@mattonabike so well said.
I used to get so frustrated working with people from a personal training standpoint 20 years ago prior to going a completely different direction professionally. Unable to do XYZ, and unwilling to do ABC that will help allow XYZ to happen are not the same thing. And often ABC isn’t that big of a lift if the person prioritizes it - and that is in no way a judgment on a persons choices, just that they can’t rule something out until truly tried.
Spoken like a young man. At 67, my FTP is somewhere south of 3 watts/kg. I have not seen a significant change in 2 years with structured training. I’m having some doubts it’s possible.
I didnt say most people ARE 4wkg, I am saying if they rearranged their life around this goal this is a genetically plausable target. You adjust down that target based on what you are or are not willing to give up to get there. That most people think getting fired and divorced are not worth it to get to 4wkg means people have other priorities, not that its not a very possible physical goal.
I wanted to point out as well I was not trying to call out your comment, I was just using it as a jumping off point for an opinion i wanted to express.
I concede at 67 you are in the range things start to shift and 4 is likely off the table, but 3 is still certainly possible. That said a 67 year old at sub 15% bf and training 12 hours per week would probably still drop my ass.
Intervals.icu says 4W/kg is 90th percentile in my age bracket. You need the right genetics to get there IMO.
You can look at the charts Nate posted. If you make it past 4W/kg, you are near the top of the heap especially if you are older.
FWIW, I’m really happy with my 2.75W/kg right now. I drop most guys my age on my local group ride and I can hang with guys 30 years younger. Plus we are not riding up Alpe d’Huez so pure Watts per KG doesn’t matter that much.
I don’t know if the TR user base is really representative. Especially of what is genetically possible for non elites. More experienced athletes probably don’t use TR that much. I’d be interested in a distribution provided by Trainingpeaks.
This one is by CyclingAnalytics, looks more plausible to me:
https://www.cyclinganalytics.com/blog/2018/06/how-does-your-cycling-power-output-compare
I know, this is a sensitive subject but I also lean a little bit more towards “for most there is actually more possible.”
I don’t have any stats on this, but I would bet the lowest hanging fruit for your average cyclist is BF% and this is what is holding back higher w/kg.
Exactly. There is a big void between mass-coached masses and professional athletes. Not many of those people of the void would be using generic services like TR.
I respect TR and other good products but none of this has any place above a certain level. Following a program by Zwift, TR, Sufferfest etc most of the “riders of the void” would be cooked in 6 months.
Yep…certainly in my case. My FTP hardly changed since Dec. However my W/kg went from 2.34 to 2.6 from weight loss alone.
If I can lose another 35lbs I’ll be at 3.02 W/kg if my FTP remains constant.
In my case it’s all excess body weight.
Totally agree.
That was poorly written on my behalf.
4w/kg at FTP is a good benchmark for younger athletes and lighter riders. Obviously, age, training volume etc, are all going raise or lower what is realistic. In fact, it’s kinda irrelevant. It’s just a number.
I agree with others posting here, TRs bell curve is a little flawed. It removes a large portion of the competitive athlete section. From my anecdotal experience, virtually non of the 4w/kg+ cyclists I know. Which is a fair number, use TR religiously. Some use the service for workouts, but don’t follow the plans.
I would estimate that 80% of the high volume 4w/kg+ athletes I know are self coached, the remaining have dedicated cycling coaches.
Ignoring the genetic freaks or very young who get incredibly fit off tiny volume. I would also estimate that 95% of these athletes average 12+hrs a week for months of the year. Many do more or have done high volume base training at some point in their riding careers.
Short story, your absolute ceiling as an endurance athlete is directly correlated to your training volume.
Sorry, high intensity intervals 6hrs a week is not the optimal endurance training model.
Is it the best solution, if you only have 6hrs? Yes, no, probably. Who cares. On that low volume, any distribution is just scratching the surface.
If you really ponder it, all that training, all those intervals, the whole week. It’s a pros single ride. One ride.
It doesn’t matter what the latest company with slick time crunched messaging tells you, it’s not true.
Volume matters. It always has.
Low intensity volume, really matters. Increasing your quality Z2 volume per week, month, year, is possibly the most robustly demonstrated method for being the best endurance athlete you can be.
Just seen this: https://twitter.com/Alan_Couzens/status/1509598876960899072?t=NYys_D_JwTkkg3CbbiU9sw&s=19
I think we look to much at w/kg and not at raw power? I am at around 4w/kg, 45y, 72kg FTP but the big guys with 320W ftp crush me on zwift or outdoor races. I only can hurt them on long climbs, but then the super small climbing dudes come and crush me and the big hitters stat at home and choose the flatter roads 
Damn, I signed up again for La Marmotte for the 5th time. Have to crush the Alpe yet again… (I already know what I will be saying to myself when I am on that climb…WHYYYYYY??? 
