Official Sprocket Rockets Training Thread

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gramboh

New to training this year and trying to put together a plan. I have a Stages SB20 smart trainer with Zwift, a road bike with power meter and I mountain bike (for fun, no power/data). My goal is the Whistler Fondo in September and completing it under 4h30m (122km about 2000m vert). I plan to ride 5 days a week but am somewhat limited in time and only able to do one long ride a week, the rest are 60-90min. I could do the ride now but probably not at my goal pace, need to improve fitness to get there. I'm 5'10 200lbs, have lost 25lbs this year and plan to get under 190lbs by summer, 42 years old so not going to set the world on fire re: progress. FTP 303w on 20min ramp test a couple weeks ago but I feel like my power curve is weighted to shorter efforts from strength training background. On a 60min outdoor ride with I'd say 7.5-8/10 effort my avg power is 220-230w and normalized power is 275-280w.

My rough idea from limited knowledge/research was to do 2-3 trainer sessions a week focused on intervals, 1 long (3-4h) road bike ride on weekend morning, either focusing on endurance or 1000m hill climbs as I get closer to the Fondo, and 1-2 mountain bike rides for fun (mix of shuttling and pedaling).

What I am not sure about is where to focus the trainer rides on? Does it make sense to just do Sweet Spot sessions on the trainer? Or should I be varying with other work at different levels like threshold/vo2max intervals? I figure I'm around 8-10h riding a week and since I'm new to training don't need any recovery rides. Also assuming I will get enough zone 2 on my one long ride to address that part of fitness.

---

8 to 10 hours a week is a good amount to see improvements in fitness - much less and your potential is limited.
However, it's also a breakpoint where training needs to become more purposeful to ensure all your work doesn't end up in a flaming pile of overtraining.

Based on your quick description it looks like you're doing the majority of your riding at "Interval" intensities, which I believe is too much. This is also in-line with your feeling that your shorter effort power is better than your longer effort - and a 4+ hour event is definitely a longer effort.

If it were me, I'd choose 2 rides per week to go banana's. Because you mountain bike, I'd suggest it's these. Ride that mountain bike as fast and hard as you can... because it's fun (and it forces you to go hard).

All your other rides should be at "base" pace. This is likely 65 to 70% of your FTP. However, this is a target / cap in workload - not an average. For an FTP of 300w this creates a range of 195 to 210watts. You should plan to spend as much time in this range as possible - knowing that you are going to have to go slightly harder or easier depending on terrain / wind / approaching darkness / etc. What you want to avoid is spending half your time at 300w and half at 100w - even though this averages to 200w it is drastically different from riding at a steady 200w.

After watching Dylan Johnson's two videos on aerodynamics I officially take back every joke I've ever made made about spandex.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fool

I'll be curious to hear what the collective shares but I've been watching a few of Dylan Johnson's videos lately and this one regarding 10hrs/week is likely a good starting point: https://youtu.be/-Wk0f-Bsw3E

---

Found Dylan's videos a month or so ago and have watched a bunch. It's been educational since I am coming from basically zero bike training knowledge. He seems to get meme'd on in some other roadie forums but his advice seems sound to me. And yeah, the aero stuff is eye opening for sure. My biggest take away there is to work on my upper body position both in the drops and on the hoods. Also aero socks. Lots of great points in that 10 hour a week training video that I am going to take into account.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by XtrPickels

8 to 10 hours a week is a good amount to see improvements in fitness - much less and your potential is limited.
However, it's also a breakpoint where training needs to become more purposeful to ensure all your work doesn't end up in a flaming pile of overtraining.

Based on your quick description it looks like you're doing the majority of your riding at "Interval" intensities, which I believe is too much. This is also in-line with your feeling that your shorter effort power is better than your longer effort - and a 4+ hour event is definitely a longer effort.

If it were me, I'd choose 2 rides per week to go banana's. Because you mountain bike, I'd suggest it's these. Ride that mountain bike as fast and hard as you can... because it's fun (and it forces you to go hard).

All your other rides should be at "base" pace. This is likely 65 to 70% of your FTP. However, this is a target / cap in workload - not an average. For an FTP of 300w this creates a range of 195 to 210watts. You should plan to spend as much time in this range as possible - knowing that you are going to have to go slightly harder or easier depending on terrain / wind / approaching darkness / etc. What you want to avoid is spending half your time at 300w and half at 100w - even though this averages to 200w it is drastically different from riding at a steady 200w.

