Did you mean ‘Nils Van der Poel’s threshold season’?
So the answer is that you either win 2 Olympic speed skating golds or you burn out.
In all seriousness I can’t give you a great answer but this reminds me a bit of what Van der Poel did in the lead-up to the 2022 Winter Olympics so if you haven’t read his book/pdf thing yet it’s probably worth checking it out. The only difference would be that he maintained the volume at a pretty high rate so it’s not exactly the same.
Yes, you train a lot, great. Are you here to brag, or to get your question answered?
And I’m all for bragging! But I was serious with that last question you didn’t answer. Most people who train that hard that consistently just have performances that are all over the place when it matters. The best proof of performance is performance. If you are riding like you say, and your performance is consistently good, that’s awesome, because you found something that works for you.
So - how were your other performances around that time? I’m not sure how to read your lack of an actual answer.
My gut feeling is that the OP is being a bit ‘provocative’ here but it is absolutely not my intention to be aggressive by saying it like this . Think he’s ‘testing’ us 
He’s for sure talented and producing some impressive performance. So he can rightfully brag about that. I somehow have a feeling that he’s much more knowledgeable about training management then what he likes to make us believe…
The only concern I have is that the title of this post will attract newbies/noobs to try the same thing in their hunt for ‘the maximal bang for buck’ with available training time. And for someone with none or very little base fitness, this kind of training strategy has a very high risk of being destructive. Injury, fatigue, motivation issues etc…
Someone with multiple years of consistent training and a honest self judgement, will probably be able to make this work for a period of weeks/months. @WindWarrior and @Steve_Balboni (the OP) are the proof of that. But I find it hard to believe that someone without any basic knowledge of training strategy (as his posts suggest) is able to turn that ‘outlier’ strategy into a successful outcome.
I could off course be totally wrong in my thinking, but then just tell me so I can learn something from it.
To be honest it was my 2nd season on a road bike, without any real coaching experience.
However I used my interpretation (at the time) of first principles:
I didn’t always get it right, had to take several unplanned longer breaks. However by sticking with basic principles it led to high durability & repeatability. And I peaked for my double century, and had a great day on the bike riding 200 miles / 9000’ climbing.
So then peoples answers should say “It’s doable if you have a strong base but if youre just starting out, then it will cause injury and fatigue.”
MedTechCD only person I’ve seen respond who understands nuance.
See, the only reason I really have this question is because newbs like to shoot off advice and add so much noise to the discourse.
I think I’ve actually found my answer. And the answer is that it’s really not a big deal if youve been cycling for some time.
Thanks.
Your takeaway should be that IF of 0.9-1 doesn’t describe your training in enough detail for people to give you any relevant feedback because you can have different kind of trainings with that description.
Exactly! That is my takeawwy and what i say in a different comment
No, you are selectively responding to questions. This will be the third time I’m asking what the consistency of your results are around the performance you listed.
When you are overtrained, as I specifically pointed out, your performances tend to be unpredictable. If you are performing at a high level for 2-3 weeks in a competitive environment and consistently getting the results you are aiming for, that’s a further confirmation that you are adapting to the training you are doing.
If, on the other hand, perhaps the next week you had a terrible performance, that could indicate your current method is perhaps not optimal.
Nowhere have I suggested that you change your training, or given you specific training advice. I’ve asked you several questions to help understand how effective your training is.
You are welcome to ignore it. If you are performing as well as you are implying, you should be glad to share the results you are getting, which would actually help to verify that your training works for you.
And ultimately, that’s all that matters. Does it work for you? And back to my original point, are you measuring that as simply numbers, or as actual race results? You’ve actually only provided the former. Edit - I misread your response here. 11th out of 870 is truly impressive, and a result to absolutely be proud of. I’d brag about it to.
I’m coming this as someone who races, and for me the only number that really matters is the result. But I get that some people have other metrics by which they are measuring themselves.
And when you leave off the part immediately after where I said “I’m all for bragging” then you make me look like more of an aggressive ass than I’m actually being.
I have no problem with people bragging, at least in the sense that I see no problem recounting excellent results (however mesaured), and being proud to tell us about that. But if you are going to do that posed in the form of a question, and then when asked questions to help understand the details, you just get more bragging? Well, I have more or a problem with that, and have no problem responding aggressively.
I asked @Steve_Balboni a reasonable question to start. He didn’t actually answer it, instead “bragging” about his performance. I pointed out that his answer was still encompassed in my original response, and asked again for clarification. I’ve now asked a third time.
At this point, he’s not here to learn anything, he’s just showing off. More power to him, 11th out of 870 is damn impressive no matter how you slice it.
But it’s fair to say I am being petulant that he won’t just admit to this. But that’s half the fun of arguing on the internet, isn’t it?
Weird that a forum about training, if you talk about the results of your training, it’s just “bragging”
That was certainly not intended to be understood like that…
You weren’t bragging, you reported the result of training for your key event. Did threshold training for 4 months, then had a great result on 8000 foot climb with best ever 1.5 and 2 hour power (and 11th out of 870).
I’m attempting to qualify my statements as well, and provide some level of nuance without writing a novella.
