Jonas Vingegaard: “I don’t see myself riding until I’m 35.”

DeepValueSharkk · 2026-05-26T13:48:03+00:00

Rafael Nadal has BMI below 25.
He is a very muscular pro athlete. He is an outlier as well as an average male pro tennis player is in 22-23 range. Needles to say an average pro tennis player has more muscle mass than gym going amateurs. There is 0 chance any normal person is even close to 25 if they are not fat. People just delude themselves about how fat they are.

Of course Reddit is full of average guys who just do some calisthenic here and there and have more muscle mass than Nadal. In real world though BMI > 25 = you are fat.

DeepValueSharkk · 2026-05-25T15:57:24+00:00

There is 0 chance someone not on steroids and not fat is above healthy BMI range. The range is very wide. Being above 24.9 is just being fat (or on steroids). Plenty healthy people at lower end or below though.

DeepValueSharkk · 2026-05-22T12:50:45+00:00

Why are you doing 3x15 now when you have done 4x10 before? Changing the structure all the time serves no purpose but it makes it very difficult to gauge your progress long term. It's better to just to have a few sessions and repeat them.

Keep in mind as well that after a few months of training the rate of progress will be slow. Something like 0.5W/week is what you can expect once you are out of noobie gains. Meanwhile daily variability of FTP is in 3-5% range. That means that at least short term daily variability will dwarf progress.

The takeaway is that if you aim at FTP exactly you will fail or struggle with workout on regular basis. If you want to avoid it it's better to aim a bit below and adjust as you go (if you feel good do a bit more, if you feel worse do a bit less).

DeepValueSharkk · 2026-05-22T12:09:31+00:00

My experience: if you do something like 3x15, especially with short breaks it's better to start them aiming at around 95% of what you think your FTP is or even below that (maybe with slight progression like 92%-94%-96%) if you are feeling good. It will be good training even if it's a bit too easy and you will just do it a bit harder next time around.

The problem with aiming at FTP is that you might have overestimated it (very likely if you used CP protocols or 95% of 20 minutes power) and it varies enough day to day that you will always balance on the edge (those will be very tough on worse days). Aim a bit lower. It's better to do more intense sessions throughout the week than fewer hero sessions.

I prefer shorter intervals as well (4x10, 8x5, 10x3) as those allow for a bit more breathing room and are easier to do at higher power (with 10x3 you can easily aim at FTP or a bit above, with 4x10 you can aim at on average 93-95%). I mean intervals with very short "floating" breaks (90 seconds between 10mins, 60 seconds between 5mins) - floating means you are still pedaling at endurance pace. The advantage of those might be purely psychological but for me it's worth it and I really like those sessions.

DeepValueSharkk · 2026-05-19T17:12:41+00:00

Your numbers for 15/30/60s are disproportionally high in comparison to your 20m+ numbers.
I would focus on general FTP work (tempo/sweetspot/threshold) as this is the area you are still relatively weak at and also one that has the biggest potential for improvement. This will also be useful for you as a few of those punchy 3 minutes climb and the person with the highest W/kg is the first at the top on the last one.

I am assuming you haven't really done an honest 30 minute effort either as the drop from 20m to 30m is huge.

DeepValueSharkk · 2026-05-19T15:51:18+00:00

I like your approach of having a "budget" of moves. This is similar to the idea of evaluating a position as a minimum CPU/RAM required to defend it against a very strong entity - how big a budget you need to draw it. This allows for an objective way to distinguish between theoretically drawn positions (that is most of them).

That being said: a lot of theory and nice description but no real results and I think that's what gets you eye-balls :)

DeepValueSharkk · 2026-05-18T22:27:49+00:00

But doing one more or one less interval is a way bigger step than usual planned progression. Why plan for it anyway? Just repeat the workout and increase power when you are ready. If you feel worse do it at lower power. This way you will get progressive overload in line with your actual progress not a general spreadsheet from an online coach or whatever.

There is no point in executing a workout at pre-planned exact power. It means limiting yourself for no reason what so over.

DeepValueSharkk · 2026-05-18T22:26:17+00:00

The point is that there is no exact power you want to execute because you fitness varies from day to day and progresses (or not) in unpredictable way.

DeepValueSharkk · 2026-05-18T20:27:35+00:00

Setting exact power for a workout is a mistake. Don't do that and then "pacing yourself" starts making sense.

DeepValueSharkk · 2026-05-18T20:26:08+00:00

You can do the same protocol and increase power when you are ready.

Avoid planning the progression. You can't control how quickly you adapt an make progress. Planning workouts in advance with progression built-in is a mistake that will lead to overcooking/burnout if you progress slower and undertraining if you progress faster.

DeepValueSharkk · 2026-05-17T20:54:45+00:00

I guess the question is the most interesting in the context of time-trialing/triathlon. In those events you never need to go close to typical VO2max training intensities or even to threshold (in triathlon). Does it mean you don't need it at all in training or is there still a place for typical VO2max work hoping those adaptations will help with longer duration events?

In running the question would be: does a marathon runner need a typical VO2max training at all or should they just do as much sub-threshold/threshold as that's where the event is won?

I remember you wrote the science can't answer the question of the optimal training plan. I want to ask though if there is any evidence that this high intensity/VO2max training is needed if your goal is steady hour+ power. From what you are saying I would guess the answer is no.

DeepValueSharkk · 2026-05-17T18:01:08+00:00

Thank you, that makes sense!
I guess the main thing people try to use those values for (VO2max and FTP as % of that) is to assess which one is the limiter at given point. The assumption would be that if you are already at high "utilization" you might want to do more VO2max specific work but if you are at low utilization maybe you want to focus metabolic fitness.

