Training at FTP

BenderRodriguez

Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:

I suggest re-reading that item.

OK, so Hunter notes that simply riding along in zone 2 need not, in itself, enhance one's ability to use fat as fuel, but this is presumably why he then goes to to specifically suggest riding in a fasted state.

Yes, there is information missing with regards the exact reasons the person posing the question wants to 'burn fat as a primary fuel', but this doesn't stop Hunter from giving out advice regarding fasted riding, which he presumably feels would be relevant, otherwise why mention it? Hunter certainly doesn't qualify his advice by saying 'Please note, that this method is only suitable for pro riders'. He even finishes his post with 'Hope this helps!'

If you want to burn fat in order to extend your endurance range in a racing situation, then I would offer a few different suggestions. Many pros that I coach always want to improve their ability to burn fat in races and therefore spare essential glycogen reserves for later in the race when they need them most. This means teaching your body to use fat first and foremost in every workout. One of the ways to do this is to start off every ride early in the morning before breakfast and ride for at least 2 hours before starting to feed. Ride at Zone 2 and 3 for those 2 hours and then your body is forced to burn fat. At the end of 2 hours, start eating some carbs and protein and then finish your ride with intensity and intervals. This will help to teach your body to burn fat at a higher level of exercise intensity, thereby sparing your carbohydrate stores for later.

Hope this helps!

Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:

I would suggest most people be very cautious about mixing glycogen depletion and longer endurance training to improve performance. Most amateurs have more productive things to do for performance development than play with that particular fire. It really is a doubled edged sword, to mix my metaphors.

Why, in your view, is what Hunter advocates (perhaps recklessly given that he doesn't have sufficient information about the rider and their goals) 'playing with fire'?

Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:

Most amateurs ride slow enough/at low enough power that they are able to consume reasonable amounts of CHO along the way on long days to help them sustain performance.

Yes, if one just potters along one will obviously be able to sustain the pace for a long period by burning mainly fats, but what if the pace is upped a little? Surely, whilst a 'pro' might put out a lot more power than a typical amateur, it would benefit an amateur just as much as any pro if they were able to preferentially burn fat for a higher percentage of their threshold power output? After all, whether you are a pro or a lowly amateur your carbohydrate reserves will only last for a similar amount of time.

liter

Max Bridges wrote:

When you say improvements are obvious even at sub maximal levels, do you mean by feel or improved power heart rate ratio?

I mean lower effort for the same output, for example breathing, heart rate, the impression that your training partners have got slower. And of course better race results.

Alex_Simmons/RST

BenderRodriguez wrote:

Why, in your view, is what Hunter advocates (perhaps recklessly given that he doesn't have sufficient information about the rider and their goals) 'playing with fire'?

As I said before, this is an appropriate (but not always necessary or used) method of training for people at the elite end and/or for those who are being closely monitored.

There are however risks with chronic glycogen depletion (not saying that one will do such a thing, but regular fasted training is one such path), with increased levels of fatigue and potential for injury, chronic reduction of performance, inability to train at desired levels, increased susceptibility to illness/impaired immune function. It's not the same as overtraining (real overtraining), but there can be common symptoms.

BenderRodriguez wrote:

Yes, if one just potters along one will obviously be able to sustain the pace for a long period by burning mainly fats, but what if the pace is upped a little? Surely, whilst a 'pro' might put out a lot more power than a typical amateur, it would benefit an amateur just as much as any pro if they were able to preferentially burn fat for a higher percentage of their threshold power output? After all, whether you are a pro or a lowly amateur your carbohydrate reserves will only last for a similar amount of time.

The best way to improve the absolute power at which you continue to utilise fats as fuel is to lift your threshold power. How you train to improve threshold power is of course a wide and varied topic.

BenderRodriguez

Duplicate post.

BenderRodriguez

Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:

The best way to improve the absolute power at which you continue to utilise fats as fuel is to lift your threshold power.

OK, so in your view Hunter gave out advice that was wrong / bad/ dangerous / not applicable to the rider in question.

Next obvious question is what is the best way to enhance your ability to preferentially burn fat when you have pretty much reached your FTP ceiling?

BenderRodriguez

Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:

There are however risks with chronic glycogen depletion (not saying that one will do such a thing, but regular fasted training is one such path), with increased levels of fatigue and potential for injury, chronic reduction of performance, inability to train at desired levels, increased susceptibility to illness/impaired immune function.

