Iñigo San Millán training model

[tshortt]

@kurt.braeckel

I’m not arguing that FatMax doesn’t exist, merely that pursuit of knowing your individual FatMax is nearly useless to the vast majority of athletes

I’ll answer this part of it. I no longer conflate FatMax with LT1. Often, as shorthand, we see “FatMax/LT1” or some informal nomenclature that I think means: these are closely enough related for coaching shorthand so that we can have a reasonable discussion without constantly qualifying, hedging, and/or going down a fruitless rabbit hole. And, by the way, let’s base a training program on it, too.

What is interesting intellectually to me is: why all the focus on FatMax rather than “CHO min” (quotes because I made that term up because I’m trying to make a point and ask a question). The rate of fat ox changes with intensity but it is more than adequate at almost every intensity humans are capable of (certainly the ones endurance athletes care about), and also is actually occurring (unlike what my INSCYD report says…but again, maybe just shorthand).

But something happens with CHO utilization when intensity increases as well. To ask another way: what is so special about the “crossover point”?

[GarageLab]

Fatmax is just another thing to explore.

There are variations in everything, FTP included. I don’t think my body feels the same every day, so in my opinion, context is everything when making metabolic observations.

[kurt.braeckel]

@GarageLab

There are variations in everything, FTP included.

True, but I can feel a difference in a power threshold. I cannot feel a difference in FatMax. Some can feel a difference in lactate accumulation at lower power levels (i.e. LT1). So a power threshold has utility on a day-to-day basis, even with daily variations. IME, FTP doesn’t vary by 10% day to day unless you are very fatigued (in which case you probably aren’t training at FTP anyway, but you might be racing!). The variances in FatMax were even larger than that.

Hence the utility of power and calibration of RPE remains the most practical tool in the toolbox of most athletes.

Again, if the curiosity is purely intellectual, great! All for it.

@tshortt

I’ll answer this part of it. I no longer conflate FatMax with LT1. Often, as shorthand, we see “FatMax/LT1” or some informal nomenclature that I think means: these are closely enough related for coaching shorthand so that we can have a reasonable discussion without constantly qualifying, hedging, and/or going down a fruitless rabbit hole. And, by the way, let’s base a training program on it, too.

What is interesting intellectually to me is: why all the focus on FatMax rather than “CHO min” (quotes because I made that term up because I’m trying to make a point and ask a question). The rate of fat ox changes with intensity but it is more than adequate at almost every intensity humans are capable of (certainly the ones endurance athletes care about), and also is actually occurring (unlike what my INSCYD report says…but again, maybe just shorthand).

But something happens with CHO utilization when intensity increases as well. To ask another way: what is so special about the “crossover point”?

I don’t know why anything should be interesting about the crossover point (assuming what you mean by that is the point where the 50/50 balance of substrate utilization occurs). I can’t imagine caring less about something.

But your point on your INSCYD test is bang on, and the one that needs highlighting for athletes before they go drop money on those tests: what the model reflects and what’s actually going on are very different, to the point that I think the INSCYD model is invalid and subject to massive errors. I don’t remember exactly, but I am pretty sure my curve during my trial test said my fat utilization dropped to zero at like 260W (coming in off my offseason where I had just tested 60-min power at 255W). And that’s just wrong.

From a coaching/performance perspective, there is nothing wrong with carbohydrate utilization (quite the opposite, actually), even on endurance rides. And as studies and practical knowledge show, you burn more fat by riding for a longer duration… so from a training perspective, stick that power well below LT1 (and probably FatMax) and sit there for 5 hours.

I think there is some utility in tracking LT1 over time (and probably MLSS/LT2/Threshold too), but I also think you can do a lot of that with a power meter and HRM (EF) and a good sense of RPE and what’s going on under the hood.

[GarageLab]

@tshortt

I’ll answer this part of it. I no longer conflate FatMax with LT1. Often, as shorthand, we see “FatMax/LT1” or some informal nomenclature that I think means: these are closely enough related for coaching shorthand so that we can have a reasonable discussion without constantly qualifying, hedging, and/or going down a fruitless rabbit hole. And, by the way, let’s base a training program on it, too.

There’s too much nuance for good discussion. Once technology has progressed where we all have at-home metabolic carts, then we can start having good discussions. Academic papers are too limited.

@tshortt

What is interesting intellectually to me is: why all the focus on FatMax rather than “CHO min” (quotes because I made that term up because I’m trying to make a point and ask a question). The rate of fat ox changes with intensity but it is more than adequate at almost every intensity humans are capable of (certainly the ones endurance athletes care about), and also is actually occurring (unlike what my INSCYD report says…but again, maybe just shorthand).

