I bet if you could know untrained VO2 Max or some other correlate of genetic giftedness, then apply a function based on CTL you’d get a pretty clean relationship to W/Kg. Just make all participants completely quit training for a year, then test, then get BACK to training for a year (or more), then plot it. Simple!
Maybe no special sauce or training, but some people have a much higher rate of adaption than others. More evident in other sports like weightlifting, where you really see the difference in response between two people doing exactly the same.
Take a look at this guy! Yes he did a lot of volume, but that is quite the improvement over just one year!
“I trained like a pro cyclist for 365 days”
From some of the stuff I’ve read, vo2max isn’t as good of a predictor as we might think. I can’t remember the study, but someone had looked at pro cyclists vo2max numbers and while none of them had poor vo2max, there were some very strong riders with fairly pedestrian vo2max numbers. Its seems that “efficiency” (which determines how our vo2 max translates into power) if often lower in people with really high vo2max. They didn’t claim to know if there were physiological things at odds with each other causing this or if it’s just uncommon to hit the “double jackpot”, but it seems that most cyclists had a balance between efficiency and v02max and very few were elite in both.
The CTL relationship to W/KG is interesting, but certainly not a clean comparison when looking at a general population. You could have someone in their first year of cycling hitting 100ctl who are barely scratching the surface of their genetic potential. You could also have a pro who is way below 100ctl during the off season, but is still at 5.5w/kg. I didn’t dig into that post enough to know how the population was gathered, but there are almost always weirdness in the population that can be misleading. But if you look at a big enough slice of data, the general trend line should still hold true (ie - more training load is typically going to result in higher w/KG). Whether 4w/kg happens at 80 or 120CTL is dependent on many things (some controllable, some not).
Always worth remembering that over the long haul CTL is likely going to trend to about 8 × average weekly hours for pretty much everyone, because average IF trends to about 0.8. Or 0.75. Or thereabouts. You get the idea.
So, if there’s a correlation between CTL and wkg then there’s going to be the same correlation btwn hours in the saddle and wkg.
FWIW I am inching in on 4w/kg with TR low volume plans. I’ve been pretty consistent with training since late 2020 (pretty much off the couch, FTP 220). With occasional outdoor rides I am averaging just above 4 hours per week. 40 years old, FTP is set to jump above 320 with next AI detection. Weight is 83,5kg. 324W @81kg seems within reach.
I remember my Garmin watch showing a running VO2max of 37 back in 2020. Cycling VOmax now is in the high 50s.
I think this is incredibly biased on your own personal experience and perception.
The problem with weight in cycling is that people want to lose it. For that you need to be in a caloric deficit. If you are in a caloric deficit your training will suffer.
But OP is already low weight, he doesn’t need to lose weight. But gaining weight isn’t gonna make him faster. Especially upper body muscles in cycling isn’t gonna do much. But even on the legs, look at pros, they push double your watts at half the thigh size. If anything, training for strength rather than hypertrophy for the lower body will do more for OP in terms of w/kg than “bulking up”. Cycling isn’t gym.
Welp. looks like you’re one of those people. 
Does < 5 hours a week of exercise. Stays trim, has the same fitness level as people that spend 12 hours a week training.
but…I’m unnaturally handsome, at least I think so. 
I’d understand that if you are starving yourself and running a big deficit to drop weight quickly. But that is not my experience when running a small deficit and training hard. I am almost always dropping weight when I’m training my hardest during build. At some point, if you are burning enough calories, it’s just hard to replace them all if you aren’t constantly eating junk. Maybe my training is suffering and I just don’t know it, but I’ve never seen any study that says you have to be tired or your training has to suffer just because you are losing weight. I’ve actually seen some studies that contradict that a bit with people losing fat and overall body weight while gaining muscle and doing it in a healthy way.
Typically, your training suffers when you allow your glycogen stores to get depleted. There is no reason you can’t keep your glycogen at a reasonable level while running a calorie deficit. Remember, when you are on the bike, you are not just burning glycogen, it’s always a mix of fat and glycogen. If you burn 1k calories worth of fat and 1k calories worth of glycogen during a ride and replenish 1.8k of that, your body is going to prioritize replenishing the glycogen before replaces the fat you burned. That’s a bit of a simplistic view and I’m sure there are other moving pieces, but that’s how it’s been explained to me by folks much smarter than me. And it seems to align with what I experience in training.
Would be interested in reading more about that, I’ve heard the calories in, calories out thing is far more complex and individual but haven’t really heard an explanation that clarified further.
As for the rest of the thread, this is the first time I’ve felt like I’m not below average given I have been running ~4.0 w/kg for a few months with a CTL mainly in the 40s to low 50s. Hoping to bump up the hours over the course of this year, have always figured something like 4.3 would be unrealistic for me but, given my TSS/hours are still relatively low compared to others at 4.0, maybe I could get there.
I wonder if maybe I should be focusing less on progressing my Sweet spot, VO2 and Threshold workouts with increasing PL workouts and instead hold them static week to week while instead trying to increase Z2 volume and intensity.
For example right now I’m doing ~6h Z2 + 2-3 hours of intensity SS to VO2, 8 to 9 hours.
The focus has been increasing the PL of the 3 hour Z2 ride (this week should be Seathwaite 0.62) and the PL of my intensity rides (SS, Threshold, VO2), the other 3 hours of Z2 is Macdonald x2 (1h30 0.60, a recent increase from Epaulet 1h15 at 0.61).
If its all about the TSS/volume should I prioritize increasing time in that 0.60-0.62 Z2 area get it from the recently reached 6 hours to 7 hours (getting me to 9-10 hours a week with my intensity workouts) or increasing the intensity of that 6 hours of Z2 to 0.65?