A fair point, but there are similar dangers in overdoing any form of training. As ever, one needs to listen to one's own body and know when to ease off / recover / try something else.

Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:

The best way to improve the absolute power at which you continue to utilise fats as fuel is to lift your threshold power. How you train to improve threshold power is of course a wide and varied topic.

But in my experience at least, there does not seem to be such a simple, direct relationship between FTP and being able to ride at sub-threshold levels of intensity for extended periods.

For example, following the sort of approach you advocate here, I have spent the last few months following a programme of 'reverse periodisation', doing lots of threshold and above work on the track. I did this in part because the weather is too bad here in the Alps to get many winter miles in, and I thought it would be interesting to see how I responded. In previous years when I just played around on the track in order to keep my 'cycling legs' and did other activities such as ski touring, I found that I could only average around 39 km/hr or so for 20 minutes. After lots of '2 x 20s', pace-line work, aerobic intervals and so forth, my best pace for 20 minutes is now 43.8 km/hr. This is big jump and I am sure that it reflects a real increase in my FTP. In fact I am pretty sure my FTP is now higher than it has ever been since I stopped racing. However, when I have been able to get out for a long ride, this increase in my FTP does not seem to have led to an increase in my pace, perceived level of effort, long term endurance or the onset of glycogen depletion.

What does seem to increase my endurance and long term pace over the local mountain roads is, big surprise, doing long rides with lots of climbing, and I have often undertaken these in a fasted state (admittedly, primarily for weight control) without any detrimental short or long term effects, quite the opposite in fact. Such rides will be of up to 5 hours in duration, typically with about 3 hours of this being climbing. (Here in the Alps I tend to be either going up or going down.) I will usually start taking on some carbs after the first couple of hours and have never 'bonked'. I have done such rides and actually felt sharper afterwards than before I set off!

OK, so these rides will also tend to push up my FTP, but if FTP is all that matters, surely the boost in my FTP that my track work has given me should be apparent right now if I do a longer, mountainous ride, but that doesn't seem to be the case. Having a high FTP might be a necessary component of endurance, but it does not seem to be sufficient.

Perhaps my increased FTP this winter will result in an increase in my endurance pace when I start getting some real miles in again, but there does not seem to be such a simple relationship between FTP and endurance at all levels of intensity as is often portrayed. The old adage 'SAID', 'Specific adaptation to imposed demands' still seems to have some validity.

BenderRodriguez

BenderRodriguez wrote:

if FTP is all that matters, surely the boost in my FTP that my track work has given me should be apparent right now if I do a longer, mountainous ride, but that doesn't seem to be the case. Having a high FTP might be a necessary component of endurance, but it does not seem to be sufficient.

An example. I was able to get a 3.5 hour ride in on Wednesday with over 2 hours of climbing (longest climb of 40 minutes), the first such ride for a couple of weeks. Despite my raised FTP after all that track work my climbing pace was no higher than I was doing last spring for a similar level of perceived exertion, although admittedly I was not pushing things. Felt fine throughout the session although a little tired later on, which I put down to soaking in a hot bath for a little too long! Next day the sun tempted me out for another, shorter session. In the past, when I was doing frequent longer, hilly rides, I would have been pretty well recovered by the next day after such a ride. Not this time! Despite putting out what felt like a threshold level of effort my heart rate was only 154. (Usually it is around 174 and I have rarely seen it below 164 even when I know that I am carrying quite a lot of residual fatigue.) I was clearly nowhere near recovered, whatever my FTP might now be when fresh.

The foregoing leads me to think that there may be rather more to long-duration endurance than just raising one's FTP. Similarly, if this were not the case wouldn't the fastest '10' rider also be dominant in '100s' and 12 hour events as well?

P.s. I have been reading some research papers on the subject of enhancing the percentage of fat used for a given level of effort (for example via fasted training) and realise that the results are equivocal. For example, it seems that whilst fasted training might lead to greater use of fat when riding in a fasted state, even after a period of fasted training the body seems to preferentially use carbohydrate when it is available, as would be the case in competition. Even so, if the goal is to ride something like the Marmotte, taking 8 hours or more, it does seem that the sort of FTP raising that would enable one to shine in a '10' might well not be enough to enable a rider to compete to the same standard in an Alpine sportive.