But something happens with CHO utilization when intensity increases as well. To ask another way: what is so special about the “crossover point”?

CHO min is rest.

[kurt.braeckel]

@GarageLab

Once technology has progressed where we all have at-home metabolic carts, then we can start having good discussions.

But why do we need that in the age of power meters and heart rate monitors? IMO at-home metabolic testing isn’t going to result in improved training protocols for most athletes. Obviously, I have no way to prove that. But I do agree with your point about nuance and such. Extremely difficult to do on a message board, but I appreciate the attempts anyway.

[GarageLab]

@kurt.braeckel

But why do we need that in the age of power meters and heart rate monitors? IMO at-home metabolic testing isn’t going to result in improved training protocols for most athletes. Obviously, I have no way to prove that. But I do agree with your point about nuance and such. Extremely difficult to do on a message board, but I appreciate the attempts anyway.

A power meter, in my opinion, is not the end-all-be-all device. It’s not a lab on the bike, as much as people claim it is. You’re missing half of the picture. It’s just a measurement of how much work you can do. Which is very important. But whether those power-only mathematical models (FTP, CP, etc.) represent my physiology is what I’m trying to understand better.

We can agree to disagree about the utility of looking under the hood at what comprises the performance.

[tshortt]

@kurt.braeckel

I don’t know why anything should be interesting about the crossover point (assuming what you mean by that is the point where the 50/50 balance of substrate utilization occurs). I can’t imagine caring less about something.

Well, sure. The actual crossover. Who cares? :-). Agree. 50% / 50% is academic, at best.

I guess I mean, surely the uptick in CHO utilization, rather than the maximum rate of fat ox, is more useful and would more closely correspond to lactate. So you get a sense of why when you’re “doing more” glycolysis, which will ultimately lead to faster rate of glycogen depletion, no?

[DarthShivious]

@kurt.braeckel

But why do we need that in the age of power meters and heart rate monitors?

Power Meters measure the final output of a complex system with many components contributing to the final output.

Heart rate is one component of that complex system.

The total system has many physiological and physiological components (inputs). The better we understand those individual components, the better we understand limiters, the better chance we have of improving the system.

PM’s and HRM’s aren’t sufficient because it we wish to understand more discrete components of the system, then we need additional tools.

To dive a bit deeper, Heart Rate is only one component of the system leading to power output. There are additional components utilized in delivering and utilizing oxygen. Along with delivering other needed molecules and taking away waste products.

Heart rate for a given power output is nice in that you have easily deployed and relatively inexpensive tools to determine these metrics. But it does not provide a detailed view of other important system components.

Why do we care?

Beyond intellectual curiosity, the goal in understanding more components of the system would be to identify strengths and weaknesses. With that knowledge one would ask if training interventions are available to increase the capabilities of those components.

Will it matter in a practical sense and help athletes perform better?

We don’t know yet and that’s why it’s called research

An aside - RPE has much more variability than people often think. RPE is a psychological metric. Our emotions and how we perceive pain feedback varies significantly day to day and athlete to athlete. Having a lab measurement which is quantitative (and cheap and easy) would be very helpful for athletes trying to maximize performance and reach their potential. As this evolves, will probably be a number of tests not one.

From a “need” perspective, it’s all relative. Amateurs don’t really need power meters, HRMs or coaches. Let alone O2, glucose and lactate monitors. But some folks enjoy the details and as part of the hobby, that’s great. One does the best one can today with the tools one chooses to employ. There is no right or wrong since for 99.9% of us on the forum this is a hobby and done for enjoyment.

This is a very nice discussion and has been fun to follow and see what people are finding.

-Darth

[kurt.braeckel]

@GarageLab

A power meter, in my opinion, is not the end-all-be-all device. It’s not a lab on the bike, as much as people claim it is. You’re missing half of the picture. It’s just a measurement of how much work you can do. Which is very important. But whether those power-only mathematical models (FTP, CP, etc.) represent my physiology is what I’m trying to understand better.

We can agree to disagree about the utility of looking under the hood at what comprises the performance.

I guess I just leave the looking under the hood to physiologists. Most of the testing done “at home” by people is probably inaccurate, and many don’t understand the errors associated with the measurements anyway. You and @DarthShivious among others here seem to, based on what I’ve read, and I can see the intellectual curiosity here and that’s always commendable.

I don’t think a power meter is the end-all-be-all, that’s actually why I mentioned a HRM with it. Most of the performance gains you’re hoping to track by charting LT1 (or gasp FatMax) over time are much more easily, accessible, and reliably tracked by watching EF. While it’s not a direct measurement of lactate (obviously), you’re getting at the same performance improvement directly with what matters: more power with less stress (as measured by HR).

