I think this thread is now confusing / conflating absolute genetic performance limits with the genetic influence on the return in fitness to a training stimulus.
Not the same thing.
I’ve tipped 5 W/kg at 42 years old but don’t consider I’m at my absolute potential for a second. I don’t train enough or smarter than anyone else.
Plus W/kg is an odd measure of fitness. Losing a couple of kg doesn’t = fitter! Although it ‘may’ = faster.
I follow a few riders from the LUX development team and of the ones I follow, most are doing over 350W for 15 - 20 minutes by the time they reach 19.
Genetics do play a role I will admit. But how long do we give the young athlete on a high volume plan? 1, 2, 5, 10 years? That will make a difference. Some will improve faster, some might take longer…maybe even 12 years. As talented as “Mr. Lung” Cadel Evans was, he didn’t finally win the Tour until he was 34…many years past the time he first put a leg over a top tube. Lemond, Hinault (25 I think), Indurain (27). IOW it didn’t happen right away for even the most talented riders.
Guys like Barta, Pinot, Laverack…they came in around 5 w/kg iirc, they weren’t really all world, as most neo-pros are that are not named Pogacar. Laverack improved from 325W to 385W in 7 years as a pro…through a few injuries as well. Moreover, these guys are not specifically targeting FTP per se because they race so much. This shows that even neo-pro level riders can improve over time (past 5w/kg). Laverack’s avg hrs over 7 years was about 735.
Can you stay with a high volume (not just Z2) program for 7 - 10 years?
For me personally…and this won’t apply to all riders…I don’t see as much value in a group ride. Sure there is the social aspect of the sport, friendships and the like…but being a stone cold introvert I just do it better alone. It’s harder, especially cold night rides in the dead of winter but for me…at 52, every ride is a mission and there is no time to waste. I’m not getting any younger. I’m prepared to do what it takes…for as long as it takes. My lifestyle, life situation and work allows this…and I’m always thankful for it. I understand that most riders won’t have the same freedom at my age…or even the impetus.
I will also add that I’m strictly a time trialist so I don’t do mass-start events (road races and crits). So the primary focus year 'round is on building FTP long term.
This is probably closer to the mark.
Lol, it doesn’t take “decades” to develop an aerobic base.
And no, it doesn’t take a genetic freak to reach 4 watts/kg.
I never said that you get exactly the same end result with HIIT vs Volume. I said it’s a substitute for doing “less” volume than the extreme. The Trainerroad podcast is full of athletes doing pretty damn well on low volume plans because life gets in the way of doing big volume. Copying exactly what the pros do is not necessarily the best approach for most people.
It will be interesting to see how your personal plan pans out. Will you be able to sustain a high volume regime for the next 2 years and continue to extrapolate your performance? Only time will tell. I’m nearly 54 myself and have actually reduced volume over the last couple of years because I felt I was starting to burn out. I feel better for it and haven’t lost any power.
There are a lot of "I"s in your post. Maybe massive training volume is good for you, but it doesn’t mean that same approach will work for everyone else. A lot of amateurs over-train and burn themselves out within a couple of years if they try to emulate pro level training regimes. I’ve seen it happen and I’ve over-cooked it myself in the past. Not even many pros can sustain ludicrous training regimes for more than a handful of years. Froome commented in his first book about how he felt that his extreme training regime at the time would probably have a detrimental affect on his health in later life.
I’m on target for about 330 hours for this year and I don’t think I can push it much further without risk of burnout or injury in the long term.
Yeah not buying this at all. Started cycling at 77 kg and 220W FTP (2.86 W/kg) at covid. If I wasn’t a fatass and ate so much (now 90 kg) my 307W FTP (3.41 W/kg, would be 3.99 at 77 kg) now would put me there. I’m by no means a genetic freak, just ride 10-15 hours/wk with 2 hard days. I did peak in May at 290W FTP and 79 kg (3.67W/kg) before my chronic overeating. I can also deadlift 405 lbs and incline bench 275, so I’m by no means a cycling specific athlete either.
Maybe not “massive” volume, but more volume almost always leads to gains in fitness.
But clearly there is a limit….one of my riding buddies is putting in 500 miles / week and has been since COVID. He is not necessarily any faster now than he was before….but he can go all damn day, that is for sure.