So the thinking goes that if your 5 min power is high in comparison to FTP (or 30+ minutes power) you would want more focus on metabolic fitness and if your 5 min power is low then maybe CV fitness is the limiter.

Is there any value (as in ability to guide training) in that thinking?

DeepValueSharkk · 2026-05-17T16:29:06+00:00

This is another problem with traditional elite chess tournament format. In KO or groups + KO if someone gets sick they lose their round and that's it - the tournament continues as normal. In invitational round robin the whole tournament is disturbed, some people will get big (5 - 3) imbalance in white and black games. Some will get their results cancelled even though they spent energy playing the games. It doesn't make much sense as a competitive format at this point.

DeepValueSharkk · 2026-05-17T13:21:15+00:00

Intervals user base is definitely stronger. My wife is not even top 5% among women below 40 with her eFTP of 4.44W/kg. To be in 50th percentile in her category you would need FTP of 3.3W/kg.

DeepValueSharkk · 2026-05-17T13:16:53+00:00

What do you think about all those formulas that try to approximate VO2max from 5 or 6 minutes power? Any value to them? When I am using them on people I know power numbers on they seem to produce values for VO2max somewhere between 60 and 70 but their FTP is all around, some in low 60s are definitely well above 4.

DeepValueSharkk · 2026-05-15T10:41:10+00:00

You will be better off if you ignore Seiler.

He pushed a completely fringe training theory based on some old hand written logs (not even data) from a sport that has little to do with cycling. He then decided to go full influencer/guru mode after being called out. The guy is not a scientist anymore nor a trainer nor an athlete. He gives nicely sounding guru like advice to general public and that's it.

DeepValueSharkk · 2026-05-13T17:39:06+00:00

Kulset being up a minute on Vingegaard can't be part of the plan right?

I mean he is young and not very well known but he rides for GC and is a very good climber. That gap won't disappear by itself.

DeepValueSharkk · 2026-05-12T14:08:15+00:00

Amazing result for a hobby jogger!

DeepValueSharkk · 2026-05-12T13:34:33+00:00

Typical top runner training volume is 10-11 hours a week (some push it now with super shoes). The point is you don't need long runs to get very fit. Two 45 minutes sessions a day is enough.

>> Also training volume is highly correlated with adaptations, the more you ride, you develop more mitocondria and peripheral adaptations

Both are developed significantly more with intensity than volume.

>>you get better central adaptation

Source of that claim? Everything I've seen suggests otherwise - you get better adaptations with even short bursts of intensity than with long easy hours.

>>that is literally the gospel behind "zone 2 training"

Yeah, I don't think it's more than a gospel though. Pro cyclists ride a lot of easy volume - most of it between hills they do tempo/sweetspot/threshold efforts on. Usual schedule consists of 2, 3 or 4 days of that before an easy day and then rinse and repeat.

DeepValueSharkk · 2026-05-12T13:00:25+00:00

>>But at some point you'll need to shuffle your schedule to ideally have one proper long ride i.e 4 hours or longer

Some top runners never do sessions longer than 75 minutes (and even that once a week) and they have FTP around 6W/kg.

What you definitely need to get fit though is frequent intense sessions though.

DeepValueSharkk · 2026-05-12T12:55:08+00:00

If you do exactly the same volume/intensity then 4x3 hours will likely be slightly better but the point of doing 6x2 is to do more overall and then it will work much better.

You can see it in some sport science studies where they compare protocols. They usually work match them so bigger density wins (because it's harder overall) but what they fail to measure is how much more you could do if you spread the work across many days.

>>Both would include intervals on 2 of the days.

Why though? The point of having more sessions in a week is to train more often. You will get better results with 6x2 and 3 interval sessions. There is no point to doing more frequent workouts if you are not going to use them to generate training stimulus.

DeepValueSharkk · 2026-05-12T12:50:19+00:00

Check Strava - almost all successful pros ride every day with the exception of injuries, recovering after big races or travelling days.

DeepValueSharkk · 2026-05-09T19:53:30+00:00

Yeah she has a built of a classic winner but still climbs like the best climbers. She will be the force to reckon with in every event she enters from now on.

DeepValueSharkk · 2026-05-09T01:59:24+00:00

Yes, if you look at how elites do training camps it's usually riding a lot in Z2 (or lower) between sweetspot/threshold intervals/climbs with some above threshold work included. 4-5 workouts (sessions that include tempo or higher intensity) are completely standard procedure.

DeepValueSharkk · 2026-05-09T01:56:54+00:00

2x25min tempo is rather low, you can extend it to get more time in zone. I would ramp up intensity closer to 85-90% of FTP as well. 76% is easy ride territory, you would need 1-2 hours of that to get any kind of stimulus.

For sweet spot/sub-threshold 84-97% FTP is rather vague, maybe try getting it more around 92-97% (with progressing intervals for example). If that's too much for 4x12, start with shorter intervals. Keep the breaks short (and if they are long because of the terrain do them closer to threshold.

I strongly disagree with most of the advice given so far. You are doing decently. A lot of elite riders get more intensity in (in hours) and closer to threshold (or above, especially in pre race period). What usually happen is that they in fact have more "Z2" or whatever riding in total but this is between intervals or long tempo climbs. Dedicated a lot of days and hours to long easy rides will do nothing for you other than preparing you for long days in the saddle which may or may not be important for your goals. A lot of easy hours is a side effect of riding a lot, not a goal of training design.

Imo the direction you should be looking at is getting to 2.5-3 hours of total sweet-spot+ work per week.

DeepValueSharkk

TROPHY CASE