Aerobic fitness takes decades to develop

Good information for sure. But looking back at the OP’s post there is the unasked question of “how much do you think you should be able to do?” or “what is your definition of good enough?”.

If he’d be happy being able to do a 2 hour ride at a tempo pace of 250W then that is very doable if you put in a reasonable (single figure) chunk of hours and recover properly. If the idea of minimum success is being able to do a 6 hour regional-level road race and stay with the front group then that is a totally different proposition.

1 Like

You do what you can do, and accept that you have the engine that you have. Ideally, train at least 400 hours a year for five years and see where you are. That’s your level. Love your level.

I’m one of those “fast” 50-somethings (who really isn’t that fast – the talented young guys are the fast ones). I’ll be 55 in a month, and although I’ve stopped racing, I still do the hard stuff because I like doing it. My chart looks reasonably good because 1) Most of the guys faster than me in my 20s have stopped flogging themselves and aren’t using stuff like intervals.icu, so that distorts the percentile ranking; 2) I may be 4.6 w/kg now, but that’s because I was over 5 w/kg in my 20s; 3) I’ve kept up the volume over the years (I’ve done at least 500 hours/year of cycling/rowing/hiking/running since I turned 30…in my 20s the volume was higher).

As has been said, the “old fast guys” aren’t really that fast (or much less fast than they used to be), have just kept it up, and picked their parents well.

Just get the volume in for five years, go hard twice a week, and see what happens. The rest of it is just hair-splitting. Mainly, have fun. This is supposed to be fun.

11 Likes

Sorry guys, to circle back to our life with TR and progressive overload I would have a question for you all.

Given the possibility to add say up to 30-60mins of z2 to the intra-weekly SSB workouts, which would make the workouts on Tue and Thursday 2h long and Wed 1.5h or even 2h, should I do so starting from week 1 whenever I have the time or should I try to progress also this easy time in z2 over the weeks?

My doubt is that I would like to use every occasion I have from the start of the plan to add volume in z2 given my otherwise time constrained schedule. What are your thoughts?

I conclude by saying that I already have a couple of season of SSB HV behind me so I’m fairly used to the stress of the plan (although now it has completely changed).

thanks

What kind of supplements do you take? Asking as I’m 53 and I fear many fast 50+ guys are on TRT.

not a damn thing, and as I’ve stated before on this forum, I think any 50+ guy who supplements with testosterone is a jackass, unless there is something seriously wrong with his endocrine system. testosterone declines. it’s natural. embrace it.

8 Likes

I think you may be missing my point. It’s not that amateurs reach their genetic limit. It is that they have different genetic limits which affects everything below those limits. For example you say it takes 5 years to reach 5 W/kg. Well that is only true for those who have a genetic limit far enough above that bar to make it a realistic target in the first place. For many people that would be a completely unrealistic goal. But for someone with favourable genetics it could be quite easy.

Of course the longer and smarter you train, the closer you get to your true potential. But you can’t really put a fixed number on what that potential might be. For some people it could be 4 W/kg, while others might get over 5 W/kg for exactly the same amount of effort.

I also don’t think it’s as simple as doing more hours. Some people simply can’t sustain training beyond a certain number of hours per week, even if they had the free time. Guys like Pogacar are special partly because they have a natural ability to recover faster than the average pro.

They were discussing Pogacar and other talented youngsters rising to the top so quickly during the TdF commentary and I think it was Sean Kelly (but I could be wrong there) who made the point that it will be interesting to see how long those young guys can sustain their level in the long haul. Will they become even stronger with another decade of training and racing behind them? Or will they burn out relatively quickly? It’s an unknown at this point, but time will tell. What we do know from history is that it is incredibly hard to win more than 5 TdFs, which suggests that there is an inevitable drop-off in performance within a single decade of intense riding. If it really took decades of riding to develop a high aerobic base, TdF winners would be mostly in their 40’s or even 50’s, which we are not seeing. Before the likes of Pogacar, Bernal et al came on the scene, there was a view that you did need to be in your late 20s or early 30s to develop a TdF winning engine, but that’s clearly not true.