Yeah I think more volume gains fitness, but is also harder to sustain long term. You have to find the right balance. I’ve been down the high volume path myself and it felt great for the first 12-18 months and then I hit a plateau and started to feel a bit jaded after 2 years of it. In the last couple of years I’ve had better results with a slightly lower volume overall. I don’t think I am unique in that experience.
Volume is no doubt an important aspect to endurance training but the sad fact is that most of us regular people can’t ride 1000 hours per year. That is average of 3.33 hours per day of riding six days per week - a 20 hour week. It’s only realistic if you are being paid to ride.
Genetics is my frustration. At 55 and riding 7-10 hours per week, I’m a decent rider. I have a friend who rides way less, doesn’t ride at all for weeks at a time. Then he starts riding and a few weeks later, he is way faster than me. My friend has the genetics. He rode for a while as a US domestic pro. When he was a junior he was trying out for the national team but he wasn’t quite as good as Armstrong, Hincapie, Vaughters, etc. That was the crew he was going up against at the time.
Just like any other form of training, you need to vary the stimuli st some point…volume will only get you so far at some point.
Similarly, SS will only get you so far and at some point you need to change the stimuli.
Fitness and fitness gains is constantly shifting game of Whack-A-Mole….there are some near- universal truths, but you always reach a point where you need to change things up.
For sure. That’s why I follow structured plans. A mix of volume and intensity aimed at my target events. I’m not particularly time limited with my training, but I can only sustain so much of a regular beating! For me personally, I get my best results following balanced plans with about 7-10 hours per week. I ramp that up and down at various points during the year, but it averages out at the lower end of that range. I have the time to increase my volume, but I don’t find it productive in the long run. I’m nearly 54 and I need decent recovery time. I’ve just watched the film about Davide Rebellin who is still racing at nearly 50. First thing he says is that he doesn’t ride anything like the volume he did in his younger days. Rest and recovery are now his primary focus.
Interesting…I’m 55 and I am logging the biggest miles of my athletic 'career" (~300 miles / week) and feel great. But I have always been more of a “volume responder”.
more n = 1 fuel for the fire
In 2018 and 2019 I got in over 700 hours each year, and the winter of '19-'20 I logged 300mi weeks consistently.
FTP and 5min power did not go up. But, the ability to do more did – more intervals, and I was much stronger in the last 30min of races.
Now, FTP and 5min power are the same, but it’s the stamina that has decreased.
Bigger volume boosts 5 and 20 and 60min power until it doesn’t – but then it increases how deep into the race you can hit big wattages.
On 330 hours you will have to be HIIT focused. That’s only 6 - 6.5 hrs/wk avg…and probably only around 5 - 5.5 when you factor in the total warm-up period for each week. The burnout really comes from doing too much intensity…all the time, which is a hallmark of the lower volume plans that TR offers. Too much intensity all the time is not really sustainable year-on-year. The lower the number of hours the more likely it is that this can become a serious issue long term. It is the very reason I ditched the low volume threshold model for a high volume polarized/pyramidal one. I just couldn’t get anywhere on 6 hrs/wk. I believed too much in the sweet-spot mantra from 2008 - 2018…and then I did it again following Seiler like a fool. Mistakes, mistakes, mistakes. This offseason will be the first one where I don’t give back hard won fitness doing stupid things. If I knew back in 2008 (or even 2019) what I know now I would be much further up the pole. Talking to coaches and doing a heap of research has finally helped me to SEE how this all works…and it really is a long game, with a lot of long, tough work ahead. But I’m up for it.
I’ve had a very similar experience.
I clock about 700hrs annually. All my lower duration power numbers, are what they are. They don’t move much. However, on long rides or races I’m far stronger at the end. Particularly in comparison to riders who average less training.
It’s actually quite noticeable. I’m the same as everybody, until about the 3hr mark. It’s usually about then, that the people I’m racing or riding with, noticeably fatigue. It’s a durability you don’t get from lower annual volume. Additionally, I consume vastly higher carbs than most riders, both in pivotal training sessions and racing.
Combined, it’s a noticeable difference.
Is it worth training for this difference. Probably not. I think many could be very close on half the volume. Say 350hrs a year.
High training volume, say over 600hrs a year, is only necessary if you’re racing long durations and are highly competitive. Meaning, it’s incredibly important to you or it means the difference between winning or losing. If so, have at it.
