Volume is empire.
If we were making an absolute training priority list, how would it go?
For fun, what many of the cyclists I encounter think will make them faster…
Volume without consistency seems pointless. Otherwise I could take a week off work, do 300km everyday then sit on the sofa for 4 weeks getting faster.
Yeah, I sort of agree.
I think it is more valueable to do 5 hours each week, rather than 15 the one and then two weeks of nothing.
Besides that I feel that Recovery is determined by the combination of Volume and Intensity.
5 is just a by-product, and 7 is almost irrelevant.
I would also rank consistency ahead of volume, at least up to the point that you’re riding 6-7 days a week.
Maybe “structured volume” instead of “volume”
And “If everyone else would stop getting testosterone injections for Low T from their doc” for your lower list 
If you are training then you already have consistency. Pointing out that consistency is as important or more important than volume is missing the point. It’s like saying that structure or planning is more important than volume. It is obviously important but if you are training then you already have structure, a plan, and so on. If you don’t, then you’re just working out. Consistency, structure, goals, planning, these are things that are either there or not. Volume, intensity and frequency can be changed.
I’m going to go to train for 2 weeks and I’ll get back to you.
What if you’re riding only 3 or 4 days per week? I wouldn’t really call that “consistency”?
Anyway, I think the key point is that until you’re on the bike 6-7 days per week, you have more to gain by training more frequently than by just going longer on the fewer days you are riding.
Anyway, I think the key point is that until you’re on the bike 6-7 days per week, you have more to gain by training more frequently than by just going longer on the fewer days you are riding
Interesting. So let’s say someone is riding four days a week for an hour. Do you think riding six days a week for an hour provides more benefit than sticking with four days, but making two days a two-hour ride? I would say that the latter will provide more benefit.
We’re splitting hairs here about whether we need to include the word “consistency” but the point is have structure and follow it, don’t miss workouts, etc. That’s more of a training principle rather than a specific workout goal, so I can see why it wouldn’t be included but I think all cyclists can use the reminder that consistency is important.
Bro-science-y
Bro-science-y
Just making sure opinion isn’t misrepresented as fact
Thanks
I’d pick the former, but that’s just my opinion.
Ha! It seems that we are in agreement on that.
What about riding 4 days and running 2 days per week? Would that meet the consistency guideline?
If you’re triathlete or duathlete.
As the saying goes, though, jack of all trades, master of none.
You’re right, describing it as “frequency” is probably better.
In that regard, it is my opinion that letting more than a day go by between workouts works against you more often than it works for you.
I always thought triathletes looked better in a swimsuit than an emancipated cyclist.
Yes frequency is important probably for its own sake but also because increasing frequency is a great way to increase volume. The high volume plans are also high frequency, and that’s no accident.
My own N=1 experience is I gain more from your second option then option 1. Longer rides in general I found helped a lot more then just being on the bike more. The option may change if the volume is at a different level then just being 6 hours and what intensity you are riding at. Lots of variables