1 Like

Much respect to you! I despise the fact that many of my 50+ local riders are doing TRT just to be fast for the local group ride.

Another masters busted down here in the wild wild west. I know him. I like him. It sucks. I was helping our 1/2 guys in that race and sort of wish I was in that race as the course suits me…Being 50+ down here is difficult. I’m surrounded by guys doing TRT. Many still race sanctioned events and it shows. The only positive from this is we (our elite team) netted a guy who quit the dopers team over this. He won Joe Martin so we are fortunate to have him race with us…

3 Likes

I’m not so sure. Looking at those around me who train and race most hit a level and then make relatively modest ftp improvements or strengthen performance in particular areas - but no big jumps. Your genetics play such a huge part in how quickly you adapt, recover and your ultimate performance. You can help with extra training time (up to a point), recovery and such but when you compete you quickly find your working in a narrow band of performance which you ain’t gonna jump out of.

Should declare I’m saying this as a nearly 50 but I think it still holds true if you’re younger - relative to your peers - once you’ve been training for a number of years.

2 Likes

Stupid people. This is what happens when people start chasing other people’s performance rather than their own. Makes me wonder how many guys riding sportives are doing this? Probably more than I would like to think.

1 Like

Let’s get back to years.

Central adaptations (the heart and lungs) come quickly, in the first year of training. Peripheral adaptations take several years, but not, perhaps, decades.

Train as much as you can without compromising other areas of your life. Go hard twice a week. Give it about five years.

(Frank Shorter once said something along the lines of “one day for speed, one day for strength, and then as much easy running as you can handle. Do that for three years and you’ll get good” – meaning as good as you have the potential to be. His “speed” was 3000m pace. His “strength” was 10k to half marathon pace.)

3 Likes

That sounds about right. The only difference with the rise of HIIT is that you can now cut out some of the 15 hour plus/week plodding that used to be required and get pretty much the same end result. If it ain’t happening for you after 5 years, then it probably never will unless you were doing something very wrong. Expecting “decades” to make a difference is likely to end in disappointment.

3 Likes

Absolutely shocking. I am guessing that only the winners of such races would get tested? So who knows how many others are at it.

1 Like

The reason why you had to be older before was for 2 not flattering reasons
(1) Before the independent data from power meters, the older guys could claim they were better because of their “experience” or "grinta"or “souplesse” or whatever bullshit you wanted to call it. Now? If you can do the watts, you can do the watts. No need to spend years carrying water from some old (ie 28 years old) guy just because you are 21 or whatever and need for some reason to “pay your dues”
(2) During doping, they had to assess whether or not you had the right attitude about “taking care of your health” before they let you have the good stuff (while building up enough dirt on you at the same time to make sure you maintained the omerta)

1 Like

“Some people simply can’t sustain training”. For some that might indeed be true, but it may not be for more riders than you think. It may be more mental than physical. Maybe they haven’t ridden enough hours the right way to build a base that is conducive to building a strong aerobic engine. Maybe they don’t care to spend the time. Maybe they can’t because of life circumstances, but then you are talking about practical limits, not genetic ones.

You don’t just start riding 15 - 20 hrs/wk. You have to build to that and it takes time. I built for 18 months…650 hrs last year…~730 hrs by the end of this year. I’m 52 years old. I was told in January that I need to forget about ever reaching 300W FTP (4.4 w/kg) short of “pharmaceutical help”. I was told that I was “well trained” on 250 - 275 hrs/yr. Total bunk. In February I was capable of just 280W for 8 minutes. By June 2nd I did a short test of 300W for 15 minutes. By early September I did 337W for 6 minutes. By the end of this year I fully intend to put down 300W for at least 40 minutes…hopefully more. Long term, the goal is to reach 5 w/kg (335W) over the next 2 years. That would be 4.5 years after I started riding high volume (mid 2019)…it would also be 4 consecutive years riding 650 hrs or more. And so we shall see what happens.

