Old 08-14-23, 08:23 AM
  #20  
MoAlpha
• —
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: Land of Pleasant Living
Posts: 12,335

Bikes: Shmikes

Mentioned: 59 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 10239 Post(s)
Liked 5,962 Times in 3,213 Posts
Originally Posted by PeteHski
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.
Yup, the way I see it, there has to be an absolute minimum amount of high intensity required to stay snappy, especially in old age, and the lower one's overall volume, the greater proportion that minimum takes up.
MoAlpha is offline  
Likes For MoAlpha: