Andy SG said:
... I realize that there is a relationship between FTP and VO2max and my understanding is - a bit simplified - that working with VO2max intervalls, you raise the ceiling/max for FTP, while i.e. 20 minutes intervalls increase the % of the max you can use during a longer time...
You're on the right track, but there's a difference between VO2 Max in ml/lkg/min and
power @ VO2 Max in watts. Both are trainable, but they're not necessarily the same thing and a direct comparison of sustainable watts(FTP) to oxygen uptake(VO2 Max) is tough. There are models out there that estimate VO2 Max in ml/kg/min to power at VO2 Max in watts, but like all models they're based on typical relationships between the two and may or may not predict those relationships for a particular athlete.
But your description of VO2 Max setting a ceiling and FTP representing an obtainable percentage of that ceiling is accurate. One goal of training is to raise the overall ceiling and another is to improve your efficiency in terms of what you can sustain for long durations relative to your current ceiling. Luckily both seem to happen during L4 and SST training.
...Now to my question: I read in some litterature that a person reach his potential VO2max after 3-5 years of training, and after that the potential is reached. At the same time people here are reporting increased FTP year by year. What does it mean?...
Well the 3-5 year limit has to assume ideal training and lots of folks train sporadically or with random approaches and probably never reach their potential wrt VO2 Max or other fitness metrics. But there's still the question of whether power at VO2 Max can continue to improve after some limit in actual oxygen exchange is reached and then whether a rider can continue to improve on their sustainable percentage of their overall ceiling. Bottom line, many folks continue to improve their sustainable aerobic power for many years although the rate of improvement typically slows down with increased fitness. Is it because they never trained optimally or because aerobic gains don't necessarily stop after a fixed number of years? Does it matter as long as continued improvement is possible?
FWIW, the Morris method you cite is sometimes referred to as a "pull-up" approach to improving sustainable power. SST and L4 work can be thought of as a "push-up" approach. If done well they'll both increase capillary and mitochondrial densities in and around the working muscles. And those are two of the most important long term adapatations that result in greater sustainable power. The pull-up approach should work more quickly
if you ignore training load and time in level.
But overall training load (CTL) and time in level are really important for building a strong aerobic base. From that standpoint the push-up method has big advantages. You can do a lot more work using the push-up approach both during each session and over the course of your training week. rmur gave a really good explanation of why in another thread this morning:
http://www.cyclingforums.com/showthread.php?p=3656608#post3656608
Anyway, you'll find strong advocates for either approach to raising both FTP and VO2 Max power, but if you also want to build CTL to take you through a long season or to help with frequent events like multi day stage races then you should think about a push-up approach. That doesn't preclude L5 training to focus on raising your VO2 Max power, just that it emphasizes submaximal aerobic work for much of the training year. Personally I work SST and L4 most of the year and through the vast majority of my winter base build but introduce L5 work in late winter prior to spring racing.
Just some thoughts,
-Dave