Question is what other factors are significant, if not an enhanced ability to burn fat?

Alex_Simmons/RST

BenderRodriguez wrote:

Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:

The best way to improve the absolute power at which you continue to utilise fats as fuel is to lift your threshold power.

OK, so in your view Hunter gave out advice that was wrong / bad/ dangerous / not applicable to the rider in question.

No, my view is that the advice was neither wrong, nor bad, nor dangerous, but I agree it may not have been applicable to the rider in question because that's precisely what Hunter said - he didn't know what was applicable either:

Hunter wrote:

I am not sure exactly why you want to increase your ability to burn more fat, but I can think of two major reasons and for each reason there is a different solution to the problem.

And he then goes on to discuss a couple of possible reasons and solutions, but Hunter quite clearly said he didn't know why the rider was seeking to to "maximize my body’s ability to burn fat as a primary fuel".

It seems you are seeking to find conflict between what I am saying and what Hunter wrote, when there is none. I agree with what he wrote, I merely added an observation to emphasize that people should read what was written carefully so as to ascertain whether it contains an approach applicable to them (because it's not always going to be the case).

BenderRodriguez

BenderRodriguez wrote:

OK, so in your view Hunter gave out advice that was wrong / bad/ dangerous / not applicable to the rider in question.

Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:

my view is that the advice was neither wrong, nor bad, nor dangerous, but I agree it may not have been applicable to the rider in question because that's precisely what Hunter said

Perhaps I was misled by you saying that doing fasted training was 'playing with fire' and questioning its effectiveness, for example arguing that it:

may be appropriate for some pro level training

has to be done very carefully, as getting it wrong can potentially have big downsides

I would suggest most people be very cautious about mixing glycogen depletion and longer endurance training

There are however risks with chronic glycogen depletion (not saying that one will do such a thing, but regular fasted training is one such path), with increased levels of fatigue and potential for injury, chronic reduction of performance, inability to train at desired levels, increased susceptibility to illness/impaired immune function.

Most amateurs have more productive things to do for performance development than play with that particular fire. It really is a doubled edged sword

The best way to improve the absolute power at which you continue to utilise fats as fuel is to lift your threshold power.

Etc.

Surely, if all the above were true and Hunter did not know the level or aims of the rider in question, advising fasted endurance training could hardly be seen to be good, considered advice? Whatever, this is a side issue.

BenderRodriguez

Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:

It seems you are seeking to find conflict between what I am saying and what Hunter wrote, when there is none.

Not at all, what I am really trying to do is understand better just why, if raising ones FTP is supposed to enhance one's endurance, even for multi-hour efforts of moderate intensity, I have not found this to be the case. Nor does it seem to be the case that having the sort of high FTP that will see a rider dominate in a '10' will see that same rider also been able to dominate in a '100'' let alone a '12'.

In my experience there seems to be something about doing long training rides that enhances one's long-term endurance, above and beyond any impact such training might have on one's FTP. The question is, 'What might this apparent effect be due to?'

One possibility that has been proposed is that such rides could increase the percentage of fat that is used, particularly if the ride were undertaken in a fasted state with feeding only being introduced well into the ride. I was looking for some confirmation, one way or the other, as to whether this was a genuine effect. The research papers I have been reading do not give a clear answer.

(To be honest I am rather surprised that you say that you do not disagree with Hunter given that, quite apart from the need for proper supervision and so forth, there also seems to be a lot of uncertainty about under what conditions any benefits to be had from fasted training would become apparent.)

It seems that I am not the only rider who has found that raising one's FTP need not result in a similarly raised level of long-term endurance. For example, I see that the Time Trial Forum recently had a discussion as to why some riders found a couple of hours at 'tempo' really hard, and others didn't. One suggestion was those who raised their FTP via short, intense 'turbo' efforts were less suited to such extended efforts than those who had raised their FTP via more traditional endurance level rides and so were more akin to 'diesels'.

But why such differences (assuming they are real) if FTP is also the primary determinant of endurance? I wouldn't deny that FTP is a powerful predictor of endurance, but I do feel that it is not the whole story and that there are other physiological factors which make a significant contribution to long-term endurance, above and beyond simply 'learning to sit on a bike for a long time' or improving ones feeding strategy.

napoleond

I've found that whatever my ftp, unless I do some long rides consistently I'm crap at long rides. Unfortunately I don't have time to do long rides ergo I remain crap at them. Whatever my ftp.

