How much can you keep improving?
#1
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2020
Location: Zurich, Switzerland
Posts: 877
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 528 Post(s)
Liked 230 Times
in
161 Posts
How much can you keep improving?
Does one see more than 50% of one's potential gains in the first 12 weeks? Various studies out there, some suggest there is a large variability in how people respond to training, other studies suggest with the correct training almost anyone can make gains. But I can't figure out how long one can improve. As in given a certain start date, there is a theoretic limit to where you can go from there. Does one already reach a large amount of that, say 50% after only 2-3 months?
What do you think from experience?
What do you think from experience?
#2
Full Member
I don't believe there is any way to determine a quantifiable amount of improvement in advance. Improvement has two parameters: the starting point and the ending point. Everyone is different as to their starting point so improvement would vary even if everyone had the same goal. For example, an athlete and a couch potato can both train for a marathon and be successful.. However, one may finish 1 1/2 hours ahead of the other. The couch potato may eventually run at the same time as the athlete but it will take more training. Thus, improvement can be defined as the difference between the starting and ending skills.
Last edited by Tony P.; 05-27-20 at 02:33 PM.
#3
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Music City, USA
Posts: 4,444
Bikes: bikes
Mentioned: 52 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2622 Post(s)
Liked 1,429 Times
in
711 Posts
6-8 years of consistent, highish-volume, structured training to reach full aerobic potential according to a rather famous Italian running coach.
Sounds about right in my experience.
How good you are at any point during those first 6-8 years is pretty personal and varied, and of course, very, very few actually do an appropriate workload for such a long time to actually see what their full potential is...
Long story short: you can very likely keep getting better as long as you're pushing your body to adapt.
Sounds about right in my experience.
How good you are at any point during those first 6-8 years is pretty personal and varied, and of course, very, very few actually do an appropriate workload for such a long time to actually see what their full potential is...
Long story short: you can very likely keep getting better as long as you're pushing your body to adapt.
Likes For rubiksoval:
#4
Full Member
6-8 years of consistent, highish-volume, structured training to reach full aerobic potential according to a rather famous Italian running coach.
Sounds about right in my experience.
How good you are at any point during those first 6-8 years is pretty personal and varied, and of course, very, very few actually do an appropriate workload for such a long time to actually see what their full potential is...
Long story short: you can very likely keep getting better as long as you're pushing your body to adapt.
Sounds about right in my experience.
How good you are at any point during those first 6-8 years is pretty personal and varied, and of course, very, very few actually do an appropriate workload for such a long time to actually see what their full potential is...
Long story short: you can very likely keep getting better as long as you're pushing your body to adapt.
#5
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Music City, USA
Posts: 4,444
Bikes: bikes
Mentioned: 52 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2622 Post(s)
Liked 1,429 Times
in
711 Posts
Sorry, but I don't see it. As I said in my earlier post, the amount of time to reach a level depends on where you start. Two individuals may be able to someday run a mile in 4 minutes. However, the one who presently runs a mile in 4:10 will probably achieve it before the person running a mile in 5:00.
I didn't say anything about racing to a specific performance standard by a specific point other than it being very individual.
#6
Full Member
Nothing you said has anything to do with what I said; that being that neither runner is going to reach their full potential without years and years of structured training and development.
I didn't say anything about racing to a specific performance standard by a specific point other than it being very individual.
I didn't say anything about racing to a specific performance standard by a specific point other than it being very individual.
My point is the same a 6-8 year projection is pure conjecture. That is, 100 out of 100 athletes may reach their potential in 6-8 years but that says nothing about the 101st.
Last edited by Tony P.; 05-27-20 at 05:22 PM.
#7
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Music City, USA
Posts: 4,444
Bikes: bikes
Mentioned: 52 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2622 Post(s)
Liked 1,429 Times
in
711 Posts
I agree with what you're saying here. But it's different from your earlier statement. Training, as you say, is "very individual". As such it's not possible to predict physical improvement in 6-8 years. For example, I'm 72 and it's not likely I can achieve substantial physical improvement 8 years from now no matter how hard I try.
My point is the same a 6-8 year projection is pure conjecture. That is, 100 out of 100 athletes may reach their potential in 6-8 years but that says nothing about the 101st.
My point is the same a 6-8 year projection is pure conjecture. That is, 100 out of 100 athletes may reach their potential in 6-8 years but that says nothing about the 101st.
You're derailing the topic. This is irrelevant.
Last edited by rubiksoval; 05-27-20 at 07:08 PM.
Likes For rubiksoval:
#8
just another gosling
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Everett, WA
Posts: 19,533
Bikes: CoMo Speedster 2003, Trek 5200, CAAD 9, Fred 2004
Mentioned: 115 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3888 Post(s)
Liked 1,938 Times
in
1,383 Posts
Sorry, but I don't see it. As I said in my earlier post, the amount of time to reach a level depends on where you start. Two individuals may be able to someday run a mile in 4 minutes. However, the one who presently runs a mile in 4:10 will probably achieve it before the person running a mile in 5:00.
