Official Sprocket Rockets Training Thread

Got my first ride in with the power meter. This one was focused on just making sure that it worked - I didn't do any VO2 or Threshold-specific training. It got me thinking about a few things:

1. I'd be interested to see what data pages you have on your bike computers, how you have them arranged and what info you glean from each page. I'll take a few screenshots and post mine up.
2. When I'm doing structured VO2 or Threshold workouts with my Edge 530 I have set up the workouts to guide me into the correct HR zones. I'm assuming I'll want to do the same with power zones, but how do each of you use power in training?

Thanks!

Seth

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sethschmautz

1. I'd be interested to see what data pages you have on your bike computers, how you have them arranged and what info you glean from each page. I'll take a few screenshots and post mine up.

---

3s power, cadence, speed, HR, temp, current elevation, elevation gained, speed, time of day, elapsed time.

I have a page with power, lap normalized power, HR and lap time and a graph but never do structured workouts outside so I never use that. As infrequently as I ride outside I just try to enjoy it, and save the suffering for the basement.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by XtrPickels

You can certainly improve between now and then.
1. There are physiologic improvements that can occur in that time.
2. There are perception improvements that can occur in an even shorter timeframe

Question 1: Honestly, how hard are you riding during your current rides?
This applies to both how hard you are pushing yourself, but also how hard the terrain makes you go. A mountain bike ride with steep hills that you are grunting up is essentially an interval workout.

If you are going to begin doing structured intervals, you really ought to pay attention to keeping your other rides lower intensity.

Question 2: What is you event, what are your goals, what is limiting you from reaching those goals?

Regarding specific workouts: Most people never go truly hard, so I could agree with C-E that "VO2" type intervals are likely worthwhile. These can either be an exact 5 minute effort on the trainer / sustained climb or repeats up a hill that is 5-ish minutes in length. You'd be looking to go as hard as you can for the 5 minutes, but not so hard that you cannot sustain it for each repeat. E.g. If you're doing an interval up a hill you want to be able to reach the same point each time. Start with 3x5, then 4x5, then 5x5. Once you can do 5x5, go to 3x8, then 4x8. Try to do the 8 minutes at the same workload as the 5 minutes

Intervals 2 days a week, whether a planned workout or because your ride forces you to go hard are all that's needed. But, these workouts should be very difficult - a Type II type of fun.

---

That's good news, I better get on it!

1. On a scale of 1-10, I'd say most of my rides fall into the 5-7 range. The long gravel ride on the weekends and the MTB rides are towards a 7 and the shorter gravel ride is a 5. I have some HR graphs from these rides if that helps?

I'm in the Midwest so nothing in the way of steep hills here for either MTB or gravel. For MTB there are a bunch of small, punchy climbs stacked up so my HR tends to stay fairly high.

2. Event is the 62 mile Barry Roubaix (62 mi, 3.8k ft. elevation) and I'd like to finish it in 4 hours or less. Based on my current rides I think the limiting factor is being able to maintain enough power to sustain the necessary pace for the entire race. I find that towards the end of my rides my power tapers off and I can't go as fast as I'd like up the hills.

I can probably find 1 or 2 hills on gravel roads around here that would allow me to do a 5 minute repeats. If I added in 2 days of intervals, should I drop any of the current rides I do? Or just lower the intensity of those?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sethschmautz

Got my first ride in with the power meter. This one was focused on just making sure that it worked - I didn't do any VO2 or Threshold-specific training. It got me thinking about a few things:

1. I'd be interested to see what data pages you have on your bike computers, how you have them arranged and what info you glean from each page. I'll take a few screenshots and post mine up.
2. When I'm doing structured VO2 or Threshold workouts with my Edge 530 I have set up the workouts to guide me into the correct HR zones. I'm assuming I'll want to do the same with power zones, but how do each of you use power in training?

Thanks!

Seth

---

Power is Immediate; go straight to the zone and let your HR come up.
E.g. 5 x 5 minutes at 350w means go straight to 350 and stay there for the duration. HR will rise for the first few minutes and then plateau. That plateau in HR will likely be at increasingly higher values with each subsequent set.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by meepmoop24

That's good news, I better get on it!

1. On a scale of 1-10, I'd say most of my rides fall into the 5-7 range. The long gravel ride on the weekends and the MTB rides are towards a 7 and the shorter gravel ride is a 5. I have some HR graphs from these rides if that helps?

I'm in the Midwest so nothing in the way of steep hills here for either MTB or gravel. For MTB there are a bunch of small, punchy climbs stacked up so my HR tends to stay fairly high.