Obviously, HR has just as many factors associated with it that can drive it batty, but much like lactate and FatMax testing, the point is the trend, rather than the individual measurement. All of that is accessible to people at less than $500 for high-quality devices.

[kurt.braeckel]

@DarthShivious

But some folks enjoy the details and as part of the hobby, that’s great. One does the best one can today with the tools one chooses to employ. There is no right or wrong since for 99.9% of us on the forum this is a hobby and done for enjoyment.

I am down with this.

[AJS914]

@DarthShivious

From a “need” perspective, it’s all relative. Amateurs don’t really need power meters, HRMs or coaches. Let alone O2, glucose and lactate monitors.

I think a lot of people get caught up with not knowing what they need or what is important. They hear ISM talk about lab testing, lactate, bioenergetics, etc. and think that if they only had that they would bust out of their range and tack on another 30 watts to their FTP.

The same with Inscyd testing - if one only gets this magic test, it will tell me how to train my VLAmax and then the magic will happen.

Personally, I’m falling into the “all roads lead to Rome” camp*. Most amateurs could ride whatever volume they are going to ride, do 1-3 interval sessions per week, keep fatigue in check, and they will probably reach 95%+ of whatever potential they can reach. Maybe they can optimize that last 5% with a coach or more advanced training methods but if they do all the basics, they won’t be leaving a lot on the table.

#40 - The history of endurance training methods with Dr Michael Joyner

[kurt.braeckel]

@AJS914

I think a lot of people get caught up with not knowing what they need or what is important.

This, to me, is my job as a coach: filter through the BS and get people on the right track as quickly as possible. Many of us spent years searching out the golden ticket, only to find it doesn’t exist. I have racers ranging from first-year racing, up to guys who raced at a high level in their 20s and 30s now in their 70s racing masters. The first-year (or two) people, I like to think I’m keeping them from going down the wrong paths and giving them a head start on people who go it alone. The problem you run into is they always have friends/family who tell them all kinds of bad advice, but they want to listen because friend/family is faster than they currently are. Never mind that friend/family plateaued on their “smash every group ride” plan several years ago.

[Dubadai]

@kurt.braeckel

Never mind that friend/family plateaued on their “smash every group ride” plan several years ago.

Ugh dealing with this right now… got a friend who got this domestic pro as a coach!

His coach seems to be coaching for income, not for any other reason. And my friend listens to him like he is god himself… while in my eyes it feels like his coach is just doing the “what worked for me as a pro should work for the amateurs”

So here my friend is doing 3-4 interval sessions a week, doesn’t believe that volume is important enough to do more than 7-8 hours, etc etc.

Drives me nuts.

On the other side of this I have a coach which has the totally opposite approach.

Maximise endurance riding, 1-2 hard sessions a week, adapts to work stress etc. which has worked amazing for me. Never sick, never over trained, no rest weeks, just super consistent for the past 2.5 years.

It’s so hard or discuss training with someone who has been indoctrinated to believe that if you’re not doing 3-4 hard rides a week you’re not getting faster.

My friend also refers to “the pros” often. Saying that “now they’re only riding hard when racing so I should be doing hard rides all the time also, not noodling around with volume and Z2”

Makes my blood boil

[sryke]

So who is faster, you or your friend?

[Dubadai]

Depends on how you measure it… He is 90kg and I am 76kg, similar FTP.

I can do four week block with 25hrs per week, he barely manages one without being cooked.

But most important, I keep getting faster while he has stagnated.

[carytb]

Who’s healthier?

[Dubadai]

100% me. He struggles with fatigue, bad sleep, he fails workouts at least a couple of times a month, blames allergies etc.

The issue is that he is still pretty fast, so he has this issue where he doesn’t believe anything else can work, since he has done quite well so far (at least for the riding he does, super hard 45min group rides etc).

I rather be able to to 3x10min at threshold after 3-4 hours (just for fun, eh)

After I started riding with a coach (2.5 years), I have literally only been sick with COVID. Before when I was riding with TR (this was pre polarised plans) I was sick multiple times a year.

[Dubadai]

Absolute watts, around 315w for both of us (4.15w/kg for me and 3.5w/kg for him).

I am no beast on the bike, but I can get around just fine.

The cool thing is that my sub 5min power has shot through the roof recently, and I haven’t trained it at all. Just endurance riding and a few interval sessions here and there (probably average one a week now during summer when I am doing 13-14h a week)

[ivegotabike]

As the man himself says (in this video interview with GCN), zone 2 is intense (from approx 11:44) and his method also includes a lot of Zone 4 (“which is key because that is how you win races”)

How Does Tadej Pogačar Train For The Tour De France? | Deep Dive With His Coach!

[AJS914]

ISM looks like he’s slimmed down a bit. Zone 2 for the win!