Given the information provided in your original post I stand by my recommendation. You provided none of that context and I was trying to caution a more gradual return to that volume
As with everythingā¦it depends
Thereās no universal correct answer
Making them. Iām my own data scientist. Here is another one:
- yellow = sFTP (my ftp estimates - 4 week moving average)
- grey = volume / duration (4 week moving average)
- black = HR time at high-intensity (4 week moving average)
What do you think of my volume-and-intensity tradeoff? Iām thinking ~15-30 minutes of weekly high-intensity is minimum effective dose when pushing 6-8.5 hours/week. If you look at late-2016 to mid-2017, the only impact (not shown) of pushing 1 hour intensity on similar volume was an increase in anaerobic repeatability (you gotta go with ābecause I felt it and can show it on some ridesā bro science data).
When Iām happy with a few of these WKO charts, will post on my WindWarrior GitHub account with explanations on how to use (e.g. Iāve got estimated/relative vo2max in that chart but not enough good model data to turn it on when viewing 2015 to present).
2 Likes
Fair point, and think we have slightly different interpretations of the take-away message.
The graph is not intended to predict at (exactly) what point you (or anybody else) will burn out. But this forum is filled with comments about how to survive one more interval, or what music helps to push just a little harder. The graph helped me to realize that is not a direction that leads to significant gains, but it does increase risk of burn-out. As I have personally experienced.
So before getting lost in all kinds of details, it helped me to understand where I am on the curve and what direction I am going. And a training methodology that drives me vertically upwards in a straight line is not something I am going to consider again.
5 Likes
- There is at least some difference with those examples that relate more to āmicroā level items in the moments of workouts themselves or individual workouts.
- Your chart is āmacroā level with an apparent 4 week timeframe.
Main point being that if we take your chart and try to step down to that small level, I think itās an incorrect assessment to say that āworking too hardā is the mistake that leads to burnout. There are components and mixtures here, which require looking at the fine details but also the greater picture.
We know that there is a line to cross that causes issues like burnout. But ripping 2 āhardā workouts per week with aids like you mention may be the right mix for people, while a gateway to problems for others.
Summaries like yours help to frame that larger picture, but they also lack sufficient detail that is important and useful in itās own right. So much of the āit dependsā¦ā reality is necessary to emphasize even with the good that can come from reviews like this.
1 Like
IME, itās probably mostly from dilution of increasing the amount of Z2. Going from 8hr/wk to 13-15, the amount of intensity I do is approximately the same but Iāve added 5hr of endurance riding to the mix. And that seems to be similar to what Iāve heard from coaches of even higher volume athletes.
The exception being the athletes/coaches that will do some block periodization and do some huge VO2 block for 2-3 weeks where their avg IF might be much higher. But they would then do a ton of rest which would bring that long term average back down.
1 Like
Iām going to have buckle down and learn to program WKO5 some day. I could probably ask chat gpt for help. 
I seem to recall 20 minutes of time in zone for intervals popping up frequently in literature.
A lot of this kind of stuff is a little depressing. Kolie Moore often mentions volume being a big limiter.
So if all roads lead to Rome, and we are performance limited by volume, then us 6-7-8 hour per week folks can basically ride endurance and do one or two workouts per week and call it a day. Your FTP is going to land where it lands. The biggest challenge is not doing too much and managing fatigue.
Thereās no magic interval or intensity distribution that is going to give one 20-30% more FTP.
5 Likes
Filter that down to a T-Shirt sized bullet listā¦ and you have yourself a winner!
- Is āRide, Eat, Sleep, Repeatā taken
1 Like
Blockquote
I understand that as you increase volume, then IF needs to go down on average. However, I donāt really understand the relevance to w/KG on this graph? Surely volume vs w/kg is going to be radically different for all of us based on genetics.
Whatās the deal with all these threads attacking TR, lately? Good for you, if you have time to train 10+ hours per week (and many hours to analyze your training), but in that case TR is not the optimal product for you. Theyāre very open about recommending a low volume plan for the vast majority of customers and TR is pretty clearly marketed towards time crunched cyclists juggling training with a busy life.
Workout levels and alternatives have made it easier than ever to make adjustments to your plan, if itās too taxing or too easy. You just have to be honest with yourself and do it.
āTrust the processā and āconsistency is keyā might be overused Amberisms, but itās working out for me.
I have been training (pretty much off the couch) exclusively and consistently with TR low volume plans since late 2020 and occasional outdoor rides, avaraging 4 to 4.5 hours/week.