---

That is an interesting perspective. I don't have any data on my mountain bike rides but the climbs are usually fairly steep and I inevitably end up going 90%+ effort and those climbs are usually 30-60 minutes followed by descending. We do shuttle a lot though, especially in the summer months so that cuts down the aerobic intensity quite a bit. I'll wear my heart rate monitor and Garmin on a few rides to at least see that metric on the climbs.

In my mind I had determined that trainer = intervals because it's so easy to do them well there in ERG mode and I can push harder since don't need to worry about traffic/dying and honestly because I enjoy going hard and it feels satisfying versus steady state zone 2. I didn't put it in my previous post but I am limited on how often I can ride outside (work + family), so 2-3 times outside a week is my max and I admit I hate road riding in the rain.

Totally agree I need more low-end zone 2 (base?) miles at that lower intensity. One thing I am trying to figure out, is there training value in doing several 60-90 minute zone 2 rides on the trainer throughout the week versus one longer 3-4 hour zone 2 outdoor ride? Specificity tells me that nothing will be as good as actually getting out and doing rides that are somewhat similar to my goal (Whistler Fondo), hence the plan for one weekend morning ride >100km or ~80km with 1500m+ (plan to alternate flat >100km and hill climb ~80km each weekend). I'm stubborn enough to do the 90 minute zone 2 trainer rides if it's effective.

Will continue to research...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gramboh

Found Dylan's videos a month or so ago and have watched a bunch. It's been educational since I am coming from basically zero bike training knowledge. He seems to get meme'd on in some other roadie forums but his advice seems sound to me. And yeah, the aero stuff is eye opening for sure. My biggest take away there is to work on my upper body position both in the drops and on the hoods. Also aero socks. Lots of great points in that 10 hour a week training video that I am going to take into account.



That is an interesting perspective. I don't have any data on my mountain bike rides but the climbs are usually fairly steep and I inevitably end up going 90%+ effort and those climbs are usually 30-60 minutes followed by descending. We do shuttle a lot though, especially in the summer months so that cuts down the aerobic intensity quite a bit. I'll wear my heart rate monitor and Garmin on a few rides to at least see that metric on the climbs.

In my mind I had determined that trainer = intervals because it's so easy to do them well there in ERG mode and I can push harder since don't need to worry about traffic/dying and honestly because I enjoy going hard and it feels satisfying versus steady state zone 2. I didn't put it in my previous post but I am limited on how often I can ride outside (work + family), so 2-3 times outside a week is my max and I admit I hate road riding in the rain.

Totally agree I need more low-end zone 2 (base?) miles at that lower intensity. One thing I am trying to figure out, is there training value in doing several 60-90 minute zone 2 rides on the trainer throughout the week versus one longer 3-4 hour zone 2 outdoor ride? Specificity tells me that nothing will be as good as actually getting out and doing rides that are somewhat similar to my goal (Whistler Fondo), hence the plan for one weekend morning ride >100km or ~80km with 1500m+ (plan to alternate flat >100km and hill climb ~80km each weekend). I'm stubborn enough to do the 90 minute zone 2 trainer rides if it's effective.

Will continue to research...

---

90% of your training time OR 80% of your training sessions should be focused on "base".
You can sit through a long conversation between me and Stephen Seiler here: https://www.fasttalklabs.com/trainin...aining-stress/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by XtrPickels

90% of your training time OR 80% of your training sessions should be focused on "base".
You can sit through a long conversation between me and Stephen Seiler here: https://www.fasttalklabs.com/trainin...aining-stress/

---

Thanks Rob, listened to the talk and browsed a bunch of other videos/articles on the site. Very enlightening and cool to have an expert in training here to chat with. Also enjoyed reading the Comparison of Polarized/Sweet Spot/Pyramidal article. TrainerRoad and Zwift seem to push Sweet Spot a lot especially for people with limited time to train and maybe it is too good to be true. Challenge for me personally is finding 2+ hours for a single session is hard outside of one weekend morning outdoor ride.... unless I decide to do 2+ hours at 10pm in Zwift but then I sacrifice sleep and possibly sanity. Trying to find some data around benefit of low intensity volume in 60-90 minute chunks vs 2-4hr as well as science behind Sweet Spot focused vs. Polarized for an 8-10h a week athlete. Interesting stuff to nerd out on.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gramboh

