Not to be rude but a few months of n=1 is really not enough for your body to do anything beyond neuromuscular adaptation. That’s meaningless in comparison to a decade of seasons of 14hr a week base build training and racing and coaching and camps and pro support. I’m not trying to put you down - Christ - I couldn’t do 14 a week - even at peak I’m doing 8-10!
I did read the Coggan discussion on ST but couldn’t help but wonder if it was bloody ages ago before tons of improvements and testing that demonstrates a larger capacity to improve vo2 max (which he guessed FTP from, and based it up average weight of population not average weight of training population).
There’s also the self selection bias (people with capacity for endurance exercise tend towards endurance exercise).
Like the wkg table we all look at - still relevant?
But maybe my view is warped by the local riding culture where I am - most of the cat 4s at my local 2/3/4 are at least 4-4.5.
For longer indoor rides, I start with 1 to 2 min standing sessions every 15 to 10 min. Helps to use slightly different muscles and give my saddle a break. Rocker plate helps.
Tangent sorry but Kolie Moore recently did a 2 part pod cast with Coggan and in the second one he talks about how that table came about and it’s relevance. You might be interested
I think he also notes that advanced cyclists might need 5hour rides to progress, but for the simple mortals you can already get a decent amount of effect after 1 to 1.5 hrs. Following the law of diminishing returns, it makes then for better use of limited time to spread it out over multiple 1-1.5 hr rides.
I’ve also trained for years at 10-12 per week on high volume plans, so it’s not like I’m coming out of nowhere, I’ve just been doing more z2 volume this year. Initially 12-14 over winter and spring and summer has been 14-16. It’s great to ride and I’m in good shape but as far as w/kg I have barely budged from 4ish in the past couple of years. Depending on the plan I might be able to eke out a few more but def not enough to ever get me to 5. it takes the right combo of training and genetics to get there closer to the pointier end of the bell curve, im in the middle and ok with that. We can’t all be genetically gifted in that way!
According to the ACC Podcast two weeks ago, only 15% of TR athletes are 4 w/kg or faster (it was one of the trivia questions), so it sounds like you’re well above the middle of the curve.
There is also a reason that not every pro rider is a climber. Even for people that are gifted and in shape with low body fat, being tall and having a bulky body type makes the highest W/kg out of reach.
i also believe that the “job” of being a pro rider is a niche within many niches (lol). when millan talks about the prevalence of type 2 diabetes in the population, so many folk are at lactate threshold just walking up the stairs. lets give ourselves credit for being well up the niche ladder.
That is also my goal for my next base approach. But when you reed some books like Friel’s training bible and Thomas Chapelle Base Building. They set there endurance rides around LT1 (like ISM). But I thought we should also do some easier base rides? 60% FTP kinda stuff? When I will be doing 12-15h Z2, I cannot do it all at ISM Z2 so maybe do some easier base rides too.
I am now following a schedule using Join. The endurance work is not all flat at 75% FTP, I am also seeing long rides that use 60% as a base intensity, and have intervals at 75%.
I found the GCN video interesting. I’m in off season with 2.5 weeks to go ending 2wkg over my 75.5kg race weight and lower in power at 3.62wkg from 3.8-4. I’m blaming this on my own ambivelance caused by postponed races, although I did train well.
Starting last week November then, my coach has asked me to think of shorter XCO to 4hr races -rather than 6hr to 12hr - to give me more variety but also change up my training for shorter power. A change is as good as a rest etc. The GCN vid seems a good way to help me mentally - no calories tracking, a deference to whole foods and no picking at the peanuts before bedtime.
As I read it in the 5th Edition, the AE2 was ISM style :-). So therefore I was wondering if you should only do base ridings at that (high Z2-low Z3) tempo. But as you said, my goal is to do the shorter endurance rides at the ISM pace, and the longer ones, just 60-65%. It is still good endurance training those easier rides. Must be beneficial…
I don’t think that quite was I was saying, but a bit more like 90% of healthy male cyclists under 40 if they were given unlimited training time, no significant additional life stressors, did not get significantly injured at any point, sufficient financial resources to support the lifestyle and diet required and had perfect motivation for a decade (which is what the guy did).
The point I’m making is more that I’d be incredibly surprised by any amateur who, upon stating “I’m at my genetic limit and this is the genetic limit for most people”, doesn’t have some kind of exogenous limit to their performance, and when people point at success and say “that’s just genetics”, they are often (understandably) managing their own ego, but undermining the hard work and dedication put in by the subject, rather than applauding and being inspired by it.
Has anyone got a link to the coggan discussion of the wkg table? Be interested to hear the discussion. Not that it really matters or anything. I only really came in here because every year I’ve invested into TR I’ve burnt out, but then I’ve never really properly carbed the fuck up for the mass sweetspot they demand either. Exogenous limits right.
Andy Coggan joins the podcast again to discuss everything we didn’t get to in the previous episode. We get back stories behind the adaptations by training zones chart and the category and w/kg chart. We also go in depth with nitrate supplementation, vo2max training. if burning fat makes you burn more fat, if signaling studies translate to performance, and the nature of adaptation itself. There are plenty of pithy proverbs along the way.
I feel like you missed the context of the original comment regarding Ollie’s genetics. It was more a comment on the fact he either did more than indicated, or had exceptional genetics. Crosshair was the one who clarified that he’d been doing 14hrs per week for this year.
I don’t think 90% of under 40 males could make 5w/kg personally, but I don’t take away the effort put in by those that do achieve the mark.
I kind of feel like if someone can’t see the effects of genetics then they are probably reasonably gifted. I know I have good genetics, not great. I think if I were able to optimise my life a bit better I could probably make 5w/kg, but I’ve ridden with people who went way passed 5w/kg off the same, or less, work. I’ve also ridden with plenty of people who have worked their asses off to be in the ~3w/kg realm.
Absolutely, very few of us have optimised or maxed out our lives/trainings, but to ignore that there are differences in individuals and to just say people aren’t working hard enough is as equally offensive as suggesting those who are ticking all the boxes only got fast due to genetics. There’s a vast range of riders, and combinations of genetics and level of commitment/motivation.
