Yup, have seen it in the notes and heard it on the podcasts, was just slightly surprised that it’s not built into any of the road plans when it is included in the tri plans. Not surprised that there was low compliance when it was included (I don’t do anything over 2 hours indoors, and would always head outside for a long endurance ride), but now that there is much better TR integration with outdoor riding I wonder if they’ll consider adding a long ride back in for things like HV century plans.
1 Like
They’ve mentioned using the extend cooldown and upping the intensity a good few times as well to be fair.
Last year when I was injured I did a few of the long endurance indoor rides - I didn’t find them too bad, once I had something decent to watch (I think it was Narco’s!)
1 Like
Yeah, but i didn’t see any recent rides to suggest otherwise, as his ftp setting is currently lower now than in that ride. There’s clearly been something going on the last few months where his fitness is dropping. I’m not his coach, but I’m going to say that LT1 214, LT2 is 246 makes more sense based on the data. @wbendus do you have a report of the results? What you posted before is the raw data, also are we talking about different power sources when you did the nscyde test? Having a relatively low vlamax should mean that your threshold is relatively close to your vo2 max. So if your VLaMax is 0.35, then no, the TR plan has not converted you to a glycolytic dependent athlete, as that value is almost as low as anyone would want to go, and should thus have a threshold that is at a higher percent of their VO2max.
In my experience, all fitness increases via sweetspot/threshold has raised my submaximal ability proportionally for the overall fitness increase. So just like @Nate_Pearson mentioned, he’s probably still at fatmax around 76% of threshold, unless he’s had a major change in his anaerobic capacity, which does not change that quickly. So my pettit rides, whether they were at a setting of 250, or 300, have almost always had the same avg HR, or at least close enough.
Your logs are talking about a lot of stressors and lack of sleep, so I’d look to try and fix those first. Since you’ve got a coach, take their advice for how to form your training plan, but maybe you need a week to unwind, start back a little more fresh and get in some good focus before Leadville.
4 Likes
I’m doing 4-5hr Z2 rides on the weekend — fasted and with no food, water/electrolytes only. Physiological factors are never a problem and my outdoor Pwr:Hr is usually ~10% (still have long ride lowish fitness) but my indoor 2-3hr is almost always <= 0% (great long ride fitness and perhaps more valuable data due to the controlled nature).
Full disclosure: for medical reasons I have abandoned high intensity work for the foreseeable future and have thus reduced my carb diet considerably (50-150g/day…depends on how much popcorn I eat! 
). Using the time to fat adapt, but it’s a very long process.
2 Likes
Mid volume is a lot to fit more riding on top of. You could switch to low volume, do the VO2 and threshold/SS sessions during the week, then add rides on top of those - long endurance rides, plus added sweet spot sessions if you need to hit your pyramid intensity goals.
.
1 Like
A mid volume TR plan, along with other external stressors and lack of sleep could mean that you’ve accumulated enough fatigue where your body might benefit from a period of rest.
You also said FTP came down 5% after Wilmington - another sign that you likely were not fully recovered from that race before your next FTP test and began training again (my workouts the week after Grand Junction off-road we’re all “failures” in that I hade to either cut them short or reduce the intensity).
Like @Bioteknik said, maybe take a week off/easy, get another 2-3 weeks of hard training in before Leadville, then taper.
All depends on the individual. In short if you can metabolize fat well then no. If you bonk often run out of energy then possibly.
Insulin Resistance test is more important that any of the metrics mentioned. That gives YOU the true green light as to whether you go carb up and hit your numbers or if you need to think about fat adaption.
Another point, your lucky if you can produce lots of lactate so it’s how you learn to use it that counts. Over unders are brilliant for it, it reminds me of when I played football and the type of pain thresholds I would use in training.
Good luck be happy in discomfort it’s where the gains are and we all know it.
Why do you say “if you’re lucky you can produce lots of lactate”. Like most of the contradictory things to do with training that I read, it confuses me.
