Well...I read the whole damn thing, the commentary too. What I took from it is that most elites train 80% lower intensity, 20% higher intensity as the big race approaches quantity decreases a bit and that 20% high intensity gets a bit higher in intensity, the 80% low intensity gets a bit lower. And training volume seems to matter.
But I've been on an unstructured intensity kick for about as long as I've been riding (since '92). If it's short, get some hard efforts in. Long? Well long and hard is good too. Most years I get 200-250 hours of training in and at 187 pounds and a max for 60 minutes of 320 watts I'm sitting at 3.77 watts/kg, good enough for a (barely) sub 57 min. 40K and enough to occasionally get on the podium in the 35+ class 4 cyclocross races (I'm 42...and maybe a sandbagger?)
I can't complain, I'm happy enough with the results...but sometimes I wonder if a real "periodization" plan and more volume would be better...like a lot of guys I'm sure. I have been able to maintain decent fitness with a really limited time on the trainer in the fall and winter so I have seen that work....but to move up to the next level of performance probably requires doing something different and if you're already doing a couple of really intense workouts a week...and not in your 20's anymore...volume starts looking pretty good.
One of you guys said something like "maybe it wasn't the big mile weeks that made me fast when I was a cat 1 (or pro or whatever), maybe it was the 60 minutes of hard efforts that I got in during the week of high mileage" but isn't it possible that the "slow" miles weren't slow enough and that limited the intensity of the hard efforts?
And is it possible that high intensity training works better for a guy that has a ton of miles in his legs already and not so good for somebody without that big low intensity base?
Anyway, just a few comments and questions, thanks for posting the link to the article
Joe