heh. yeah this is what I’m talking about. at 165 I wouldn’t be walking around…I’d be dead. 
3 Likes
This is an interesting thread with a lot of thoughts of increasing volume and I’m curious of people’s thoughts.
I’m 6’6” and about 240lbs right now and trying to get back to about 220lbs, current FTP of 250w so I’m a little under 2.5w/kg at the moment but hope to be at 3.0w/kg by the end of the year.
Following a mid volume masters plan for the year with some of the endurance rides outside and some extra rides sprinkled through.
How does everyone on this thread suggest I get to 4.0w/kg
Ps get the popcorn out
1 Like
If you take an offseason, some time to build the volume back up when you start your base season, a recovery week every 4th week, taper for races, recover from races, maybe a vacation, etc., then you’re going to end up with ~550 hours for the year if your “on” weeks are 15 hours. I don’t think many amateurs average 15 hours a week or 780 hours for the entire year.
3 Likes
Agree with all that, but they are certainly out there and I know more than a handful. And 500-650 is really common for serious amateurs (at least among the ones I know and follow on strava).
Anyway, my point was that the OP is averaging ~375 hours per year and it sounds like he’s only been doing it for ~2.5 years. Saying he’s tried high volume and it didn’t work (and should reduce it in favor of intensity) is not correct in my opinion. Everyone has their own definition for high volume I guess, but that’s not mine and doesn’t jive with athletes I know. Regardless, 2.5 years is just getting started regardless of whether you are doing high volume or not. Likely lots of gains yet to be had as years/miles go into the legs.
4 Likes
My last two years (22 months). Started riding again (after a year off), TR may 19, 2022 (was probably over 100kg, 239 ramp test ftp). mid volume - Burned out in Dec (rlgl went nuts, but I did make good gains before the wheels came off). January my own thing for a while, long z2, zwift. In july did what I called the old fat guy vrtual half tour de france (3 hours riding zwift every day the tdf was on, with climb portal climb efforts to start every climby day, sprints from robopacers on sprinty days).
got Covid in Sept. Rode easy in oct/nov and tried to drop weight. Started mid-December trying to ramp up the volume.
Today, 88kg, ftp 359.
22 months, 951 hours.
intervals.icu data, 2022 was 87% z1/2 (not sure this is reliable), 2023 92% z1/2, 2024 classified as “threshold”, 50+% z1/2 ~43% z3/4 and like 1-3% z5.
2022
2023
2024
I currently have a ctl of 120+, last week was 16.5 hours, and 1010tss.
1 Like
This has been posted before, but there’s a very interesting Alan Couzens blog post about FTP and CTL. Volume vs Intensity | Alan Couzens
Bottom line: the ‘average’ guy will take a CTL of 100 to hit 4w/kg. Simplifying, that’s 700 TSS per week more or less in perpetuity.
If we mock that up as a training week, it probably looks something like 12 hours a week at 0.65IF (~500 TSS) plus a couple of hard interval sessions (~90 min and 100 TSS each).
I don’t think that many people put in that kind of training for years on end.
Those that do, however, usually turn out pretty quick.
9 Likes
Your mock-up assumes no recovery weeks.
Probably need to add 2ish hours to each loading week to allow 6ish hours less evey fourth week.
14 hours a week … paging @empiricalcycling 
Thanks for sharing, that study is pretty much dead on for me. My CTL will typically max out about a month before my A event at ~100 and my FTP will be right around 4 w/kg, maybe as high as 4.2 if I’m disciplined on my diet/weight. I guess that makes me an average responder to training, but maybe a bit above average for my age group since I’m in my mid 50’s. I never got close to 4w/kg back when I was doing <400 hours a year even though I was younger.
And while I don’t follow others’ CTL numbers, 15+ hours a week seems pretty standard during the season for strong amateurs (at least here in Texas). And many don’t drop off too much during the off season since winter is some of our best riding. At 500-600 hours a year, I’m probably top 10 in my local club in annual volume, but there are a few doing much more (like 800+ hours a year).