2. Event is the 62 mile Barry Roubaix (62 mi, 3.8k ft. elevation) and I'd like to finish it in 4 hours or less. Based on my current rides I think the limiting factor is being able to maintain enough power to sustain the necessary pace for the entire race. I find that towards the end of my rides my power tapers off and I can't go as fast as I'd like up the hills.

I can probably find 1 or 2 hills on gravel roads around here that would allow me to do a 5 minute repeats. If I added in 2 days of intervals, should I drop any of the current rides I do? Or just lower the intensity of those?

---

Most of your rides should be in the 3 / 10 range. A longer, harder, ride every once in a while( in the 6-7 range) is likely fine to practice the feeling of the race. The workouts should be in the 8-9/10 range.

These references are both relative and individualistic. Keep in mind that a 30s all-out effort might be a 10/10 for effort, but only a 5/10 for discomfort. Whereas, a 5 minute effort might only be a 7/10 for effort, but it's a 10/10 for discomfort at the end.

In general your thinking should be something like:
First 1/4: I should go harder
Halfway: Getting hard, this is a good pace
3/4 done: Oh man, I'm not sure I can do this. Can't. Slow. Down.
Finish: SKF&S)F&S^
3 minutes later: Let's do this!

You're likely losing power toward the end b/c
A. Not eating enough
B. Going too hard
C. Combination thereof.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by XtrPickels

Most of your rides should be in the 3 / 10 range. A longer, harder, ride every once in a while( in the 6-7 range) is likely fine to practice the feeling of the race. The workouts should be in the 8-9/10 range.

These references are both relative and individualistic. Keep in mind that a 30s all-out effort might be a 10/10 for effort, but only a 5/10 for discomfort. Whereas, a 5 minute effort might only be a 7/10 for effort, but it's a 10/10 for discomfort at the end.

In general your thinking should be something like:
First 1/4: I should go harder
Halfway: Getting hard, this is a good pace
3/4 done: Oh man, I'm not sure I can do this. Can't. Slow. Down.
Finish: SKF&S)F&S^
3 minutes later: Let's do this!

You're likely losing power toward the end b/c
A. Not eating enough
B. Going too hard
C. Combination thereof.

---

Awesome, appreciate the additional info. This kind of confirms what I was suspecting- too many of my rides fall in the middle of the range so I'm not really progressing much any more.

I started consuming more carbs (80-90g/hour) based on some earlier info in the thread and I definitely felt a difference from doing that.

How reliable are the FTP and VO2max estimates from my Garmin bike computer (based on power meter and HRM data)? I'm mostly interested in whether changes in the numbers over time are a reliable indicator of fitness improvements, and less concerned about whether the values would match a controlled lab experiment.

As an example, Garmin says my FTP is about 20W lower than last year (and VO2max unchanged), but I've significantly improved almost all the Strava PRs I pay attention to this year. I would self-assess myself as more fit now, but Garmin thinks otherwise.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sethschmautz

Got my first ride in with the power meter. This one was focused on just making sure that it worked - I didn't do any VO2 or Threshold-specific training. It got me thinking about a few things:

1. I'd be interested to see what data pages you have on your bike computers, how you have them arranged and what info you glean from each page. I'll take a few screenshots and post mine up.
2. When I'm doing structured VO2 or Threshold workouts with my Edge 530 I have set up the workouts to guide me into the correct HR zones. I'm assuming I'll want to do the same with power zones, but how do each of you use power in training?

Thanks!

Seth

---

As bean mentioned above and this can’t be stressed enough, anytime you’re looking at current watts it needs to be on 3 second avg. Without that buffering it’s a nightmare to try to stay steady. I use multiple pages on my Wahoo. On the map page I like to have my watts/3 second avg! Also BPM and distance to next cue if I’m using it navigate a ride. On my Power page I like seeing Watts/3 seconds up top and large, I also have w/kg, normalized power, max power and power zone graph and bpm. I could keep going but it’s time for dinner!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TrueNorth

How reliable are the FTP and VO2max estimates from my Garmin bike computer (based on power meter and HRM data)? .

---

If you're not doing at least a 20 min all out effort test for FTP, any estimate is basically just a wild guess. We've discussed how and why to do that kind of test up-thread.

If you're not doing a lab test with a gas mask, a VO2 estimate is nearly worthless (and even with the lab test, there isn't much you'd do with the information anyway).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TrueNorth

How reliable are the FTP and VO2max estimates from my Garmin bike computer (based on power meter and HRM data)? I'm mostly interested in whether changes in the numbers over time are a reliable indicator of fitness improvements, and less concerned about whether the values would match a controlled lab experiment.

