get more out of 4 hours than what we are presented with hereā¦
I love me some fermi estimation style problem solving. We are not going for an accurate answer here, just trying to see if our hypothesis is stupid. With how wildly individual this all is and how poorly its possible to measure the variables I think this kind of napkin math is likely the best we get.
Iāve got some bad news for you.
This screams selection bias. If they were average joes they wouldnt have had the success it takes to be spending lots of their free time in the circles of people you likely ride with. They wouldnt get the return on investment to put in the time and put in even more time. I think your answer suggests there is a non 0 chance the people you ride with are not average joes.
Please keep in mind, right around 50% of people are below averageā¦
1 Like
Bingo
If you want folks to help you, youāll need to set your profile to public and share it with us, or provide some more information around weekly hours.
Without any of that, we canāt really accurately help you.
Iād guess that you have plenty of low hanging fruit based on how you are describing your training.
2 Likes
Replying to the initial post:
There certainly are differences across people in how well they respond to training. Some people respond better than others. This has been shown in literature, and also aligns with the personal experience of most of us.
How well you respond is likely driven by genetics. But you canāt control that.
What you can control is the kind of training you do. You may need to experiment a little to find what works best for you. Eg do you respond to Long slow distance, Sweet Spot, VO2max, etc.
I found this year that doing a lot of sweet spot (at 85-90%, so keeping clear of threshold) has improved my TTE, and lowered my HR for a given power. My FTP hasnāt moved much, but Iām not as wiped from long rides as I used to be.
A mistake I think I had made in the past is riding too frequently at threshold - and this is one of the drawbacks of the LV TR plans IMO - too much high intensity. Eg SSBII is called sweet spot, but most of the workouts are threshold.
And if you are doing just TR low volume plans, and group rides, you may skewed too much to high intensity.
One change to contemplate in your training this winter - follow a true sweet spot program. Thereās a good thread here:
1 Like
And itās possible the ramp test overestimates your FTP making the workouts even harder. I reduce my ramp test result by 5%, and then do long intervals (20 mins minimum) at 85-90%.
They certainly arenāt average joes. They ride their bikes a lot and train very hard. But do all of them have āPrime-Belgian-Cycling-Prodigyā-genetics? I donāt know, but is just not that likely.
What I do know, is they train harder and more focused than most āaverage joesā which I think is what really separates them from the averageā¦
You probably need special genetics to win a grand tour (and maybe more than that), and you probably need special genetics to time trial like Justin Rossi. What you definitely need is work you butt off and be smart about it (periodization, rest, overload, nutrition).
But 4 Watts FTP isnāt world tour nor is it pro tour nor is it Justin Rossi. You wonāt place top 25% in local time trials in my area (which isnāt even a ācycling areaā). I think it is well achievable for the vast majority of young male cyclists, who are not pros and not set for life.
And they are?
Do you mean āAnd that isā?
The bad news is the very figures you are posting here indicates that 3.9 as an upper bound for averages joes is pretty close.
You are talking about a self selecting group. My guess is that they were above average responders to training and thus were rewarded for their efforts and kept doing more of it. People that arenāt good at things donāt tend to keep going and put in hundreds of hours of training year after year after year. Or, it could be the makeup of their psyche that keeps them interested mile after mile, year after year and allows them to get faster and faster.
The guys in my club that are the fastest are the ones that do it year after year. Many have been doing it for decades. The vast majority of other riders are fair weather riders. They ride spring/summer and then slack off. They never get faster. They donāt show up when itās cold. Some guys do it intensely for a few years, burnout, and then you never seen them again.
Anyway, how does this help the OP - 46 years old, cycling 3,333 miles per year for 3 years, and who has family and time constraints?
1 Like
Ultimately we are all hypothezing, because until we get 1000 individuals, get them all to live and train like pros under very closely controlled conditions, then measure their FTPs in about 5 years time, weāre not going to get a scientific answer.
But as itās fun to surmiseā¦
Iād guess that less than 20% of those who cycle regularly follow a structured training program with any consistency.
Letās say 20% of those who follow a training program try time-trialling (as you mentioned the level of your local TTers).
So we have a narrow section of an already self-selecting population (those who choose to cycle).
Next, those who are ācommittedā time-triallers or racers have probably had some success, as someone previously noted. Letās say of those who have tried time-trialling, probably 20% stick with it. That is a further narrowing of the pool.
So if weāre saying that 20% of 20% of 20% (i.e. 0.8% of the cycling population) have an FTP in excess of 4w/kg, then Iād say thatās wholly plausible.
Even if we change the numbers Iāve admittedly pulled out of thin air by a factor of 10, thatās still only 8% of regular cyclists.
Now, is it possible for more than 10% to get there? Almost certainly yes. But the fact that so few apparently do must be regarded as significant.
Edit: with apologies to the OP - Iāve just found this an interesting tangent.
Trying to be more helpful to the OPā¦
Ok, what is currently being done is not producing improvements. That leaves 2 possibilities:
- This is indeed the OPās maximum level
- Something needs to change in his training. diet, or lifestyle.
To deal with point 1 first:
-
Letās assume that the OP falls under the meat of the bell curve genetically (as c.70% will). Letās also assume that Cogganās estimate of a max of 3.9 for genetically average is right. At 46, Iād expect to see a slight fall in VO2 max. So Iām going to have a bit of a stab at say the OP is relatively close to but not at his maximum FTP. That means improvement is possible but not necessarily easy - as his story is suggesting. That means changing something in 2.
-
While you can do a lot on LV, if you could achieve everything on it, then all the pros would be doing it as well - and theyāre not. If, following on from 1 above, weāre saying that the OP is at 80-90% of his max, then he is going to need to add further stimulus, which Iād suggest is simply more volume.
So in short, I would look to up the volume, assuming that can be fitted in with other life commitments. Also look at low hanging fruit like losing a kg, eating a healthy diet, getting more sleep if possible, etc.
1 Like
I will bite. I am 40, 180 ftp, less than 6 month cycling, long term lifter and runner. I will take the next 5 years and see if I can get to 3.9. I just posted my 5 year goal of 300ftp and that is right in that ballpark. If you go ahead and line up the sponsorship and I would even be willing to make this my full time job. 999 more folks to go!
2 Likes
FWIW I always reduce it down to:
- Eat
- Train
- Recover
At least in my mind, its not lifestyle its recovery.
This is totally off topic but this is probably a positioning or pacing issue. I am 88 kg, ramp tested 292 watts today and go 27-28 mph ave on flat TTs. Thatās 3.32 w/kg. Iāve raced and trained since 1990 and still find ways to go faster.
Sorry, my English isnāt great.
It is in fact so bad, that I have still no clue what you are referring to?
Who is close to 3.9W/kg?
Oh no worries. My English is only so-so and Iām a native speaker!
The numbers and results you are putting out as evidence point to the generally accepted values for average riders, under cutting your position that it is actually higher than 3.9
I am pretty sure I can improve on both, but I donāt think either are too bad. Your speed is very impressive at that power.
My latest TT was 25k on a āround-ish course, that was undulating and extremely windy. The state champ and winner finished in 31:21 minutes (around 30mph avg), while it took me a full minute six seconds longer (28.8mph average). I did 305 watts average and 316 normalized (at 70kg) and the Runner up (48 seconds faster than me) did 348 watts and 366 NP (donāt know his weight, but not a heavy guy either). The winner didnāt upload the power.
(I should have done around 15 watts more, but in heavy winds didnāt feel confident on all pieces of road - however most of the discrepancy to my ftp comes from being in an aggressive TT Position, Not on a RB).
1 Like