Originally Posted by
MoAlpha
My anecdotal data point is that for this 67 yo lifelong endurance wannabe, 10-14 hrs a week of 80:20 just doesn’t cut it. Once I have a base in, I need more like 60:40 to keep up with the other old knuckleheads and make good (for me) numbers. Of course, that’s polarized too and I take my easy rides truly easy and mostly solo.
Neal Henderson (Wahoo fitness coach) said that you needed a minimum of 15 hours per week of low intensity training to see any significant advantage compared to a more balanced intensity, relatively low volume plan.
Being cynical you could just say that he was promoting Wahoo training plans. But I think he was just being realistic about the training volume available to most amateur cyclists and what is actually likely to be the best bang for their buck. Anecdotally, I know a few older riders who do 10+ hours of riding per week at moderate intensity and deliberately avoid higher intensity intervals. They are all relatively slow and struggle to deal with changes in pace when riding in a fast group. I seem to cope better despite often training on a sub 10 hour plan. This year in particular my volume is down to as little as 5 hours per week and yet I still feel strong on tough century group rides.
The key seems to be a measured dose of VO2 max intervals along with a couple of 2 hour Z2 rides and maybe the odd 1 hour sweetspot session. I find this to be pretty efficient when I don’t have any more time available to ride.