).
Something that caught my attention was that he (Inigo) seems to strongly suggest doing the endurance ride before any hard interval (though they did not specify hard whether it’s SS or vo2).
Has anyone got further insight into this?
Yeah they (Couzens and ISM) have pretty much the same definition. They articulate it differently but the numbers end up being about the same.
I caught that too.
No further insights but I gathered from that comment that this is what he does with himself, not necessarily always as prescription. We know this from looking at UAE riders Strava, where intensity is done either in an ad-hoc way in the middle or maybe by design at some point in the middle. Point being, in the middle.
We also know he’s big on race specific intensity (because he has said it).
During that same part of the interview, Attia asks if that “blunts the response” (paraphrasing), and ISM says no and that this is why he likes to do that. You “are done getting benefit of zone2, now you can stimulate glycolytic system”.
He doesn’t say this, but it’s clear to me by this that ISM is not as concerned with a predetermined power target. After two hours at high endurance / low tempo, I may not hit a predicted 5 min power. But it’s the strain that drives the adaptation, not the absolute power number.
This “do a little intensity sprinkled throughout otherwise low intensity volume” has been referred to as “stuff” by Steve Magness, and has been adopted by a few forum users.
I have been training like that for years. Because my racing is like that.
Not at the beginning of the season, that is mostly only Z2, for like 10 weeks or so.
After that my training is mostly hitting the volume targets by padding the key sessions with Z2. I do pure Z2 sessions when I am tired of course
It’s the part on getting the benefit of zone 2 that has left me wondering.
In particular it seemed that if one starts doing intensity first and then adds z2 (as most do I presume), then due to lactate not being fully cleared (as I understood) the time in z2 might not be as effective as in the scenario of doing intervals at the end . 
He even mentioned not doing intervals in the middle as these would still blunt the endurance part of the workout.
Ok, I see what you’re saying now.
That is the justification for that approach but it’s important to keep in mind A) total duration of session, and B) how quickly lactate clears (returns to near baseline)
Example 1: I do a Zone 2 (mostly) ride and at the end do some hard efforts. Fine . (@Bbt67 example above). Got the benefit of the low-intensity 
(timing of the intensity)
Example 2: I do a 4-5 hr ride with 2x15min threshold efforts in the middle somewhere. That’s a significant amount of Zone2. Lactate from those efforts will clear in minutes (coinciding w/ FaxOx going up as a percentage of total). Lactate does not “linger” at high levels. CHO consumption does not “linger” at high levels (as a percentage of total). You can get back to baseline (or just above) in a fairly short period of time. (duration of the ride)
Example 3: I do a 3 hr group ride. I’m up, I’m down. Lactate (and other physiological params) never really have a chance to stabilize. Or maybe they do but for brief periods of time. So you’re never really riding at low intensity, and the “intensity” (fartlek, really) is a lot? a little? you don’t know? etc. 
(not a bad type of ride from time to time, I like them…but not always ideal).
sryke posted a little graph a few weeks ago about how quickly FatOx returns to “baseline/normal/high/whatever” after doing a threshold effort (I think). I’ll try to track it down.
As an amateur, doing this “sprinkled/ad-hoc” intensity in an hour long session is what you are likely being advised against doing. When you’re only on the bike for 1-1.5hr, I think most would say you want to target a specific type of ride. This is the primary argument for structured training. Highly detailed structured training and low volume go hand in hand. IMO, that’s why amateurs spend so much time discussing it and then you listen to a high level coach and they might be a little puzzled about all the question about “workouts”, “sessions”, etc. Some will ask “what is low volume?” For the purposes of my comments, anything under 15hrs / week, which is most (but not all) ppl on this thread. Sometimes that’s the reason we talk past each other. One guy is on 8 hrs / week. Another guy is 20 hrs / week. Different training.
@jz91 What are your thoughts?
Why do you do such kind of intervals at the end? I mean, what is the benefit of 4x2’ at treshold? Is there a purpose for such a ride?
And then just to add (and not contradict this, because I think it’s valid). There is a school of thought that would say “it simply doesn’t matter”. Doing intensity “fresh” allows a coach or athlete to track what you are capable of (are you tired? can you complete the workout? how did it feel? do we need to up things or bring it down?). Or, is it simply that you only have an hour and you need to slam some intervals? 15 min warmup, workout, cool down. Done.
The adaptations that you seek can happen either way (my “strain” comment above). Doing intensity in an isolated way or at the beginning is not inherently better.
I don’t really have an opinion on it. I don’t know enough to say. Just wanted to present all the angles (that I know of).
