Technically, it is. Consistency doesn’t have any volume requirements, it’s just doing the same thing in a reliable pattern with little deviation over time. Setting aside the “technical definition”, the practical measure of consistency in aerobic training is usually applied based on some decent level of activity every week, but setting a minimum is a big arbitrary. And honestly, a lot of people would see significant gains adding 1 hour of structured aerobic training every week when the alternative is doing absolutely nothing.
Another lawyer? 
Jokes aside, we all can see how silly that example is. If I say I ride once a year, every year, am I fulfilling the consistency requirement? The letter of the law and the spirit of the law are different things. But I do agree that 1 hour a week is better than nothing. But we’re different. We’re on this forum and training. The spirit of the law would say that consistency has a different meaning.
On the other hand, maybe 1 hour every week fulfills the consistency box. You ride 1 hour per week. You plateau. Then you move on to intensity. You do an hour with hard efforts. Then you plateau. So you increase volume. Then you repeat. Consistency is still the foundation. You do volume here and there throughout the year but never consistently? Probably won’t get you faster. Intensity once a month here, twice a month there, none for months. Again, not checking that consistency box and not going to get very fast.
Ok this is a tangent… but for funzies, if you had max one hour to train a week how would you break it down and what would the training look like?
Six days of 10 min? Four days x 15 min? Three days x 20?
Here’s what I’m thinking:
- 20 min build from tempo to max effort
- 15 min of progressive 40-20s
- 15 min: 2 min warm-up, 3 x 3 min w/ 1 min recovery; 1 min cool down
- 10 min max effort.
Rest days in between each workout.
Switch it up now and then. Maybe an hour test now and then?
I’d choose running over cycling. Probably 2x30 minutes. Can’t warm up fast enough to have shorter sessions
Oh it is a prime example of consistency. Does not meet your narrative, but it essentially meets the definition fully. You are overlooking in TRs measures the plan bit. If you consistently followed a different structure / plan would you get the same result? If you consistently did less frequency or volume would you get the sane result.
Consistency - Reliability or uniformity of successive results or events
I would say total volume / frequency matters first. No good being consistent if your volume and frequency is low.
No good in having frequency and volume one week and none the other either.
The thing is it is probably about being consistent within your constraints. You can have consistent volume and intensity.
But if you do 21 hours (7x3 hours rides) you have frequency and volume. If you however do nothing for the next two weeks because it was too much too handle you likely wasted your time.
If you however consistently did three 7 hour weeks with similar structure (including intensity) you likely are better off.
I think that is the idea behind consistency in this context.
I’d probably do 2x30 or 1x60. Maybe alternate weeks. So for the 2x30 I’d do a quick warmup and then something very high intensity, like 30/20s or 40/20s. No cool down. Just a little warmup and as many reps as I could get. Or like 2-3min intervals, 1:1 rest, again as many intervals as I could get.
For the 60min session I’d do a progressive warmup and then ride at SweetSpot for the entire session, as long as possible. Week to week I’d try to increase intensity. Or do 100% FTP for intervals, progressing to 50-55min. So maybe 5min warmup, 10/5/10/5/10/5/10 (10min @ 100%, 5min rest). Shorten the rest, increase the interval.
So basically, it would be 2x30 VO2 workouts one week, then a 60min SweetSpot/Threshold the next week. And just alternate indefinitely.
Exactly. You could do that and then be burnt out and miss the next month. And you say, wait, I did volume and frequency, why am I not faster? Because you missed the consistency part, which is the foundation.
Ok going back to your first example and this. One person does 1 hour per week. Every week. For a full year. 52 hours.
Second person does 52 hours, but they’re done in the span of 2 weeks. 26 hours a week (which I’d wager everybody agrees is high volume) riding all 7 days (satisfying your frequency requirement). This person does this the first 2 weeks of January.
Come December 31, who would you bet is stronger? One person focused on consistency all year. The other person focused on volume and frequency, but wasn’t consistent. I’d bet my house the person doing 1 hour a week is stronger. Consistency is king.
Clearly you’re arguing semantics.
They go hand in hand. We’re implying frequency with consistency without explicitly stating it. You are being quite pedantic.
Jonathan provided the habits of the fittest riders, their routines were the most consistent. Week in week out.
I’ll iterate, I will take frequency over infrequent, but that micro cycle needs to be consistently repeated and adhered to for success.
Consistently doing OG SSB HV II = gainz (for this random snow flake)
Another thing to think about. Take somebody new to cycling. You said volume first. What is volume? 20 hours a week? Is that person going to be able to hit a 20 hour week right off the bat? Very likely no. Not many people could just hit 20 hours on the bike and keep going the following week. And I guarantee the people that do hit 20 hours, didn’t get there over night. So how does that person get to 20 hours? By building up endurance with consistent riding. Consistency has to be the foundation before you can increase volume.
Well yes we can take extremes in every case. So such being consistent at 30 mins a week.
Why take an extreme position like this? I do not know anyone who has gone from zero to 20 hours in a week. Do you?
Touche 
Though which is the more extreme in a forum dominated by time constrained riders?
I’m not sure what we are defining as success criteria for this z3 versus other types of training, is it ftp, tte, race results, etc?
I’m on the pro SST train also, but I think that’s important to clarify. Someone who wants to do well in 30min crits may need something different than someone doing fondos. I used to do low cadence sub threshold in the offseason and realized I came out of the offseason flying. Then did it without the low cadence part and same results. So started to use subthreshold/sst work much more often.
The thing I’ve found most “powerful” about z3/sst training is that not only does ftp and raw power numbers increase, but the ability to repeat those numbers consistently and deeper into races (durability). For race results that can be extremely important.
Fwiw, I’ve increased my own personal volume YTD by 21% over 2025 and 42% over 2024 with no notable power increases or improved race results. Similar interval makeup but just with more z2 on top. I seem to respond best to intensity, and especially the sst/sub threshold work. As a coach I’ve also found this in a lot of my athletes. I think the majority of amateur cyclists could just do sst intervals, be smart about recovery/fueling, and get 90%+ of their genetic ability on 10hr a week. Get the intensity from group rides/races.
One other thing to note, I’ve noticed the more myself and athletes I coach do sst work the less likely they are to cramp in races. Cramps are often blamed on nutrition/electrolytes but in my experience are much more closely related to muscular endurance and durability.
Literally my point. Volume can’t come first. Thanks for coming to my Ted talk.
As A.Coggan says:
- Frequency
- Intensity
- Volume
Yes, in that order.