BenderRodriguez

BenderRodriguez wrote:

To be honest I am rather surprised that you say that you do not disagree with Hunter given that, quite apart from the need for proper supervision and so forth, there also seems to be a lot of uncertainty about under what conditions any benefits to be had from fasted training would become apparent.

To follow up this central point, the papers I have looked at include:

'Beneficial metabolic adaptations due to endurance exercise training in the fasted state.' J Appl Physiol 110: 236–245, 2011.

This "investigated the effect of consistent training in the fasted state, vs. training in the fed state, on muscle metabolism and substrate selection during fasted exercise."

The researchers concluded:

our present findings clearly demonstrate that consistent exercise training in the fasted state markedly stimulates the contribution of IMCL [intramyocellular lipids] to energy provision during fasting endurance exercise. Fasting training also increases muscular oxidative capacity more than a similar intensity and duration of exercise with ample exogenous carbohydrate supply. In addition, training in the fasted state prevents drop of blood glucose concentration during fasting exercise. Our present findings therefore provide evidence to indicate that regular fasted training is a useful strategy to stimulate physiological adaptations in muscle that may eventually contribute to improve endurance exercise performance.

Also,

Effect of training in the fasted state on metabolic responses during exercise with carbohydrate intake. J Appl Physiol 104: 1045–1055, 2008


This study investigated the effect of an endurance training program whilst training in a fasted or carbohydrate fed state and being tested in a carbohydrate fed state.

This found:

short term training elicits similar adaptations in peak V˙ O2 whether carried out in the fasted or carbohydrate-fed state. Although there was a decrease in exercise-induced glycogen breakdown and an increase in proteins involved in fat handling after fasting training, fat oxidation during exercise with carbohydrate intake was not changed.

Why the seemingly contradictory findings? I think that the key point here is that the first study looked at post-training performance in a fasted state, the second in a carbohydrate fed state. So, whilst fasted training does enhance one's ability to burn fat, the body will still preferentially burn carbohydrate if the intensity is sufficient and carbohydrate is available. This suggests that fasted training would lead to enhanced levels of fat burning and carbohydrate sparing in two possible situations, 1) When you are going slowly enough be burning predominantly fat in any case and 2) When your carbohydrate reserves have become depleted and you are forced to fall back on your 'fat burning capacities' in order to finish the course, albeit at a lowered pace.

I feel that this second scenario could be particularly relevant to riders competing something like an Alpine sportive, with the more efficient 'fat burner' being able to continue at an enhanced pace even after 5 or 6 hours of riding when they have depleted their glycogen stores and can only process a limited amount of carbohydrate to make up the shortfall.

As they say, more research is needed, but I think it would be premature to say that long-duration endurance training undertaken in a fasted state does not lead to increase endurance above and beyond that derived from raising one's FTP. However, we do need to understand in what sort of situations any such benefit might become apparent.

BenderRodriguez

NapoleonD wrote:

I've found that whatever my ftp, unless I do some long rides consistently I'm crap at long rides. Unfortunately I don't have time to do long rides ergo I remain crap at them. Whatever my ftp.

That is also what I and plenty of others have found to be the case in the 'real-world'. Unfortunately, it seems that many 'evidence based' sports scientists prefer to base their beliefs almost exclusively on studies with only limited relevance to such real-world situations as riding an 8-hour plus Alpine sportive!

It's the same with many other things that the sports scientists reject as being unsupported by the evidence, such as the widespread belief that pedaling style has an effect on performance. What they should be doing is investigating just why so many riders feel this, rather than just rejecting it out of hand because a few studies failed to isolate the relevant factors. If the effect is real to the rider it is worthy of explanation, even if the effect is only due to psychological factors. But that is a whole new can of worms!

BenderRodriguez

Putting to one side the question of whether it is possible to enhance one's ability to preferentially burn fat as a fuel source, here is another factor that I think may well be relevant to the question 'Why does it seem that my raised FTP on the track has not also led to a similar improvement in my performance on long, hilly rides?'

