|--A----C------D-------B|

A=where you started
B=where you want to be
C=where you are, with your rebel regime
D=where you could have been, with structured training

While your program is not traditionally structured you've actually adopted a polarized training plan which has been shown to be effective. The slight difference you're recovery days don't involve riding but the important thing is by limiting your training time you've got plenty of recovery built-in. That will work well for a while until you want to ride competitively against others who are training 15+ hrs/wk.

I mostly agree with OP.
Too many people overthink everything they do and cycling just happens to bring out the worst of it imo. Although fitness/working out in general is a ridiculous cesspool of misinformation and conflicting information designed to do nothing other than drain your wallet.
$2,000 Peloton stationary bike that also requires a large monthly subscription?
I'll pass lol.
Recreational riders averaging 17mph strapping $1,500 power meters on their $5,000 bikes so they can maximize their potential and maybe hit 18 mph by the end of the season. Assuming they also mix in recovery rides. Ofc they are enjoying the scenery along the way right? Not...

I have "blown up" numerous times. I have limped home, sat in my truck, seeing stars waiting to recover enough to drive home.


It happens much less frequently now because I can feel it coming and know when to suck a wheel until I recover.


Are you saying I should ride so hard that I blow up every ride and take a nap in a ditch? I'm not sure how I'm gaining significant speed and stamina without working hard enough...

Probably at least once or twice a week if you want to hang with the serious riders.

I'll repeat myself from earlier.

And I will add: "and will probably hit the training wall soon."

Getting your body into "athletic" shape is one thing. Getting it into competitive form is another. One requires exercise, the other requires training.

If you're not strong enough to think you can race then you're not gaining "significant speed".

cool story

I didn't argue because "overweight" can be very subjective in cycling.


I am about the same height as B. Wiggins, but weigh 30lbs more than him. However I have to special order shirts to fit me because you can't find a medium(x-tall) in any stores.


I'm 6'3", weigh 188lbs. Does that classify me as overweight to you?

I think this sums it up pretty well. For a while one can progress on almost any kind of haphazard program. And truth be told, that is good enough for most recreational riders, even those doing group rides and dabbling with racing. How many people's livelihood depend on increasing their speed by .5 mph or slightly increasing their FTP or VO2 Max? But when you get to the point when doing this is necessary or a goal you feel is worthwhile for some other reason, structured, science based training is necessary.

OP, I'm glad that you're improved steadily. Seems like most here think that you might reach a clear goal more quickly with structured training. Whether you want to do that is up to you, of course.

That said, impugning benefits of training and the associated science behind it without knowing anything about the topic is unfortunate.

Either way don't ever confuse decent group riding shape with race shape. I typically show up to saturday morning A group rides with quite a bit of training in my legs from the week. A few weeks ago we had a family emergency and I couldn't leave town for a race and was able to go to the group ride after a taper for a race. The difference there was not insignificant.

Unless you have an identical twin who rides without a program, and you ride with one.. You don't know anything about the benefits of your "training program" until you race him.

Is there a point to those sentences? I don't see it. Are you generalizing and saying that is the norm for recreational riders? Or is that a description and there's supposed to be a picture to go along with it. And why does a dollar figure enter into so many of your posts? Seems like self loathing to me.

For the record, I'd say I'm a recreational rider in the sense that I don't race & never will. I've got the power meter & my bike is north of the figure you quoted. Should I slow down to your speed and cycle shirtless so that your description of me is apt?

I'm about your size. Same height, maybe 5-10 lbs less on a good day.

We're not overweight by normal standards, but cycling is a different beast. Trust me... You'll want to avoid races with any real climbing :thumb:

The good news is that frames like ours can put down more power than your average twig, but you still have to train for it.

My very own personal stalker. Sweet!
I hope your are averaging over 19mph if you want to slow down and catch me bro.
And I certainly hope that with all the equipment you referenced you are topping my 18.5mph average especially considering that I am a 51 year old clyde who has been riding for less than two seasons

**** thanks to the average speed e-wang contest that is about to take place.

bakes I hope you understand how silly it is to compare average speeds on different rides, different days, different parts of the world. Similarly, why can't you just be happy with your choice of bike, frame material & cost outlay? Why do you need to continually show concern that other riders choose more expensive equipment? btw, your hopes for my performance are easily satisfied.

Irregardless of where it classifies you it means you're going to have to produce that much more power to climb with any speed.

You - 2.50lbs per inch
Me - 2.15lbs per inch

I'm not even as lean as I could be. And for all the "bigger guys put down more power" talk just remember that any amount of body fat doesn't generate power. If you're carrying an extra 15lbs its not helping you on the flat and its hurting you uphill.

Oh, is that what this is? Ok. I looked at all of my road bike rides for the last 2 summers & couldn't find one that was as slow as 19 mph. Mind you, my average daily ride is 40 minutes and it's very flat where I live. Even the 2 hour+ ride was 20.44 mph. But avg speed ewang contests are silly. Ewang power comparisons make more sense but bakes can't afford a shirt much less a power meter.

Not sure if you're mentioning my line specifically, but that's why I mentioned that larger frames "can" put down more power with the right training. Johnny Thunderthighs might struggle to hold 100 watts for 5 minutes, but a taller, heavier rider will put out more power than an equally trained smaller rider. Think Froome vs. Quintana.

Froome is skin and bones but still outweights Nairo by something like 30 lbs. Froome can sustain higher power at threshold by probably a fairly large margin (maybe 50 watts?) but probably still has almost the same w/Kg which is why they climb at about the same level but Froome can crush Nairo in time trials.

But yea, not really relevant here.

I didn't say you started it. And you've shared your rides here before, you're definitely a strong rider but that should be irrelevant for this thread. A certain someone seems to need to get on your case about it, though.

Also LOL at the shirt thing. Forgot about that.

Congratulations, you just described the road forum.

There's your answer, as in year singular.


If you're new to training, you're going to get faster by just riding more, and riding with fast groups. After you've been doing it awhile and you've picked all the low hanging fruit, a more calibrated approach is needed to keep improving.


Your approach for starting out is quite appropriate. You're still just developing a base and learning how your own body responds.


In fact many coaches who understand the science, encourage people to just a ride a lot when they first start out, and not get too structured.


There will be a time and place for structured training. You may not be there yet.

If ewangs did compare power numbers, what is an average power that's worth bragging about?


I only ask because I can peek at Strava and see if what my racer buddies average is BF fast or not.