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.
).