All the work I have done raising my FTP on the track this winter has been done at a relatively high cadence, averaging out at over 100 Rpm, and often in excess of 110 Rpm. Following Henneman’s size principle, "slow, low-force, fatigue-resistant muscle fibers are activated before the fast, high-force, less fatigue-resistant muscle fibers". So, my increased FTP may well have been predominantly due to the development the capacities of my 'smaller, slow twitch' motor units, leaving my larger motor units which contain a higher proportion of 'fast twitch' fibres more or less untouched because my high-revving track work has never demanded the high torque values that would see these units being recruited.

After riding almost exclusively on the track for several months I have now started going out on the road for training sessions of over 3 hours, with a large percentage of this time being spent climbing close to threshold at my naturally selected cadence of around 80 Rpm. It would seem possible that this sort of relatively 'high torque' effort might well demand the recruitment of the very motor units that my track work did little to develop.

If the above has any validity it would seem to be a mistake to view raising one's FTP as necessarily transferring from one domain to another, as exactly how the increased FTP was achieved is also significant.

Another point that springs to mind is that although my track work has had a higher degree of specificity than the sort of activities I have done in the past in the winter, such as ski touring and cross-country skiing, those activities did have other certain similarities to my on the road training that my track work has lacked. For example, spending 4 or 5 hours working one's aerobic system hard skinning up mountains would seem to make physical demands that are in some ways similar to riding a bike over mountainous terrain for a similar amount of time.

It would seem that swapping my extended but non-specific aerobic work for more cycling specific FTP raising track work (though perhaps not quite specific enough given my long-term aims) has created something of a 'swings and roundabouts' situation. Only time will tell which approach ultimately gives the biggest return once I move the focus onto more event-specific road training.

I might be wrong, but the above does seem to make some sort of sense!

Toks

Mmm interesting - the lack of crossover from threshold effort to longer rides? As you've already alluded the specificity rule must play a big part. I did my first outdoor ride in about 4 weeks today and it was a struggle initially despite 4 weekly 2 x 20 @(85-90%). Where I train is pan flat (Regents Park) and I would argue replicates efforts on the Kurt Kinetic trainer. After 30 mins my stiff wooded 85rpm turbo legs disappeared and I felt Ok and maintained quite a good pace for 2.5 hours. If I did a hilly ride I'd imagine I would've felt quite sluggish due to pace changes (zones 1-6 all mixed in) different cadences requirement from hills etc. So in short I feel my FTP is better than it normally is at this time of the year because of the 2 x 20 sessions but that wont manifest itself on long hilly rides because of all the reasons named, Anyway I've got the Etape, Dragon and Etape Cymru so lots of work to be done.

Alex_Simmons/RST

BenderRodriguez wrote:

Not at all, what I am really trying to do is understand better just why, if raising ones FTP is supposed to enhance one's endurance, even for multi-hour efforts of moderate intensity, I have not found this to be the case.

Your anecdote is noted. My anecdotes suggest otherwise in most cases, but not all.

BenderRodriguez wrote:

Nor does it seem to be the case that having the sort of high FTP that will see a rider dominate in a '10' will see that same rider also been able to dominate in a '100'' let alone a '12'.

Suggest carefully in how you interpret variability in such results for different people.

Mind you, we had a client who set world record for 12 hour and also performed exceptionally well at many 10s, as well as distances in between and became BBAR champion.

BenderRodriguez wrote:

In my experience there seems to be something about doing long training rides that enhances one's long-term endurance, above and beyond any impact such training might have on one's FTP. The question is, 'What might this apparent effect be due to?'

One possibility that has been proposed is that such rides could increase the percentage of fat that is used, particularly if the ride were undertaken in a fasted state with feeding only being introduced well into the ride. I was looking for some confirmation, one way or the other, as to whether this was a genuine effect. The research papers I have been reading do not give a clear answer.

(To be honest I am rather surprised that you say that you do not disagree with Hunter given that, quite apart from the need for proper supervision and so forth, there also seems to be a lot of uncertainty about under what conditions any benefits to be had from fasted training would become apparent.)

It seems that I am not the only rider who has found that raising one's FTP need not result in a similarly raised level of long-term endurance. For example, I see that the Time Trial Forum recently had a discussion as to why some riders found a couple of hours at 'tempo' really hard, and others didn't. One suggestion was those who raised their FTP via short, intense 'turbo' efforts were less suited to such extended efforts than those who had raised their FTP via more traditional endurance level rides and so were more akin to 'diesels'.