For most folks, doubling the volume from 350 to 700hrs, absolutely will not double your performance. Not even close. In fact, it’s difficult to even measure. Durability is hard to quantify in metrics. You can feel it, in relation to others more than simply looking at power numbers.
Perspective.
If you’re having to do 700hrs of annual training to get to 4.5w/kg. You’re either a little too old, late to the sport, or an average or slow responder. Genetics absolutely matter. Fast responders to endurance training will improve well beyond two times faster than average responders.
It’s important to be realistic. What are your realistic expectations?
Running a large cycling club and having friends who coach riders from learners to professionals, has given me a far more realistic and healthy relationship with goals. Both personally and in regards to other athletes.
I’ve discovered that w/kg targets are the absolute worst possible metrics to focus on, long term. They are close to irrelevant. Forums like these. Zwift and a million websites have most cyclists almost obsessed with their FTP and w/kg.
I get it. It’s fun and gives us something to aim at. However, it’s an illusion.
If you want to improve as a cyclist focus on PERFORMANCE. I don’t care what your supposed w/kg is. W/kg does not win races. Humans win races. Racers win races.
Racers with incredible skills, powerful sprints, next level bike handling etc etc. Thinking you are somehow a great cyclist because you hit some arbitrary mass vs power equation is short sighted.
Yes, of course we need to have a level of fitness to join the party. However, rarely is that single metric going to determine the result. Maybe, if you’re strictly a competitive hill climber, obsess away…
Obviously, we all like different things. Different music, different food. We all have different drivers, be that racing, social interaction or simply our own personal fitness goals.
However, based on watching a large volume of riders come in and out of the sport. The faster you learn that cycling is not just w/kg, the faster you’ll improve. The faster you’ll enjoy other aspects of the sport. The faster you’ll make new friends and experience new events.
Leave the w/kg fixation to the professionals.
Face it folks, if you ain’t over 6, you’re pretty crap anyway 
It all depends on how you are riding those 700 hours and what your specific aims are. From a progress standpoint…I think you could have a better rate of progress (long term) on more hours than you will on less hours. Pros don’t get to where they get on 350 hrs per year. And NO, I’m not comparing myself to a professional rider. I’m just saying that they have a much better platform for year on year improvement with a larger base of fitness to draw on. This creates far more flexibility for things like block periodization. The more you train…the more you can train. More can be better if done the right way for a long enough time.
Please don’t do that. Cycling is supposed to be fun and most faster people are nice human beings who’d happily wait for you at the top of a climb. And even if you are fast, there is always someone who is faster. Once you reach 4 W/kg, you are eying people with 5 W/kg. And I am sure if I ever were to reach that, then I’d still know that there is a gulf between me and a pro.
You are not your FTP, you are not your W/kg. Try to compete with yourself. Try to become a healthier, more well-rounded athlete and human being.
Nevertheless, while I am ignorant about the science that exists, doing endurance sports for decades helps, yes. As does good genetics. The latter means your soil is more fertile than others, and you see more gains more quickly. The former means you will have spent a lot of time training your body to endure. But we all started somewhere.
My advice? Focus on the process. Take yourself as your personal yardstick and do not pick goals that aren’t attainable (at least in the near term). Keep in mind that things like strength training can help you be more well-rounded, and you won’t necessarily see any improvements in your FTP. Sleep well. Be realistic about your other obligations (family, job, etc.). And most importantly: have fun. Let sports be one of your outlets that helps you balance you mentally.
I’ve been doing this since 1980, and, based on the last 41 years – agreed, agreed, agreed.
But also disagreed.
The powermeter has a purpose, even for a someone who doesn’t pin a number on (I haven’t since 2020, and I won’t in the future). When you go to the gym, you see the numbers on the plates. You know how much you’re lifting, you can set goals, you can see progress. The PM does that on the bike.
I’ll stop using a PM when I’m 60 (famous last words). I figure if I can get to 60 well fit for 60, it’s time to just ride the bike.
But, if someone – like me now – just goes out and does a lot of solo rides and uses the PM the same way a swimmer would look at the pace clock, I’m not going to criticize them for not honing their pack skills.
But, if you’re tacking on a number regularly, or doing your weekly club runs, then yes, hone your cycling skills and maybe you just set your computer for elapsed time, and don’t even look at the watts. The first ten years I raced a bike all I had was a wristwatch. I think that was a pretty good thing, actually.