*edit as reading through the Couzens blog above
The blog seems to suggest to prioritize getting >12 hours a week… or getting that CTL from the 40s-50s to a 100+. At the same time, I seem to recall the Bonk Bros guys recently comparing CTLs that were in the 90s (not ~150 as the blog suggests to hit 4.5w/kg).
Interesting that the calculator suggests my FTP should be ~218 at a weight of 59kg with ~50 CTL, for every 10 CTL I add it suggests an increase in FTP of 3-4 watts.
Yeah, you can read for days and there are a lot of moving parts and opinions/studies often seem to contradict each other from what I’ve seen. I’m far from an expert, but the common theme I see with many of the studies is that bad things can happen when people try to dump weight quickly. Calories in vs. calories out still holds true, but dramatically limiting your calories in also reduces your calories out as it messes with metabolism and is likely to make you exercise less (because you’re messing with glucose/energy levels as well with a big deficit). My big take-away from all of it is that you don’t need to starve yourself or be tired to lose weight, but you have to be patient with that approach.
Hard to go wrong adding volume as long as you have the time and your body can absorb it. I wouldn’t get so wrapped up in exact power targets (.6, .65, etc.), just start with whatever your body seems happy with. For me, some days that means .6 IF if the legs are heavy, other days it might be at .75. The most important thing is that these rides are adding “gentle” training stress and shouldn’t affect the quality of your hard days. It may take some time to dial it in, but err on the side of easier to start (particularly when you have a hard day the following day). My favorite place to add Z2 is actually onto the front/back of an intensity workout. For me, an hour of Z2 warmup makes the intervals feel easier and I love the feel or spinning Z2 for an hour or so after wrapping up v02max or threshold intervals (Z2 feels like a soft recovery spin after those hard intervals).
Thats a good idea, right now to get a lot of my Z2 in and weekly volume I’m depending on my 3-3.5 hour Saturday Z2 ride but once racing starts I will have several consecutive weekends off the bike Saturday to be ready for the Sunday race.
I’m unclear on the minimum effective dose debate on Z2 but if its following an intensity workout, even 30 mins at 0.65 would be beneficial would it not?
I’m not clear either, but common sentiment seems to be anything incremental is beneficial as long as you aren’t hurting the quality of your intensity days. That’s one of the reasons I like to add it to my interval days. I typically have an easy day between my interval days and I’m much more careful about keeping that easy day easy and not adding too much volume. If I add a little too much volume on an interval day, I still have time to recover before the next interval day.
Plenty of coaches will talk about intermittent calorie deficits.
For example, Ferrari (who wanted his riders spectre thin) would never let them spend more than 2 weeks in a deficit.
Something else you’ll see with modern teams is that the riders will fuel to recover from longer and/or harder rides, but will reduce carbs at other times.
Agree with this. Also worth considering some double days if you have the time and can recover
I’ll typically do intervals first thing in the morning and then a Z2 spin in the evening knowing the following day will normally be a lighter day. Yesterday, for example, ~100 mins including VO2 intervals in the morning, 100 minutes at .70 outside (finally!) in the evening
For all the genetics and CTL/volume discussion, I think the OP being lightweight maximises their chances of hitting 4w/kg.
I’m just an average club rider and racer. I suppose you gravitate to riding with those of a similar standard but the 6 or 7 guys I ride with regularly are mostly around 4w/kg, and none of us do more than about in the range of 5-10hours a week. And all in the 65-75kg weight range. None of us are particularly special or athletically gifted. Consistency over a period of years has probably paid off though. Not just a dash for a high FTP, lose interest for a few months and then pick it up again. Like people who struggle yo-yo dieting.
Of the guys I know that are heavier than that, they are left needing to hit monstrously large FTP numbers to get 4w/kg. And for someone 6ft plus then the opportunity to healthily drop weight will be limited. Not something the OP has to contend with tho.
I’m with @grwoolf on this one. It IS simplistic to say you can’t lose weight and improve, it’s just a little more tricky and you have to pay attention.
Some good discussion on this one in the recent podcast. You DO need to get enough protein every day, and you DO need to keep your Glycogen stores topped off and replenished. If you’re getting your protein and taking in what you burn in carbs / glycogen, there’s still room to be in a caloric deficit where the balance comes from fat loss.
For most people, we’re carrying way more fat than we need, so allowing your BF% to come down by losing fat can be a good thing.
Yeah I’m a current testament to this. Just hit my record 20min power in a zwift race last week at 340w after losing 7kgs (90>83kg). If you have excess body fat/weight I can’t see why doing both at the same time, while keeping carbs high isn’t achievable.
I ran a 500cal deficit every day since the end of Jan to lose it and it’s felt sustainable. Only diet principles i’ve followed is protein around 150g per day and minimal fat. Trying to keep carbs high at all times has really helped, and quit the booze. Tracked all my calories daily along with weighing myself on a withings scale that synced to my phone automatically to keep myself accountable.
Imagine it’s good to do weight loss in blocks, and give yourself a break, which im planning on doing now
I didn’t say it is impossible. I said the problem is being undercaloric and training at the same time. Because to get that balance right is difficult, even pros get it wrong. Mohoric talked about it. Look at Froome and his obsession with weight. If his nutrition was up to current standards he very likely would have much better performances post crashes than he ended up having.
The difference is they are already very lean compared to non-professional athletes. The rest of us can easily lose weight whilst getting stronger if we pay attention and are sensible with the pace of loss we aim to achieve.