So your example is incorrect except for a tiny subset combining age and talent. If you can run a mile in 4:10 and you're over say 25, that's it. A person who runs a mile in 6:00 has a decent change of hitting 5:00, depending on age and training state and also of course, talent.
__________________
Results matter
Results matter
#9
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2020
Location: Zurich, Switzerland
Posts: 877
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 528 Post(s)
Liked 230 Times
in
161 Posts
Thanks for the replies, of course there is a lot of variability but interesting to see it can take up to 8 years to reach potential. Did that coach talk about how the curve of that improvement is? As in you gain 10% each month the first year then 5% in year 2 but come year 3 and gains are only incremental. Or does one hit incremental gains only pretty quickly?
#10
Full Member
No, no. He meant you reach your peak, whatever that is. Maybe that's a 10 minute mile. It matters in a way where you start. If you start at your peak, it's downhill from there. But for those untrained or only moderately trained, that 6-8 year span seems about right. There's another caveat: one also goes downhill with age. Obviously pros age out in their mid 30s no matter how they train. We see really good riders in the Under 23 group, and they've been training since they were kids. I started training in my early 50s and peaked at about 60, held it OK until about 63 and then it's been downhill ever since even though I've continued to train. My guess is that happens to pretty much everyone, no matter their age. Hence age groupers.
So your example is incorrect except for a tiny subset combining age and talent. If you can run a mile in 4:10 and you're over say 25, that's it. A person who runs a mile in 6:00 has a decent change of hitting 5:00, depending on age and training state and also of course, talent.
So your example is incorrect except for a tiny subset combining age and talent. If you can run a mile in 4:10 and you're over say 25, that's it. A person who runs a mile in 6:00 has a decent change of hitting 5:00, depending on age and training state and also of course, talent.
#11
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: 25 miles northwest of Boston
Posts: 29,549
Bikes: Bottecchia Sprint, GT Timberline 29r, Marin Muirwoods 29er, Trek FX Alpha 7.0
Mentioned: 112 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5224 Post(s)
Liked 3,581 Times
in
2,342 Posts
it took me years, then I caught up to my age & started declining. can't imagine anyone giving the OP exact info for him personally
#12
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2020
Location: Zurich, Switzerland
Posts: 877
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 528 Post(s)
Liked 230 Times
in
161 Posts
Anyway the reason I asked is because on one hill I improved by 4 minutes in 11 weeks. And these were more or less from scratch, so the first 11 weeks of training. If I can improve another 4 minutes, I am in the top 10. Hence, if most people make most (i.e. >50%) of their gains in the first 3 months then that means I probably won't improve by another 4 minutes, but otherwise I have a shot.
#13
just another gosling
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Everett, WA
Posts: 19,533
Bikes: CoMo Speedster 2003, Trek 5200, CAAD 9, Fred 2004
Mentioned: 115 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3888 Post(s)
Liked 1,938 Times
in
1,383 Posts
Sure but maybe someone has some numbers from experience, e.g. 50% increase in first year then 30% then 10% then 5% then incremental til you hit your genetic limit after 6-8 years or something like that. Or maybe add a range around those.
Anyway the reason I asked is because on one hill I improved by 4 minutes in 11 weeks. And these were more or less from scratch, so the first 11 weeks of training. If I can improve another 4 minutes, I am in the top 10. Hence, if most people make most (i.e. >50%) of their gains in the first 3 months then that means I probably won't improve by another 4 minutes, but otherwise I have a shot.
Anyway the reason I asked is because on one hill I improved by 4 minutes in 11 weeks. And these were more or less from scratch, so the first 11 weeks of training. If I can improve another 4 minutes, I am in the top 10. Hence, if most people make most (i.e. >50%) of their gains in the first 3 months then that means I probably won't improve by another 4 minutes, but otherwise I have a shot.
__________________
Results matter
Results matter
#14
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: 25 miles northwest of Boston
Posts: 29,549
Bikes: Bottecchia Sprint, GT Timberline 29r, Marin Muirwoods 29er, Trek FX Alpha 7.0
Mentioned: 112 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5224 Post(s)
Liked 3,581 Times
in
2,342 Posts
Sure but maybe someone has some numbers from experience, e.g. 50% increase in first year then 30% then 10% then 5% then incremental til you hit your genetic limit after 6-8 years or something like that. Or maybe add a range around those.Anyway the reason I asked is because on one hill I improved by 4 minutes in 11 weeks. And these were more or less from scratch, so the first 11 weeks of training. If I can improve another 4 minutes, I am in the top 10. Hence, if most people make most (i.e. >50%) of their gains in the first 3 months then that means I probably won't improve by another 4 minutes, but otherwise I have a shot.