But why such differences (assuming they are real) if FTP is also the primary determinant of endurance? I wouldn't deny that FTP is a powerful predictor of endurance, but I do feel that it is not the whole story and that there are other physiological factors which make a significant contribution to long-term endurance, above and beyond simply 'learning to sit on a bike for a long time' or improving ones feeding strategy.

Higher CTL has its benefits.

Alex_Simmons/RST

BenderRodriguez wrote:

That is also what I and plenty of others have found to be the case in the 'real-world'. Unfortunately, it seems that many 'evidence based' sports scientists prefer to base their beliefs almost exclusively on studies with only limited relevance to such real-world situations as riding an 8-hour plus Alpine sportive!

Would you like to expand on who these many scientists are?

BenderRodriguez wrote:

It's the same with many other things that the sports scientists reject as being unsupported by the evidence, such as the widespread belief that pedaling style has an effect on performance. What they should be doing is investigating just why so many riders feel this, rather than just rejecting it out of hand because a few studies failed to isolate the relevant factors. If the effect is real to the rider it is worthy of explanation, even if the effect is only due to psychological factors. But that is a whole new can of worms!

Can you specifically name what is being rejected, by whom, and based on which evidence?

BenderRodriguez

Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:

BenderRodriguez wrote:

Nor does it seem to be the case that having the sort of high FTP that will see a rider dominate in a '10' will see that same rider also been able to dominate in a '100'' let alone a '12'.

Suggest carefully in how you interpret variability in such results for different people.

Suggest that you are take care in promoting supposedly universal principles of training given the huge variability in response found amongst different people...

BenderRodriguez

Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:

Would you like to expand on who these many scientists are?

I would prefer - for now - to focus on the main themes of this topic rather than becoming sidetracked (again) into peripheral issues.

BenderRodriguez wrote:

It's the same with many other things that the sports scientists reject as being unsupported by the evidence, such as the widespread belief that pedaling style has an effect on performance.

Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:

Can you specifically name what is being rejected, by whom, and based on which evidence?

As I said, I would prefer - for now - to keep on topic. We can come back to this on a new thread later, if you wish. To be fair much of the ground has been covered previously. For example:

viewtopic.php?f=40011&t=12916675&p=18277287

viewtopic.php?f=40011&t=12913276&p=18239167

Anyhow, to get this thread back on topic, do you think that Henneman’s size principle and the difference between the relatively high cadence my FTP was developed at, as opposed to my usual climbing cadence, could explain, at least in part, the limited transfer that I seem to have noted?

Alex_Simmons/RST

BenderRodriguez wrote:

Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:

Would you like to expand on who these many scientists are?

I would prefer - for now - to focus on the main themes of this topic rather than becoming sidetracked (again) into peripheral issues.

That's ironic. You make a claim about scientists ignoring evidence in the real world, yet when you are asked for evidence about your real world claim about scientists, you don't back it up with real world evidence.

The thread has already been derailed. If you don't want to take a discussion off-track, don't make fallacious arguments.

BenderRodriguez wrote:

Anyhow, to get this thread back on topic, do you think that Henneman’s size principle and the difference between the relatively high cadence my FTP was developed at, as opposed to my usual climbing cadence, could explain, at least in part, the limited transfer that I seem to have noted?

It might but I'm not really qualified to say, and I'm not sure in what way it would given that when fast twitch fibres are recruited to any great degree, they fatigue quickly (which isn't what happen during such long endurance efforts), and their recruitment is more a function of power than of cadence.

I didn't bother looking at the links.

BenderRodriguez

Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:

You make a claim about scientists ignoring evidence in the real world, yet when you are asked for evidence about your real world claim about scientists, you don't back it up with real world evidence.

No I didn't. What I actually said was:

it seems that many 'evidence based' sports scientists prefer to base their beliefs almost exclusively on studies with only limited relevance to... real-world situations

Not quite the same thing. Anyhow, it is a pity that you should once again by trying to force the discussion towards what are peripheral issues, rather than focusing on the key points under discussion.

Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:

when fast twitch fibres are recruited to any great degree, they fatigue quickly (which isn't what happen during such long endurance efforts), and their recruitment is more a function of power than of cadence.

