Increase of annual training hours?

[hna]

How much of an increase in training volume do you think one can handle?

The reason that I am asking is because I am fortunate enough to have a whole year to focus only on my cycling. I will likely end up with ~500 hours this season and I feel that I am ready to take the next step, but I will need a substantial increase in training volume to be competitive at a high level.

I have heard of the 10-15% "rule" when it comes to increase of training volume, but is it possible to increase more than that? Unlike this year, I will have no distractions such as work or school in the way of workouts and recovery. This must surely have some impact on how much training I can handle?

[wetpaint]

It probably varies from person to person, but for me in 2008, I rode 300 hours and in 2009, i rode 650 hours. I was fine with that increase, the only downside was being burned out in the fall from 3 massive hour months in a row peaking at 185 hours of ride time in July. My legs handled the increased load just fine.

[phourgenres]

use the 10 percent as a week-by-week basis, not as an annual basis. Try something like this:

First week: 10 hours
Second week 11 hours
Third Week:12 hours
Fourth week: 7 hours (recovery)
Fifth Week: 11 hours
Sixth Week: 12 hours
Seventh Week 13 hours
Eighth: 7 hours
Ninth: 12
Tenth 12
Eleventh:12

These are just arbitrary numbers, but the final weeks show you should not increase 10 percent EVERY week.

[Tapeworm]

Hours spent training in of themselves are a poor metric of training. Not all training hours are equal. I have also never understood the "3 week build, 1 week easy" model. Seems like a waste of a week. I have always adopted an approach of rest constantly being matched to the load. At times 3 weeks may be too long a build period or not long enough.

The question of how much the load increases has been made easier for people to manage by the use of power meters and training metrics such as Stress Balance, Long Term Stress, Short Terms, Total Stress Score etc (varies depending on software program).

This helps manage the training load, though it is not an absolute. Other factors including the mood and mental fatigue of the rider also needs to be considered. By use of these models rest can be factored in when it is required as opposed to a pre-determined schedule.

There is no doubt that to compete at a high level the total number of hours spent training is greater than at lower levels. But the highest number of hours are not always the best and needs to be balanced and managed accordingly. Simply grinding out training hours to increase the volume is a recipe for disaster.

[Alreadyhadone]

Hours spent training in of themselves are a poor metric of training. Not all training hours are equal. I have also never understood the "3 week build, 1 week easy" model. Seems like a waste of a week. I have always adopted an approach of rest constantly being matched to the load.

Good training must avoid repetition otherwish the training effect will be less because your brains will recognize a certain patern. By making variation in your training the incentives will be bigger. This means variation in length, intensity, intervals, elevation, routes, behind a scooter and also the intensity in each week. In the high volume weeks you must also look at the ratio of rest/load. The low volume week is not meaned to rest. For many it will feel difficult to lower their amount of training. This is a natural feeling because you will get better when you train, though sometimes it is the other way around.

[Tapeworm]

The change of stimuli (duration, intensity, type etc) is nessecary eventually. However, in my experience, most people fail to exhaust a simple system of linear progression. You can do the same repeating weekly schedule (see other threads on this) for quite some time before any more complex programming needs to be introduced. It's just that people often think they need something overly complex to ellicit adaptation. At high levels yes, but at lower levels or increasing work load simplicity works real well.

[stella-azzurra]

You know plane engines get serviced based on time not miles.
People are serviced on quality of training not quantity.
A lot of people can spend a lot of time logging a lot of miles.
Not many really achieve their full potential mainly due to poor quality of training.