Thanks Rob, listened to the talk and browsed a bunch of other videos/articles on the site. Very enlightening and cool to have an expert in training here to chat with. Also enjoyed reading the Comparison of Polarized/Sweet Spot/Pyramidal article. TrainerRoad and Zwift seem to push Sweet Spot a lot especially for people with limited time to train and maybe it is too good to be true. Challenge for me personally is finding 2+ hours for a single session is hard outside of one weekend morning outdoor ride.... unless I decide to do 2+ hours at 10pm in Zwift but then I sacrifice sleep and possibly sanity. Trying to find some data around benefit of low intensity volume in 60-90 minute chunks vs 2-4hr as well as science behind Sweet Spot focused vs. Polarized for an 8-10h a week athlete. Interesting stuff to nerd out on.

---

Here's the thing, a lot of people have found success doing things in many different ways. "Polarized" isn't the only way to train - and in some instances it may not be the best way to train. BUT - in my opinion, it's the method that produces the most fitness with the least risk of over-loading your body and that's why I push it so much.

I totally get the training time issue - with a wife who's a faux-pro runner and two kids - my weekly hours aren't what I wish they were. I spend A LOT of time in the 8 to 10 hours per week range and often to get there I'm doing morning and night doubles of 45 minutes on the trainer... but all those 45 minute long trainer doubles are in "Base" workloads.

We recorded a podcast on this specific topic: Is there value in the 1 hour easy ride?

Something that works well for me - and might work for you - is "Block Periodization" which was researched by Bent Ronnestad.
Basically you take all the intensity that you're going to do in a block (say 8 intensity sessions over 4 weeks) and you front load and do 5 intensity efforts in the first week, and then only 1 effort in subsequent weeks.

The principle is essentially that you don't cross your streams. When you focus on intervals and their adaptive signal, you go all in on it. Then, when you focus on Volume and it's adaptive signals, you go all in on that.... whereas most training plans have a little of the volume adaptive signal and a little of the interval adaptive signal.

For me, that looks like:

Week 1: Intensity - 4 x interval workouts (60 minutes) + 2 "base" rides (60 ish minutes) = ~6 to 8 hours of training.
This week is focused, fun, and I'm recovered from the recovery week prior, so I'm happy and in good spirits and I can be a great dad and husband. However, it's also demanding. It's hard to do 4x quality sessions well, so you feel like you accomplished something

Week 2: Mid Week - 1 x interval workouts (60 minutes) + 3-4 x "base rides" (60 minutes) + 1-2 longer Ride (2ish hours) = total duration 8 to 10 hours
This is an easier week, same volume, but only 1 intensity session means that I'm generally in a good mood and great with my family

Week 3: Volume Week - 1 x interval workout (60 minutes) + 3 x "base rides" (60 minutes) + 2 Long Long Ride (3 to 4hrs) = total duration 12 to 14 hours -
This is the week that I plan other things around. E.g. it's hard to plan a family hike this weekend, but that's ok because we did it the other 3 weeks.

Week 4: Recovery week - 5 x "base Ride" (60 minutes) = 5 total hours
This week life is golden and I'm super engaged.

Week's 1 & 2 fit in the the day to day schedule nicely
Week 4 is an easy week and I pick up more tasks around the house
Week 3 is the only week that's hard to fit in and I ask for extra forgiveness based on the extra family time the following week.

Ramping up for big events - Like I am for Portugal, I have to have the conversation with my wife where we discuss our goals, and agree that to accomplish this there needs to be extra training time, but we're aware of it and are trying to make up for it in other ways. I've been able to get in 2 x 17 hour weeks with a bit of time off at work and a bit of understanding from the family.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dantheman

After watching Dylan Johnson's two videos on aerodynamics I officially take back every joke I've ever made made about spandex.

---

I've never been so close to buying aero socks as I was after watching that video

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by XtrPickels

Here's the thing, a lot of people have found success doing things in many different ways. "Polarized" isn't the only way to train - and in some instances it may not be the best way to train. BUT - in my opinion, it's the method that produces the most fitness with the least risk of over-loading your body and that's why I push it so much.

I totally get the training time issue - with a wife who's a faux-pro runner and two kids - my weekly hours aren't what I wish they were. I spend A LOT of time in the 8 to 10 hours per week range and often to get there I'm doing morning and night doubles of 45 minutes on the trainer... but all those 45 minute long trainer doubles are in "Base" workloads.

We recorded a podcast on this specific topic: Is there value in the 1 hour easy ride?