One, would it not be more accurate to say that their recruitment is actually a function of torque, which is related to both power and cadence? Secondly, is it not true that, given appropriate training, they need not fatigue anywhere near as quickly and can make a significant contribution to sustained power? For example, see the review article 'Things your mother forgot to tell you about blood lactate' in issue 100 of Peak Performance. (I could give further references, but it seems likely you wouldn't bother to read them in any case.) Any constructive comments would be welcome, even if you feel that you are 'not really qualified to say'.

Alex_Simmons/RST

BenderRodriguez wrote:

Anyhow, it is a pity that you should once again by trying to force the discussion towards what are peripheral issues, rather than focusing on the key points under discussion.

I'm not the one who introduced it.

BenderRodriguez wrote:

Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:

when fast twitch fibres are recruited to any great degree, they fatigue quickly (which isn't what happen during such long endurance efforts), and their recruitment is more a function of power than of cadence.

One, would it not be more accurate to say that their recruitment is actually a function of torque, which is related to both power and cadence?

No, it wouldn't.

BenderRodriguez wrote:

Secondly, is it not true that, given appropriate training, they need not fatigue anywhere near as quickly and can make a significant contribution to sustained power? For example, see the review article 'Things your mother forgot to tell you about blood lactate' in issue 100 of Peak Performance. (I could give further references, but it seems likely you wouldn't bother to read them in any case.) Any constructive comments would be welcome, even if you feel that you are 'not really qualified to say'.

I don't read every link on every forum just because someone posts it.

Fatigue is mutifactoral. Always. It's also complex. Speculating on one particular cause (and presumably then a magic bullet solution) is fine but ultimately the answer is not as simple as some might wish it were.

So my suggestion is to do the things that we know work to improve performance:
- improve power output at threshold
- include sufficient specificity in your training (which means a CTL appropriate for the events demand, which for such long events implies also including some long rides in training if possible)
- work on your diet and nutrition strategy
- pacing yourself
- applying other sounds training principles such as frequency, progressive overload, recovery and adaptation
- consider means to reduce the physical demands (e.g. appropriate weight loss, improved aerodynamics, better tyres)
- etc

BenderRodriguez

Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:

my suggestion is to do the things that we know work to improve performance:
- improve power output at threshold
- include sufficient specificity in your training (which means a CTL appropriate for the events demand, which for such long events implies also including some long rides in training if possible)
- work on your diet and nutrition strategy
- pacing yourself
- applying other sounds training principles such as frequency, progressive overload, recovery and adaptation
- consider means to reduce the physical demands (e.g. appropriate weight loss, improved aerodynamics, better tyres)
- etc

All good advice!

However, I have just come across a post on your own blog that suggests I may well have been right about there being some good reason why the FTP I have developed in my high cadence, high crank inertia track work this winter does not seem to have transferred all that well to my long duration on-road rides with lots of low cadence, low inertial load climbing:

Inertial load is the next main differential factor when comparing indoor and outdoor training. Without going into too much detail, when we ride outdoors, we have the inertial load of a bike and rider moving at some speed, plus that of the wheels turning. If we stopped pedaling, our rear wheel doesn't suddenly slow or stop turning, we would coast for quite some time. On many trainers however, since we are not moving, the inertial load is much less and confined to the rear wheel spinning and any small flywheel that the trainer has attached to the roller. When you stop pedaling, the wheel slows and comes to a halt relatively quickly. Some are worse than others.

Now what happens is each scenario feels quite different to ride, muscle activation is different, the neuromuscular demands are different and these can be enough for some to make power production much harder. In general, low inertial load trainers tends to emphasise the "dead spots" in the pedal stroke (when the cranks are passing through the 12/6 O'Clock position), whereas riding with a higher inertial load enables one to breeze through (and not waste effort on) the dead spots and focus on the downstroke where the bulk of power is produced.

Fortunately there is a way to increase the inertial load of a trainer, and that's by having a flywheel attached to the trainer's roller (or even by adding mass to the wheel itself). How much mass is needed? Well to replicate the inertial load of a rider, it would need a very heavy flywheel spinning very quickly. Think of a 20-30kg flywheel spinning at 500-800 rpm. Yikes!!

http://alex-cycle.blogspot.fr/2009/01/t ... ining.html

"...what happens is each scenario feels quite different to ride, muscle activation is different, the neuromuscular demands are different and these can be enough for some to make power production much harder". OK, so the context is slightly different, but what you wrote certainly sounds familiar to me!