As an example, Garmin says my FTP is about 20W lower than last year (and VO2max unchanged), but I've significantly improved almost all the Strava PRs I pay attention to this year. I would self-assess myself as more fit now, but Garmin thinks otherwise.

---

Performance always outweighs any individual measurement, even if that measurement is accurate.

Estimates are only as good as:
1. The algorithm used
2. The data input - and this can vary widely based on the riding that you've been doing. This is the point that CE makes above about testing protocol, etc.

Don't sweat the Garmin prediction. If you're riding fast, you're riding fast.

Jason Koop, an ultra/trail runner coach at Carmichael Training Systems, runs AMAs every Wednesday. Since this thread was the first time I had heard of Beta Alanine, I figured I might as well ask him to hear his thoughts. FWIW:

Attachment 385533

"Beneficial" needs to be defined. My understanding is that the window where there's strong evidence it actually makes you faster is more like 1-4 minutes. Either way it's very relevant to intervals. For longer efforts it won't make you faster, but it does make sustained effort at threshold noticeably less miserable. I also spontaneously lost several pounds of BF which undoubtedly leads to a faster pace at the same fitness level.

"3% quantified gainz over shorter efforts plus significantly less suffering for ~threshold efforts for almost-zero cost is not beneficial for endurance athletes"

ok

This is why broscience is superior to formal studies.

Dylan Johnson on BA (1:23-5:45)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DsfXW9f4xKA


One of the studies he cites documented a 24% reduction in blood lactate concentrations. That's a lot, and not something that can be attributed to a psychological effect.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dantheman

Dylan Johnson on BA (1:23-5:45)


One of the studies he cites documented a 24% reduction in blood lactate concentrations. That's a lot, and not something that can be attributed to a psychological effect.

---

That study is kinda whack though. I actually just re-watched this episode yesterday which prompted me to re-read the study. They gave 800mg to ~53 year old women who then did repeat trials of a time to exhaustion (TTE) that was less than 2 minutes in length (on average). Additionally, the BA group had a significantly worse TTE during pre-testing and a trend toward lower lactates following 20 minutes of recovery each week as compared to the placebo group. The BA group averaged 20% more riding per week, and averaged 2kg less in body weight with less body fat. I could go on...

The authors do not report a full range of data, choosing to write that there were no significant differences for many measures and only elaborating slightly when significant differences were found. Additionally, the reduction in blood lactate was after a 20 minute recovery period and frankly I believe this to be a disingenuous reporting from Dylan.

Link to Study


Most buffers tend to increase lactate concentrations (as does caffeine).
Remember that lactate itself is not bad. It can be oxidized directly as fuel (which is why Cytomax includes lactate as an ingredient) but it can also be converted to pyruvate and oxidized aerobically.

The reason that lactate is measured is that it is produced along side additional Hydrogen ions, these hydrogen ions cause a reduction in pH that can become rate-limiting for performance. So, the Lactate is only a marker for the associated hydrogen ions which are harder to measure.

Often when a buffer is introduced, the hydrogen is no longer rate limiting, therefore more lactate and associated hydrogen are produced until they overwhelm the additional buffering capacity and become rate limiting again OR something else becomes rate limiting in the interim. For example, I've hit ~16+ mmol/L of lactate during a repeat sprint protocol after an acute ingestion of Sodium Bicarbonate (NaHCO3) and have never been above 12 mmol/L without it.

A major issue with laboratory science is that work is often completed at a steady state: E.g. a Time to Exhaustion at X% of VO2 or a "Time trial" where the rider is able to choose their intensity on a flat course. Because people tend to pace in a steady effort when presented with a steady challenge, both of these scenarios result in very little variation of the workload throughout the course of the trial.

This is not representative of real-world riding. BA can be beneficial during a 3 hour race because we do not race the race at a singular intensity that we can hold for 3 hours (e.g. 180w). In actuality, there are an incredible number micro-segments where you are working significantly above threshold (e.g. 300+w) and in the range of intensities where changes in pH are limiting and therefore BA is beneficial. This is all despite the average workload of the ride being significantly lower and out of the effective range.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dantheman

"Beneficial" needs to be defined. My understanding is that the window where there's strong evidence it actually makes you faster is more like 1-4 minutes. Either way it's very relevant to intervals. For longer efforts it won't make you faster, but it does make sustained effort at threshold noticeably less miserable. I also spontaneously lost several pounds of BF which undoubtedly leads to a faster pace at the same fitness level.

---

In my view, it actually goes the other way:

What is the minimum acceptable negative effect?

Each of the below represent a 3% improvement.

Scenario 1:
Rider 1: 3% Improvement
Rider 2: 3% Improvement
Rider 3: 3% Improvement
People assume that something that makes you 3% faster makes EVERYONE 3% faster. This is not the case.

