Plus there is the element of BullSh!t, I have got Taxc that report 400w+when its 220w of the power meter.
I sent it back to be repaired and it came back the same, well okay 10 watts less.
1 Like
No. Most of them train alot more than people realise. As you pointed out.
False assumption in my experience. They train “properly” Yes there are outliers, 100kg plus. Good for 20 minutes, and massive spikes, but they arent particularly fit. Hilly route outside over 45 minutes nowhere to be seen.
My take is they arent very fit if hammering on Zwift “all” the time.
1 Like
Yep, I have a pretty good sized discrepancy between my H3 and Vector3s. I always use Vectors even indoors for consistency, but when I use my head unit to control erg on the trainer, I have to set it like 20W higher than my target power to get the output I want on the Vectors.
So of course, the H3 is correct, right, and I’m just underselling myself with the PM pedals. I sure know which one I’d use if I were racing on Zwift! 
3 Likes
Hm, I should put my Garmin Rallys on the trainer to see if I get a higher number than the trainer. 
My Rallys are way higher, but I’m not racing when I’m on Zwift so no one yells at me. 
1 Like
Ok, I made a short test today: My Rallys are 14W lower than my Kickr Core - didn’t expect that! 
(I calibrated before doing the test.)
How do I even achieve PRs with this difference? 
Maybe I have some imbalance. Need to check my other PM too…
I retested (recalibrated): Now to difference of average watts was only 6W (Rally < Kickr Core). For short times (<5s) the Rallys were higher, for longer times (>30s) it was the other way round. 
/end offtopic
Yes but your Strava course and segment times are too high because you have cheater pedals. Reported. 
I can’t imagine caring less about something since normally I just get in with some group and race that little pack of 20 in most Zwift events I do anyway.
1 Like
Busted.
Zwift races are typically short. If you can smash a vo2 effort at the start, another one or two during the race, handle surges, and ride sweetspot for recovery, you’ll do well. Also not to be underestimated, Zwift racing takes some getting accustomed to, e.g., typical race dynamics, course layout, race dynamics for a particular course, drafting, etc…
I’ll add that being fit for a 30min - 1hr Zwift race is very different than being fit for typically longer races in real life.
3 Likes
This. Of course nothing wrong with it, but totally different beasts.
It’s similar to the debate about 100m sprint vs 42 km run …
1 Like
of course, for the longer ones you must have a great fat metabolism. and it seems that is the only reason to do “high” (relativ) volume.
cause the zwift bois with their low volume they also have a huge oxidative capacity. so it seems mitochondria dont need high volume at all for their improvement.
You seem to be laboring under the misconception that you need to burn lots of fat to get good at burning fat.
Depending on what you mean by “high volume”, no, they don’t.
No i dont believe this. you can also take the carbs away when your ox capacity has the wanted size.
So if you don’t, what did you mean by this? I’m confused as to what your stance is.
“of course, for the longer ones you must have a great fat metabolism. and it seems that is the only reason to do “high” (relativ) volume.”
They don’t mention burning lots of fat to get good at it. You just decided that’s what he(she) meant
1 Like
You’re right, technically all they have claimed is that you need to do high volumes of training to have “great fat metabolism” (which is also not correct*).
*Example: in the early 1990s, I was a pilot participant in a study examining the effects of high- vs. low-glycogen availability on amino acid metabolism during exercise. The exercise protocol entailed 90 min of exercise at a moderate intensity followed by 60 min at the highest intensity you could sustain. Despite only training 8 h/wk (i.e., (“one lap of Galveston Island and twice on Sundays”), in the low glycogen trial I was able to maintain ~300 W, eliciting a VO2 of ~4 L/min (~75% of VO2max) with an RER of only ~0.7. That’s a “Fatmax” of >2 g/min!
3 Likes
yea but with zero “topend” probably …
two ways:
going hard hard hard + carbs builds both engines. but you will always use A LOT of carbs. unefficient af. not for anything longer then 120’.
going long + carbs builds it also but different. you will get less dependent on carbs and already establish high usage of fat as a substrate at “lower” intensities without the need of fuel manipulation and with the right glycolytic training also the top end is there.
imo
1 Like
Your opinion isn’t supported by science.
7 Likes
xp is higher valued