There’s no secret special workout approach that’s gonna get people to their genetic potential even at a relatively high 500 hours a year. More volume done in a progressive way is almost always going to drive more fitness. There is nothing fundamentally different about a pro’s physiology that makes them respond to years of huge volume training, they just have a much, much higher genetic ceiling and lots of time to train since it’s their job.
6 Likes
I love that post, and it’s really cool to see the data.
It’s worth noting though that the total variability of the trend line (which runs from ~3.2-4.5 w/kg going from no to lots of CTL) is much smaller than the variability at any specific CTL value. Relevant to this post, drawing the horizontal at 4 w/kg shows folks with basically zero CTL hitting that number, and folks sub-4 w/kg on >150CTL.
All to say, training more will definitely make you stronger, but 4w/kg is not a given, and there’s no magical amount of CTL that can guarantee that (or any) number for all.
6 Likes
I guess the real punchline is. If you want to know if you can get to 4 w/kg, get to 100+ ctl and see: 1. How close you are and 2. Do you REALLY want to get to 4 w/kg?
2 Likes
Pretty much!
Again, it’s a Couzens-ism (though I think disputed by others in the field) that most ‘non-responders’ are actually non-responders to low/moderate volume and relatively high intensity.
I think there was a Ronnestad study where the phenomenon of non-responders went away when they just increased the number of (the same) workouts per week.
Some people just need a bigger dose.
1 Like
I’d add that there are two completely different 4w/kg.
-
one would achieve this as a peak, somewhere in the season.
-
another is having 4w/kg always. You gravitate around this 4w / kg for a few years, having 4.5 in peak, 3.8 off-season and so on.
The second type is usually related to consistency, year after year doing this schedule you posted.
7 Likes
There’s an interesting podcast with James Spragg that deals indirectly with this subject, now I come to think of it. If I remember correctly, he was saying that he has spotted a pattern in many of the recreational riders who come to him for coaching. That is, they take up cycling, decide they like it, and end up on a training plan that usually looks like 8-10 hours of riding a week where they do a lot of ‘sort of hard’ stuff.
They typically improve quickly, then more slowly, but just about all of them plateau within 2-3 years, often less. When he tests those riders, the picture is always very similar: MAP is usually pretty good, but threshold is lower than expected for a given MAP, and LT1 is often awful.
The fix/way forward he prescribes is typically a long period of low intensity and high volume, with typically no more than 1 intensity session a week. He also advocates very long (5hr +), very easy (<60% FTP) rides.
I’ll see if I can find the link.
Edit: it’s The Scientific Triathlon show. I fear I may be mixing his ideas (or conflating them) with Marinus Petersen on the same podcast, but their message is nonetheless pretty consistent.
5 Likes
Endurance is 
Yep, this describes precisely me. Have reached 4+ W/kg twice:
- “sort of hard” (original TR SSBHV plans) – 2-3 years
- enforced “fix” phase due leg injury (my own plans similar to new TR master’s base plans) – 2 years
But with either approach, plateaued same W/kg due my own poor planning: not enough roof raising with systematic VO2max progression. Currently trying to fix this part to move forward again.
Have to say, 2nd approach is certainly more sustainable and improves overall fitness, not focusing just on FTP. I simply reached to limit of available time.
2 Likes
If @the_cog were still here I think he would get a fit if he saw that graph like that. You cannot compare ctl between people, this graph only shows the ctl by w/kg not the other way around
The R^2 is only .21!! That means that CTL only explains 21% of the variance in w/kg among athletes. I wonder what variable(s) could be added to get a better fit. Also it’s hard to tell just by looking at a picture of the chart, but I think there are significantly more data points below 4.0 w/kg at 100 CTL than above.
4 Likes
Plus there is that one dot on the chart with a 30 ctl and a >6watt/kg! They had the right parents.
2 Likes
That’d be that junior who just started riding, then shows up to the fast group ride and destroys everyone.
2 Likes