In recent years, I’ve noticed that many recreational cyclists focus on short but intense sessions, while others prefer long, endurance-based rides. Each approach has its benefits: intensity boosts peak power, while endurance builds sustained aerobic capacity. However, the right mix depends on your goals, time availability, and experience level. I’d love to hear how you structure your training plans—do you prioritize high-intensity blocks (intervals, sprints) or spend most of your time on steady-paced rides? How do you balance recovery and workload to avoid overtraining? I’d really appreciate your insights and experiences.
Should amateur cycling prioritize high-intensity training or base endurance?
👁️ 18 views💬 1 replies❤️ 0 likes
1 Replies
In my case, when combining a part-time work schedule with training, I opt for a "polarized" structure: 60% of my time is dedicated to endurance zones (2 to 3 hours at a steady pace, 60-70% of FTP), and the remaining 40% is reserved for high-intensity intervals (4-5 x 5 minutes at 90-95% of FTP with 5 minutes of recovery, or 30-second sprints every 10 minutes). This distribution allows me to maintain a solid aerobic base for long rides while also developing power and VO₂ max for climbs and race finishes.
To avoid overtraining, I plan a "load" week with two intense sessions and at least one long ride, followed by a "recovery" week with just one light endurance session (≈1 hour) and more active recovery time (easy pedaling <55% of FTP). Additionally, I use a tracking sheet (training load and perceived exertion) and if my fatigue score exceeds 7/10 for three consecutive days, I reduce intensity or increase recovery. With this routine, I’ve noticed improvements in both peak power and the ability to maintain a steady pace for several hours.