Alex_Simmons/RST

Yes, and that's my opinion, but I also wrote in that item:

I should add that the idea of inertial load on an indoor trainer affecting pedaling isn't actually backed by evidence other than anecdotal, from myself and many others I know that have used such trainers. As an example, this link to a study extract on PubMed indicates that varying crank inertial loads has little or no effect on steady state pedaling coordination.

BenderRodriguez

Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:

Yes, and that's my opinion, but I also wrote in that item:

I should add that the idea of inertial load on an indoor trainer affecting pedaling isn't actually backed by evidence other than anecdotal, from myself and many others I know that have used such trainers...

Yes, and you also are a coach with RST Sport who claim to "specialise in evidence based and creative solutions to sports performance challenges" and so on. Despite this you still make recommendations about what trainer to buy, claim that with high and low inertia trainers "muscle activation is different, the neuromuscular demands are different" and so on based on little more than anecdotal 'evidence'.

It seems that you are often very quick to shout down others who make suggestions based on opinion, experience and anecdotal 'evidence', yet you are clearly prepared, when it suits you, to do the same yourself even when you admit that your beliefs and advice are not supported by or run counter to the available research evidence!

Anyhow, I think that my main point stands and that if there is any truth in your 'belief' that simply having a small flywheel on one's turbo trainer can have the effects you claim...

muscle activation is different, the neuromuscular demands are different and these can be enough for some to make power production much harder. In general, low inertial load trainers tends to emphasise the "dead spots" in the pedal stroke (when the cranks are passing through the 12/6 O'Clock position), whereas riding with a higher inertial load enables one to breeze through (and not waste effort on) the dead spots and focus on the downstroke where the bulk of power is produced.

...then surely there could be an even more marked effect when comparing relatively short and intense sessions done on the track, predominantly with a high crank inertial load and a high cadence, with longer sessions done over mountainous roads where a lot of the time one is riding with a low crank inertial load and a lower cadence. In turn FTP developed in one domain (here the track) need not fully transfer to another domain that makes very different 'neuromuscular demands' (here extended rides over mountainous roads), just as I suggested earlier.

Alex_Simmons/RST

The difference is that I tend to make it quite clear which is evidence and which is opinion.

As for transference, IMO a lot of that is a matter of adaptation.

BenderRodriguez

Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:

The difference is that I tend to make it quite clear which is evidence and which is opinion.

As for transference, IMO a lot of that is a matter of adaptation.

Just your opinion then, rather than a matter of evidence? Thanks for making that clear.

In any case saying that something is "a matter of adaptation" is not saying much, given that the goal of all training is to invoke adaptation!

bahzob

BenderRodriguez wrote:

Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:

The difference is that I tend to make it quite clear which is evidence and which is opinion.

As for transference, IMO a lot of that is a matter of adaptation.

Just your opinion then, rather than a matter of evidence? Thanks for making that clear.

Alex_Simmons/RST

BenderRodriguez wrote:

Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:

The difference is that I tend to make it quite clear which is evidence and which is opinion.

As for transference, IMO a lot of that is a matter of adaptation.

Just your opinion then, rather than a matter of evidence? Thanks for making that clear.

In any case saying that something is "a matter of adaptation" is not saying much, given that the goal of all training is to invoke adaptation!

Perhaps I should be more clear. I mean more a matter of neural adaptation, rather than metabolic. Neural adaptation is something that can be trained relatively quickly (and yes there is evidence for that), provided it's the the same muscles in play used in a sufficiently similar manner.

In the case of some trainers, I'm not sure that's always the case though. Compare say a bike on a high resistance mag unit versus say a typical fixed gear spin bike with large flywheel. Each would not tax the various leg muscles in quite the same manner.

BenderRodriguez

Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:

Perhaps I should be more clear. I mean more a matter of neural adaptation, rather than metabolic. Neural adaptation is something that can be trained relatively quickly (and yes there is evidence for that), provided it's the the same muscles in play used in a sufficiently similar manner.

Interesting. Could you provide a few references, or even send me some papers to read if the full-text is not available on-line?

Thanks!