Back in 1973 they had cycling erg machines, the predecessors of today’s smart trainers. Heck they had them in the 1950s IIRC. Researchers out of Washington Statue University published a study titled “Effect of training on enzyme activity and fiber composition of human skeletal muscle” by P.D. Gollnick et al.
In that study they took 6 males between the ages of 28-40 years old, with no endurance training in prior 2 years, and they essentially did threshold work for 1 hour sessions, 4 times a week, for 5 months. Here is one of the interesting bits from the paper:
Working at 85-90% of Vo2max is very high, think time trial specialists and marathoners. I believe the bell curve for threshold efforts is 75-85% vo2max.
I found that study after my self-coached training for a 200 mile double century.
Dial down the hours and it’s possible. More hours if you have more fitness then I did at the time (75-80 Ctl while peaking the 3 weeks before Double Century). Plus the idea that you can hit high IF with a handful or two of very high powered short efforts, and split work across morning and afternoon sessions. Its all about motivation and listening to your body to recover and allow adaptations.
No offense but I’m not following a study with a sample size of 6… from the 70s.
Bro, 10 hours per week is not a lot. I just did an experiment where I brought it up into multiple sessions per day since the end of november and have seen pretty significant gains.
No offense but it is a classic study with empirical data. Classic study. To complement the two of us posted our n=1 results. Because you got push back on your results, its like someone dropping in and saying “no offense Steve, but I’m not following your 4 months study to prep for a hill climb” 
Posted for the non-believers. It clearly demonstrates what is possible, and the impact on muscles (via muscle biopsies) and 1hour threshold sessions as % vo2max.
I’m not confused, I managed something similar to your results on less hours, self-coached, and just using first principles after only 15 months owning a road bike. And after sitting behind a desk for 30 years, in my mid fifties. Versus all males on Intervals:
Raw power since it’s flat here, and I’m built more like a truck and happy to hit an FTP of 3W/kg. Not a climber. When I got the bike my ftp was likely around 200W from doing twice a week spin classes for 2 years.
Point being, that was built on a lot of high intensity >0.9 IF averaging around 6+ hours/week. Two a days with 20-min high-intensity mornings, and a mix of efforts in the afternoon with the longer ones mostly focused on trying to ride just below threshold for up to 60 minutes.
Here are some common critiques or problems with the study:
So many problems with this 
starting with the smallest sample size possible, lack of diversity, only 4 months instead of longer, no fiber typing, no enzyme measurements, etc. etc. etc.
Why did you bother posting?
Maybe I’ll go ask ChatGPT or another AI engine to list them all in a nicely formatted post to lend more credibility. LOL.
From where I sit, your empirical evidence has value. Despite a litany of “common critiques or problems” with your study.
Just having fun.
Seriously. It worked for you, it worked for 6 people in the 70s, and it worked for me. It generally works if you don’t screw it up.
This is not my opinion, I’ve just asked Copilot your question 
Fun aside, could you answer what happens? The first post sounds like a theoretical question, but then you’ve said, you’d just did it. So I would assume you know the answer.
So did you improve? How did you measure this? Did you test your FTP? Did it increase? Or did the NP of the races increased during this 4 month? Or was it just for fun and you didn’t improve? Or did I misunderstand that quote?
And how does your races look like? Variability? Zone distribution? Will you do it another 4 month?
I still don’t know, what happens if you race for 4 month. The only answer I read is: you didn’t hit the wall and you were quite good at some hill climb.
FWIW, a local triathlete (early 40s) had been using structured training (TrainerRoad) for 4 or 5 years. His FTP was around 300W. He stopped using TR, and then abruptly switched to Zwift racing and real-life racing under a coach. His ftp went up to 350W. He could hold threshold for 40-60 minutes. His durability and repeatability increased. Outside on group rides he was a beast. He was on the Zwift podium and podiums in Northern California which is a pretty competitive district. If memory serves, shortly after doing winter Zwift racing he started seeing gains he didn’t see in 4-5 years of structured training (TR) and it continued over about a 2 year arc before his home life got busy and he stopped racing.
Myself, in 2017 I had a power meter and was doing 0.8 to 0.85 IF on 100 mile centuries, around 1 a month, starting in January, leading up to the 200 mile double century. By late February I was setting the pace on Wed worlds, by April my TTE at threshold went out to 65 minutes. Group ride pulls into heavy headwinds at 130+% for 30s. Most fun I had on the bike. These are flat rides so I posted my raw power numbers above, against all males (Intervals dataset) my 0-60sec power was 90th percentile, and 60-120 minute power was 86-90th percentile. With only 16 months experience on a road bike, in my mid fifties, and no prior endurance training other than 2 years of HIIT on a spin bike (45 minute classes).
I’ve got a lot of max effort data from that timeframe, and many years later reviewed it in WKO4, WKO5, GoldenCheetah (critical power model), and most recently Intervals.
Here is a Wed Worlds example from WKO5 with time at % vo2max, time in zones, and some intervals that I marked (far right). It basically looks like 2x35-min at threshold with a regroup in the middle. WKO modeled just that practice race a 266W ftp, I had my ftp set to 275W, and WKO model for 90 days was 278W.
and in Intervals with roughly same intervals:
10 days prior I did a long ftp test:
FWIW.
Thanks for sharing. Looks eerily similar to my power numbers but I’m about 55 pounds lighter.