1 Like
First, I’m not a physiologist! Secondly, I’m going on biology class from a long long long time ago 
I believe he is referring to the fact that lactate can be used as fuel by the aerobic energy system. Whether or not this results in a big gain or a ‘marginal gain’, I have no idea. In general, lactate aka lactic acid gets a bad rap, but it actually has a number of positive contributions IIRC 
I have zero knowledge but wouldn’t a high lactate production also need to be coupled with a high lactate shuttling ability in order to provide those above average gains? If one is high is the other automatically also high?
The ability to create high levels of lactate is associated with sprinters/punchy riders. This is measured by VLaMax.
A higher VLaMax is good if you’re riding things like XC races, but a lower VLaMax is better if looking to maximize FTP for sustained effort riding.
The following post has a good discussion on this topic (among others).
I think Sebastian Weber said in a podcast (and here I’m paraphrasing)that you need as large a VO2max as possible and a an appropriate level of Vlamax to compliment what your goals are.
1 Like
Not automatically, if you have a high VLaMax and you need a high VO2 max, so you can then process the lactate quicker. Track sprinters (not cycling, 100m, 200m runners) have high VLa Max, but not a high VO2 and thus they are not going to be winning a 10k.
Never taken molecular biology, but my understanding is:
Inputs to Aerobic Respiration (carbs as fuel):
- glucose molecule (sugar)
- 6 oxygen (O2)
Outputs of Aerobic Respiration:
- 6 water molecules (H20)
- 6 carbon dioxide (CO2)
- heat
- 38 ATP
(technically I believe its 2 ATP on input, and 40 on output for a total of 38 output)
So perhaps said another way, if you want to produce a lot of aerobic energy, you need a high amount of oxygen (high VO2max) and a high amount of carbs (high VLaMax). And if you are burning fat as fuel, even more oxygen is required as aerobic respiration of fat as fuel is less efficient than carbs as fuel (and “fats burn in the flame of carbs”).
Awesome; then with my 42.5 VO2Max, very high lactate production, and already relatively low VLaMax of .35, I’m probably most physiologically suited for bowling…
No.1 it’s a question of perception. For you, is lactate healthy or not? If it is learn to to use it by spending more time in the zone to improve tolerance and performance. Work with what you have so to speak.
Or accept that a higher lactate steady state is something to train and go learn how to produce more power from fat.
Before doing that I would answer the question is a low lactate threshold an indicator of metabolic damage? For some it is for some it is not. Get tested and work with stable blood glucose levels.
In short - if you can burn lots of sugar with no ill side effects no problem. Genetically there are some, get the health tests even a CAC scan.
TR workouts become even more empowering when you know for sure which is the right plan for you. Pure focus / no doubt.
right there with you! (although right now in detrained state I’m likely at a mega awesome 39 vo2max LOL)
But if you train your body to be truly fat adapted, won’t you be able to burn fat at higher outputs before requiring carb fuel (vs a non-FA carbed-up body)?
If truly fat adapted = keto then I don’t know what to tell you… I’m not interested in keto.
What I do know (non-keto) is that a) you can train a body to burn more fat vs carbs at submaximal efforts, and b) burning fat as fuel happens in the presence of burning carbs as fuel. My understanding is that for submaximal efforts we are talking about %fat vs %carbs, or as I like to say “fuel mix.” But I’m an engineer, without any training in molecular biology.
You can also metabolize carbs aerobically where no lactate is produced. VLaMax is relevant only for anaerobic metabolism of carbs - where lactate is produced as a “byproduct” - which then goes on to be consumed later as an energy source for the aerobic system.
Whether carb metabolism is aerobic or anaerobic is somewhat (maybe largely) determined by muscle fiber type, with type 1 (slow twitch) tending to be more aerobic and type 2 (fast twitch) being more anaerobic.
Very true, as carb molecules (glycogen/glucose) contain more oxygen atoms than fat molecules (triglycerides). Hence have an “onboard” source of oxygen that can be used in metabolism. Side note: this is also why alcohols are used as racing fuels (oxygen present in the fuel).
Same with me - I just listen to a lot of podcasts!