My FTP went from 230 to 313. Yes, I am plateauing and am also struggling to be competitive at long fast rides > 4 hours, but thatās expected with this amount of training volume. My goal now is to lose 4kg and raise my FTP by 3 watts to hit 4w/kg. If it takes another year, thatās cool too.
Iāve been checking out the competition but see no reason to switch, because at least for me, TR just works 
6 Likes
Imagine each one of those W/kg lines is the center of a bell curve. Itās just saying the average 3.2w/kg cohort falls along that line. There is of course a distribution on either side.
More useful to look at the w/kg curves as what it takes on average to get to that level. You can offset them based on your own data if you want.
1 Like
Do you think it is possible to draw conclusions like, 10h at 0.6 IF leads to similar results as 8h at 0.75 IF? They are on the same curve. That would help answering the age-old question of how much volume you can replace with intensity, for the time-crunched.
3 Likes
How I interpreted the graph is that typically for any threshold (w/kg) thereās a limit to how much training you can do at any given IF. The more endurance in your training, the lower the average IF of total training as you do more volume. For example, if youāre time crunched and doing 3 sessions at high IF and one endurance session at low IF, youāre at a high average IF for total training and near the burnout line. Too much intensity is bad, especially for time crunched. Thereās no base endurance and resilience.
The higher w/kg folks are likely training at a higher volume (which is usually required for maintaining higher fitness), and the total average IF will be lower, despite them doing more high intensity work than someone with a much lower threshold and lower workout resiliency.
I dont think you can infer that from this graph. Itās about tolerable work limits, not really growth or performance.
1 Like
Itās called an intensity ceiling.
We all have an intensity ceiling for our average weekly training volume. It varies greatly from individual to individual. Itās related to genetics, fiber type, training history, sleep, nutrition, stress and a billion other metrics.
Once you hit it, more intensity will not improve you. In fact it will very likely burn you out.
Itās an aerobic sport, more volume, usually at a low intensity is often the next step.
Very few companies, training programs etc spell out the simple truth. If you want to be your best, you will have to invest massive time. There really is no other way around it.
That being said, how much better?
If youāre 4w/kg on 8hrs a week, is going to say 4.3w/kg worth the extra 4hrs a week?
The gains are definitely diminishing returns. Particularly, beyond 12-15hrs a week.
Volume is not king in cycling, itās empire.
No you will not win the Tour de France doing sweet spot intervals 3 times a week. The more I use this forum the more I see the repeated cycle of new athletes searching for the same answers.
The whole thing could be much easier for everyone if there was just a top level forum post that just explained the simple truth.
There is no hack, there is no magical interval.
You need to ride a hell of a lot to be your best.
It would save everyone hundreds of wasted hours.
Facts.
Meanwhile, Iām going to start another Z2 thread 
15 Likes
I kind of disagree.
Volume is king. The more you do, the more you can do. Most here seem donāt seem to be maxing out their volume. Theyāre maxing out their intensity to a point they canāt add low intensity volume. They plateau and only get to the same point year after year. Or small growth. I donāt think you can ever grow long term if you only do 2-3 hard workouts a week and hardly any other volume. It almost seems as if sweetspot training is detrimental long-term.
The only people fit enough to ride TdF are doing 30 hours a week. If anyone here went from time crunched to 10 hour low-intensity and then to 20 hours on to 30 hours, never going over 0.6IF, that would be one hell of a case study. The improvements would be astronomical. Only after you plateau from low intensity volume is when you start adding hard intervals.
People think low intensity is noodling around. I donāt think so. If someone goes from 5 hours a week (3 low intensity, 2 high intensity) to 8 hours a week with only 1 hour high intensity , there would be improvements on about the same TSS with less fatigue over time. Iād argue that time crunched folks need to optimize their life to get more low intensity in. Just ride slow and multitask.
Iām too inconsistent to get grow to some crazy training volume. But Iād be super interested in watching someone try.
1 Like
Iāve got a proper stand up desk over my bike on the trainer. I work from homeā¦have been considering doing like 50-60% ftp rides a couple hours a day during the time I need to do busy work on the computer. Iāve also been thinking about dropping down to just 2 intense days a week. Only time Iāve ever done a significant amount of zone 2 is the TR low volume traditional base plan.
Iād think 50-60% FTP would be too low of intensity. 50-60% max hr would be my target. HR and RPE would be my guide and power would fall into place. Work at the lowest intensity to keep increasing stroke volume and when that doesnāt work anymore, add 5-10% intensityā¦rinse and repeat trying to get RHR down as low as possible.
Iām not sure I followā¦thatās doesnt seem to add up. 50-60% of max heart rate equals wattage much less than 60% ftp for me.
2 Likes