Scenario 2:
Rider 1: 0%
Rider 2: 3%
Rider 3:6%

This is a positive outcome. Some individuals will respond well, some won't respond at all.

Scenario 3:
Rider 1: (-3%)
Rider 2: 6%
Rider 3: 6%

This is potentially great, 66% of people get 6% better. BUT is the -3% acceptable or not? If we're talking a drug that may cause cancer, probably not. But, maybe depending on what it's curing... If we're talking lactate buffering then I think it's OK; just stop taking it if you're a negative-responder. (E.g. this is me with Caffeine. I cannot take it before I race; it tanks my performance but works so well for so many others).

Anscombe's Quartet shows 4 data sets that have the same Mean, Standard Deviation and Correlation with very different results:
Attachment 385584

If anyone is interested in the research side of things, I'll be doing a more regular podcast with these guys soon, but here's one to start:
https://www.fasttalklabs.com/fast-ta...cent-research/

Awesome posts, thanks!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dantheman

Awesome posts, thanks!

---

Dude, you bring so much to these threads. Thanks for keeping them going and sharing your knowledge and insight.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by XtrPickels

Dude, you bring so much to these threads. Thanks for keeping them going and sharing your knowledge and insight.

---

Considering that I'm a talentless amateur hack, that's a huge compliment coming from a man such as yourself. Thanks, much appreciated.

Thanks, DTM, Pickels, and others for all the insight. This thread - as well as other training threads - are hugely inspiring and informative, so appreciate the discussion from all.

Re: BA, good to know. A follow-up: have zero significant long-term side effects been identified or have there not been enough long-term studies? Wikipedia says the below but since I don't know the scientific journals - raises hand as amateur hack - I wanted to ask the experts.

Quote:

---

Ingestion of β-Alanine can cause paraesthesia, reported as a tingling sensation, in a dose-dependent fashion.[16] Aside from this, no important adverse effect of β-alanine has been reported, however, there is also no information on the effects of its long-term usage or its safety in combination with other supplements, and caution on its use has been advised.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fool

Thanks, DTM, Pickels, and others for all the insight. This thread - as well as other training threads - are hugely inspiring and informative, so appreciate the discussion from all.

Re: BA, good to know. A follow-up: have zero significant long-term side effects been identified or have there not been enough long-term studies? Wikipedia says the below but since I don't know the scientific journals - raises hand as amateur hack - I wanted to ask the experts.

---

This is about as good as you're going to get. My personal experience, not medical advice, is that I have used it off and on for years and have no known adverse effects. But, as has been stated there are no formal studies beyond a few weeks. Everything you'll see for time periods beyond that is anecdotal.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by XtrPickels

If anyone is interested in the research side of things, I'll be doing a more regular podcast with these guys soon, but here's one to start:
https://www.fasttalklabs.com/fast-ta...cent-research/

---

That was awesome. Dropping knowledge the entire time. The first study, despite the bad title, sounded like great basic research. The GLUT4/insulin sensitivity connection is fascinating.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by XtrPickels

This is about as good as you're going to get. My personal experience, not medical advice, is that I have used it off and on for years and have no known adverse effects. But, as has been stated there are no formal studies beyond a few weeks. Everything you'll see for time periods beyond that is anecdotal.

---

Is there a plausible physiological mechanism that could conceivably cause adverse effects over the long term?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dantheman

That was awesome. Dropping knowledge the entire time. The first study, despite the bad title, sounded like great basic research. The GLUT4/insulin sensitivity connection is fascinating. Is there a plausible physiological mechanism that could conceivably cause adverse effects over the long term?

---

It's a non-essential amino acid. Supplementation does not appear to reduce your endogenous production( a la thyroid meds, etc.).
There's no storage related toxicity like fat-soluble vitamins (A,D,E,K).
You don't turn funny colors as with Beta Carotene supplementation.

6+g/day of BA does not affect kidney or liver values after 24 weeks.
BA competes with Taurine for uptake into the muscle, potentially effecting Taurine uptake but this seems to have no clinical significance.
At 60x administration in rats there are some negative metabolic effects, but nothing seen in clinically effective doses for humans.

BA may act as a neurotransmitter and has some interactions / binding sites with GABA / Serotonin. However, these all appear to be positive.
It does not appear to have negative effects of other amino-acid neurotransmitters at high doses (such as glycine).

Of course there are thousands of potential interactions, but at first glance it does not appear to have negative influence on some of the major ones. At least, at "human" doses, that is (ie up to ~6g/day).

Eating feels like a second job sometimes.

https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/202...cb3d92cae7.jpg