#15
working on my sandal tan
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: CID
Posts: 22,629
Bikes: 1991 Bianchi Eros, 1964 Armstrong, 1988 Diamondback Ascent, 1988 Bianchi Premio, 1987 Bianchi Sport SX, 1980s Raleigh mixte (hers), All-City Space Horse (hers)
Mentioned: 98 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3871 Post(s)
Liked 2,568 Times
in
1,579 Posts
Sure but maybe someone has some numbers from experience, e.g. 50% increase in first year then 30% then 10% then 5% then incremental til you hit your genetic limit after 6-8 years or something like that. Or maybe add a range around those.
Anyway the reason I asked is because on one hill I improved by 4 minutes in 11 weeks. And these were more or less from scratch, so the first 11 weeks of training. If I can improve another 4 minutes, I am in the top 10. Hence, if most people make most (i.e. >50%) of their gains in the first 3 months then that means I probably won't improve by another 4 minutes, but otherwise I have a shot.
Anyway the reason I asked is because on one hill I improved by 4 minutes in 11 weeks. And these were more or less from scratch, so the first 11 weeks of training. If I can improve another 4 minutes, I am in the top 10. Hence, if most people make most (i.e. >50%) of their gains in the first 3 months then that means I probably won't improve by another 4 minutes, but otherwise I have a shot.
That seems wildly optimistic at best, unless you quit your job to ride all day, and got a coach.
#16
just another gosling
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Everett, WA
Posts: 19,533
Bikes: CoMo Speedster 2003, Trek 5200, CAAD 9, Fred 2004
Mentioned: 115 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3888 Post(s)
Liked 1,938 Times
in
1,383 Posts
Back when I started, I didn't know anything except that more power and endurance were good. 3 years after I started, the year of the above now infamously slow STP double, I spent three rainy winter days/week at the gym. Besides weights, they had one of those old gym bikes with fixed resistance, power displayed in watts. I'd sit there and spend an hour at about 230 watts, 75 cadence. I improved by 5 watts over a month of that, and then did 186 watts for 2 solid hours. A kid came over once and asked, "Mister are you all right?" because I had a puddle of sweat on the floor all around the bike, was breathing hard, and probably red-faced. I said, "Yes, I'm OK," but of course I wasn't. I was as nuts as they come. Working on that, but nothing seems to help.
Of course the gym bike did help - I pulled the riders I was with on that first double for the last 100 miles. Riding 3 century+ rides in the 6 weeks before the double was good, too.
So that was my 3rd year. I spent my first summer trying to ride the 13 miles and 600' up to a local shopping mall and back, just to do it. I did make it, but couldn't believe how hard it was.
9 years after I started, I rode 153 miles and ~10,000' in 8:40 saddle time. That's as fast as I ever got, 59 y.o. What does it all mean?
__________________
Results matter
Results matter
#17
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2020
Location: Zurich, Switzerland
Posts: 877
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 528 Post(s)
Liked 230 Times
in
161 Posts
It is a hypothetical. Your current level is x your potential limit is y. After 3 months of training, how much ground between x and y have you covered. You make the most gains early on, but how much? Let's make it simple, assume x is 200W and y is 300W, where are you after 3 months, 6 months, 12 months.
#18
working on my sandal tan
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: CID
Posts: 22,629
Bikes: 1991 Bianchi Eros, 1964 Armstrong, 1988 Diamondback Ascent, 1988 Bianchi Premio, 1987 Bianchi Sport SX, 1980s Raleigh mixte (hers), All-City Space Horse (hers)
Mentioned: 98 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3871 Post(s)
Liked 2,568 Times
in
1,579 Posts
It is a hypothetical. Your current level is x your potential limit is y. After 3 months of training, how much ground between x and y have you covered. You make the most gains early on, but how much? Let's make it simple, assume x is 200W and y is 300W, where are you after 3 months, 6 months, 12 months.
#19
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2020
Location: Zurich, Switzerland
Posts: 877
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 528 Post(s)
Liked 230 Times
in
161 Posts
Well that is already an answer. I am not looking for accurate answer, just trends. E.g. if a relative beginner manages and improvement of X watts in year 1, then the year 2 improvement would be around X/2 and in year 3 X/4 and so on.
#20
Newbie racer
Join Date: Feb 2018
Posts: 3,406
Bikes: Propel, red is faster
Mentioned: 34 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1575 Post(s)
Liked 1,569 Times
in
974 Posts
I've no idea.
I just hope the folks are right about the number of years as I still have some left then! Ha ha.
I think it's really dependent on your CTL over those years. If your CTL is one of low intensity group rides for 6 hours a week for 6 to 8 years......only so much has been gained.
