Some people will make significant progress almost whatever they do until they reach a very high level (they are ‘positive’ outliers).
Most people will see a response that is broadly consistent with volume/training time over a long period.
Some people will see little improvement almost regardless of what they do (the ‘non-responders’). That said, the notion of non-responders is disputed, the argument being that everyone will respond to enough volume, just that some need a LOT.
If you want to reach 4w/kg, and you’re not obviously a high responder (hint: you know pretty quickly if you are, and 4w/kg is probably already in your rear-view mirror), you almost certainly need to ride more. How much more no one can tell you, unfortunately
But I actually find the chart by Couzen to show a relativly weak effect of CTL on w/kg
CTL is only a 6-week weighted average of TSS-based training load. Not many people are going couch to 4w/kg within 6weeks of riding a bike.
Again, I’d really like to see the association between long-term training volume (say total hours over a 2-5y period, not even TSS) and FTP. I suspect that and age are going to have R^2 at least in the same ballpark as that 20% that CTL has. Consistency is probably up there too in terms of importance as a variable but that’s probably more complicated to measure.
I think you could probably make a model that uses CTL, long term training volume, age, and consistency that would be able to predict FTP with pretty good accuracy.
Think it’d really be predictive? I bet it’d correlate well, but I think there’s big variability even among folks for whom those metrics all match.
Actual question, what do you think the baseline variability in FTP is? Like, if you took 100 untrained people, say you roughly matched for age and body size (lean mass of ~140lbs or something) and had them do an FTP test, what range of values would you get? What if that same group now trained on a LV plan for 6 weeks? For a year?
I think the variability would be pretty huge. And I think lots of training and consistency can shift that whole bell curve, with some responding more than others, but it remains a pretty wide spread.
TR has that data, but it’s probably not in their interest to publish it. A big part of TR’s DNA (in my opinion) is “train smarter, not longer” to get faster. I think that is accurate to a point and probably an appealing message to TR’s target audience (time crunched athletes it seems). But obviously, if you take the smart/consistent training approach and increase the volume, the results are going to be better in almost all cases. If the data shows a strong correlation between more volume and higher FTP (which is almost certainly the case), that’s not an uplifting message for an athlete trying to be competitive when their training time is very limited.
I have the impression though that volume needs a minimum level on intensity though, like if you do 12 hours a week at 0.56 IF, your CTL would still be pretty low despite lots of hours, (Griffin x6 = 378 TSS), that would give CTL of 54 (which in the ball park of where I run with 7-10 hours a week most recently).
What I am shooting for it to work up to ~7-8 hours Z2 in 0.60 to 0.65 range with 2-3 hours of intensity, hoping to get >450 TSS and CTL >65.
From my experience, I fear if I only did Z2 and just did a ton of hours, anytime the intensity ramped up I would get cooked and would have no snap or responsiveness on the pedals. Perhaps someone could achieve a higher FTP without that capacity though than if they are trying to maintain that sharpness and increase their FTP?
Yep, totally agree. When I refer to volume, I think of that being inclusive of intensity (ie - volume = time * intensity). And while I’m sure you can get to a high w/kg just pushing a ton of Z2, a little time in the higher zones will move that along and is also really helpful in actual riding/racing.
Plus, we have to think in real world riding, where the variables, mostly intensity, is highly variable due to terrain, wind, group, etc.
So even though if one only does z2 rides outside as a volume-driver, there’s going to be some work in z3, z4. I’m not saying specific vo2 though, only a few sprinkles here and there.
I think this is an area where TSS isn’t necessarily comparing like with like, insofar as (to my mind) it’s a better measurement of how fatiguing an effort is rather than how great the stimulus is. It also ignores the compounding and possible metabolic effects (without wishing to open the fatmax can of worms) of just spending more time exercising.*
I strongly suspect that 12 hours/week at (only) ~0.6 would generate improvement in a lot of athletes. In fact, in the ISM thread, isn’t there mention of studies where athletes have done more or less only z2 but seen improvements in 5 to 20 minute power?
*100% anecdata, but my dad recently went into hospital for a planned minor procedure. He’s 75. While he’s never been an ‘athlete’, he has walked for an average of an hour a day since retiring 14 years ago. Pre-surgery, they recorded his RHR at 55 and his BP at 115/70. The medic checking him said they never see those numbers outside athletes coming in for injury repairs, and was 100% convinced that it was his walking. A bit OT, but I’m convinced that there’s magic in volume, especially consistent volume over time, and that intensity is a bit overrated.
I wouldn’t say it is overrated, but I think it can be overemphasized.
A better way of thinking about it is volume (especially over time) is the cake and intensity is the icing. The majority of the cake is built through volume, but the best and tastiest part of the cake is the icing, but that comes at the end.
Latest test for me was 3.95 W/Kg on 4 hours a week (TR low volume). ~40 years old living and training at moderate high altitude between 5,600 and 8,500 ft for most rides. Not-adjusting FTP for sea level equivalent.
As I’ve said many times in these threads before, I’m not arguing that I wouldn’t be faster with more volume, just that low volume allows me to hit a reasonable level of fitness with minimal time commitment. I have no impressive athletic background, was computer nerd who played video games rather than sports until I picked up cycling in my mid 20s. Have been riding relatively regularly, some years more, others purely occasionally for fun, for about 15 years now.
Can’t speak for others, I’ve been giving updates on AI FTP calculations. I’ve only done one ramp test since AI FTP rolled out and it matched my calculation but I haven’t done one in a while so
For weight I do regular weigh in’s and track trends via Garmin Index.
I started cycling (more than just 20 minute commutes several times a week) in 2020. My longest ride in 2020 was 30km and during 2021 I was getting into it more and more. Did my first 100km, nearly died with a weird little crash, and Dec’21 bought some power meter pedals. First FTP test (on a dumb trainer with the pedals) was 136w - because I was off the bike for 3 months after the aforementioned crash. Quickly went up to around 170w and sat there for most of 2022. Did my first 100miles in 2022 and by the end.of the year FTP was around 200w.
Last year I had high hopes, started the year well but then had a kidney infection and it really held me back. Despite that I completed my first 200km ride and a sprint triathlon. By November 2022 my FTP was up to 240w. Oh, by this point I should say I weigh 67kg. I’m 38yr Male and have been 67kg for as long as I can remember, rarely fluctuate. So this takes me to 3.58w/kg by this time.
This year I had a very strong January on Zwift and then signed up to TR in March. My first TR ramp test was 247w and since then AI detection has suggested a couple of watts extra but I’ve ignored given it’s so close. However, I did a climb portal of Zwift last week and intervals.icu picked up a new FTP - up to this point interval has pretty much tracked with by FTP through Garmin and now TR. On this climb I held 295w for 20minutes, so intervals.icu suggested a new FTP of 287w or 4.28w/kg.
I have a long sportive on Sunday (216km with over 3,500m of climbing) so I’ve not done any ramp test, but hoping to validate after a few rest days. Will be interesting to see if it’s not an anomaly. It would mean a step from final ramp being 320 up to around 380. Seems like a lot. Has anyone else had any experience of jumps like this?