My only grievance is that it simply took me too long to figure this all out…to learn the right way to train and not waste time (which I did in 2020).

I don’t believe it takes decades to build an aerobic engine. I do think that the sheer number of hours that junior-u23-world tour riders ride per year reduces the amount of time it would take compared to an amateur with time constraints. The less hours you can ride, the longer it will take…but it will also be that the amateur’s aerobic engine simply won’t be nearly as good on shorter hours. The difference in blood volume between 10 hrs/wk and 20 hrs/wk is substantial. This has direct consequences for Vo2 max (stroke volume)…it’s not just about Vo2 max intervals. IOW, there are adaptations that simply won’t be made on shorter hours. This is the real problem for the time crunched athlete. The bigger the base, the higher you can push the power, which is why pros can push the power…their aerobic base is far more substantial. This also as repercussions when it comes to recovery. A bigger base, better recovery…and the more you can push intensity before you have to shut it down. When you can push 3.7 w/kg for 3 - 4 hrs that’s a big deal. When you can push 4.9 w/kg for 3 - 4 hrs…it is unreal…same rider, after 5 yrs riding above 750 hrs.

2 Likes

This will depend on the number of hours you ride per week on avg…or the number of hours per year. You won’t get nearly as high on 10 hrs/wk as you will on 20 hrs/wk. You are not reaching your genetic limit on 10 hrs/wk. I simply don’t buy that. The lower the hours the faster the plateau will come. That’s the sobering truth. There are adaptations that won’t be made at lower hours…especially if you aren’t doing dedicated Z2 rides. It’s a long game. Not weeks and months, but years.

I follow a few junior riders and one in particular rode nearly 1000 hours in 2020…since 2017?

336, 450, 659, 954, 847. That is an average of 650 hrs over 5 years. The boy can push 415W for 15 minutes…over 6 w/kg. He really took off in 2019, when he rode 659.

2 Likes

You are not getting the “same end result” from reduced hours with HIIT emphasis. Not long-term year-on-year results anyway. The lower the hours, the faster the plateau. The Junior riders I follow do nowhere near the level of intensity that some of these TR plans include…and yet they are MUCH stronger riders. They are riding 700, 800 and 900 hrs/yr.

If it ain’t happening after 5 years of HIIT focused TR plans? I’d say you did it wrong all along. Sure, it will make you fast pretty quickly but the ceiling won’t be very high. IOW, if I wanted to see what I really had on a five year plan I would do just what I’m doing now…high volume (700 - 800 hrs) + Z3 + Z5. When done right…“the plodding” works, because it isn’t aimless.

Moreover, improvements in efficiency (peripheral adaptations) can occur beyond 5 years. It’s more about the rate of improvement as you get closer to 10 years. The more you can train…the “more” you can train.

1 Like

I actually agree with many of your points.

Yearly training volume is incredibly important. Yes, the 1000hr athlete will crush the 250hr athlete, providing the 1000hr athlete can recover etc etc.

However… no group rides.

Why?

You are absolutely right. Few of us will have the time to train in such a way to reach our absolute genetic limit. Also, I’m sure there are rapidly diminishing returns on improvement from increased training time. As others have posted here already, a trained 10 hr week 4 w/kg rider won’t go to 5 w/kg even with 20 hrs a week.

I still think you’re wildly underplaying the effects of genetics. I completely agree that it’s very difficult for an athlete on 10hrs to compete with and athlete on 20hrs per week, all other factors being equal.

How many of the young athletes have you seen that couldn’t get their hours to the 1000hr per year mark? There’s too much variability in adaptation, recovery, and efficiency to fairly say all athletes that don’t reach 5wpkg (or whatever performance metric preferred) just purely aren’t doing enough volume.

Apologies if I’m reading too much into your comments, I do agree with the value of volume.

1 Like