If you're doing a lot of load in those 6 hours per week over 6 to 8 years, I think the answer may be different.
I'd say, IMO, I may reach my ceiling a lot earlier than others. I'm constrained to 5 to 8 hours per week. I typically use a good amount of intensity and steady state. I don't have time for 4 hour Z2 rides. I think this year may be "it" in terms of optimizing the engine on the time I have. Then it will just be skills and moving the fitness from one energy system to another depending on the races I want to do.
How long is a piece of string? However long you cut it!
I just hope the folks are right about the number of years as I still have some left then! Ha ha.
I think it's really dependent on your CTL over those years. If your CTL is one of low intensity group rides for 6 hours a week for 6 to 8 years......only so much has been gained.
If you're doing a lot of load in those 6 hours per week over 6 to 8 years, I think the answer may be different.
I'd say, IMO, I may reach my ceiling a lot earlier than others. I'm constrained to 5 to 8 hours per week. I typically use a good amount of intensity and steady state. I don't have time for 4 hour Z2 rides. I think this year may be "it" in terms of optimizing the engine on the time I have. Then it will just be skills and moving the fitness from one energy system to another depending on the races I want to do.
How long is a piece of string? However long you cut it!
#21
working on my sandal tan
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: CID
Posts: 22,629
Bikes: 1991 Bianchi Eros, 1964 Armstrong, 1988 Diamondback Ascent, 1988 Bianchi Premio, 1987 Bianchi Sport SX, 1980s Raleigh mixte (hers), All-City Space Horse (hers)
Mentioned: 98 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3871 Post(s)
Liked 2,568 Times
in
1,579 Posts
I'm curious -- are you coming at this from a weightlifting background? There's a lot of data and discussion in that field about how untrained people can gain LBM and raise their 1RMs and 5RMs quickly once they embark on a decent training program, and usually max out within a couple years without chemical help. Those metrics are at least somewhat easy to measure.
#22
just another gosling
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Everett, WA
Posts: 19,533
Bikes: CoMo Speedster 2003, Trek 5200, CAAD 9, Fred 2004
Mentioned: 115 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3888 Post(s)
Liked 1,938 Times
in
1,383 Posts
I'm curious -- are you coming at this from a weightlifting background? There's a lot of data and discussion in that field about how untrained people can gain LBM and raise their 1RMs and 5RMs quickly once they embark on a decent training program, and usually max out within a couple years without chemical help. Those metrics are at least somewhat easy to measure.
Endurance seems to build the slowest. We see a lot of olders in ultra endurance sports, the last refuge of the aging athlete.
__________________
Results matter
Results matter
Likes For Carbonfiberboy:
#23
working on my sandal tan
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: CID
Posts: 22,629
Bikes: 1991 Bianchi Eros, 1964 Armstrong, 1988 Diamondback Ascent, 1988 Bianchi Premio, 1987 Bianchi Sport SX, 1980s Raleigh mixte (hers), All-City Space Horse (hers)
Mentioned: 98 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3871 Post(s)
Liked 2,568 Times
in
1,579 Posts
That's an interesting comparison. Quick initial gains in strength training are from muscle fiber recruitment. Once you have full recruitment, it really slows down and the hard work begins. The younger powerlifters I've been watching at our gym haven't maxed out quickly. I've been watching them for years and they're still getting stronger but it's a slow process. I think that mirrors what we see in cycling. Quick gains at the neuromuscular level, but once you learn to pedal and breathe and get your blood volume up, it slows down. Heart muscle seems to grow the slowest and to lose mass the quickest, a very conservative muscle, that is if stroke volume is dependent on muscle volume. Seems that way to me from watching HR over the years.
Endurance seems to build the slowest. We see a lot of olders in ultra endurance sports, the last refuge of the aging athlete.
Endurance seems to build the slowest. We see a lot of olders in ultra endurance sports, the last refuge of the aging athlete.
Likes For ThermionicScott:
#24
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2020
Location: Zurich, Switzerland
Posts: 877
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 528 Post(s)
Liked 230 Times
in
161 Posts
I'm curious -- are you coming at this from a weightlifting background? There's a lot of data and discussion in that field about how untrained people can gain LBM and raise their 1RMs and 5RMs quickly once they embark on a decent training program, and usually max out within a couple years without chemical help. Those metrics are at least somewhat easy to measure.
#25
working on my sandal tan
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: CID
Posts: 22,629
Bikes: 1991 Bianchi Eros, 1964 Armstrong, 1988 Diamondback Ascent, 1988 Bianchi Premio, 1987 Bianchi Sport SX, 1980s Raleigh mixte (hers), All-City Space Horse (hers)
Mentioned: 98 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3871 Post(s)
Liked 2,568 Times
in
1,579 Posts