Something that works well for me - and might work for you - is "Block Periodization" which was researched by Bent Ronnestad.
Basically you take all the intensity that you're going to do in a block (say 8 intensity sessions over 4 weeks) and you front load and do 5 intensity efforts in the first week, and then only 1 effort in subsequent weeks.

The principle is essentially that you don't cross your streams. When you focus on intervals and their adaptive signal, you go all in on it. Then, when you focus on Volume and it's adaptive signals, you go all in on that.... whereas most training plans have a little of the volume adaptive signal and a little of the interval adaptive signal.

For me, that looks like:

Week 1: Intensity - 4 x interval workouts (60 minutes) + 2 "base" rides (60 ish minutes) = ~6 to 8 hours of training.
This week is focused, fun, and I'm recovered from the recovery week prior, so I'm happy and in good spirits and I can be a great dad and husband. However, it's also demanding. It's hard to do 4x quality sessions well, so you feel like you accomplished something

Week 2: Mid Week - 1 x interval workouts (60 minutes) + 3-4 x "base rides" (60 minutes) + 1-2 longer Ride (2ish hours) = total duration 8 to 10 hours
This is an easier week, same volume, but only 1 intensity session means that I'm generally in a good mood and great with my family

Week 3: Volume Week - 1 x interval workout (60 minutes) + 3 x "base rides" (60 minutes) + 2 Long Long Ride (3 to 4hrs) = total duration 12 to 14 hours -
This is the week that I plan other things around. E.g. it's hard to plan a family hike this weekend, but that's ok because we did it the other 3 weeks.

Week 4: Recovery week - 5 x "base Ride" (60 minutes) = 5 total hours
This week life is golden and I'm super engaged.

Week's 1 & 2 fit in the the day to day schedule nicely
Week 4 is an easy week and I pick up more tasks around the house
Week 3 is the only week that's hard to fit in and I ask for extra forgiveness based on the extra family time the following week.

Ramping up for big events - Like I am for Portugal, I have to have the conversation with my wife where we discuss our goals, and agree that to accomplish this there needs to be extra training time, but we're aware of it and are trying to make up for it in other ways. I've been able to get in 2 x 17 hour weeks with a bit of time off at work and a bit of understanding from the family.

---

This is absolute gold man, thanks so much. The template but also the philosophy as I'm in a similar boat (wife is into fitness but moreso she has an extremely demanding job, and two young kids). I'll definitely listen to that podcast and take it on board. I can certainly sack up to some morning 45-60min trainer sessions to split low intensity volume if there's a benefit.

I'm probably still in newbie gains world, despite riding for a few years now, with zero structure, and all the mountain biking, so anything is going to be better than nothing, but it's fun from a nerd perspective trying to find what is optimal, especially with all the data from workouts and training research around. Definitely motivating to me.

FWIW: If anyone wants a limited-time complimentary membership to FastTalkLabs.com - hit me up via PM with your Email address and I'll get you squared aware.

Trying to get as much awareness as possible as we try to get it off the ground, but I don't pimp it on here much at all.

Q: getting back into cycling and want to have a better idea of my HR zones/TSS/etc. I don't have a power meter but do have access to a Peloton. I use a Garmin for HR while riding. Should I do a Peloton FTP Test to get FTP and HR zones? Should I follow Friel's guidance? (I don't know if it is the same or different from the Peloton method).

I understand it probably won't be perfectly accurate - though DCRainmaker does say Peloton power isn't bad - I'd just like to establish more accurate HR zones, even if +/- 10%. No racing planned - just enjoying longer rides lately.

Also, mostly unrelated: if anyone has tips on Garmin discounts/etc., I'm all ears.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by XtrPickels

FWIW: If anyone wants a limited-time complimentary membership to FastTalkLabs.com - hit me up via PM with your Email address and I'll get you squared aware.

Trying to get as much awareness as possible as we try to get it off the ground, but I don't pimp it on here much at all.

---

Will likely PM you on that soon.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fool

Q: getting back into cycling and want to have a better idea of my HR zones/TSS/etc. I don't have a power meter but do have access to a Peloton. I use a Garmin for HR while riding. Should I do a Peloton FTP Test to get FTP and HR zones? Should I follow Friel's guidance? (I don't know if it is the same or different from the Peloton method).

I understand it probably won't be perfectly accurate - though DCRainmaker does say Peloton power isn't bad - I'd just like to establish more accurate HR zones, even if +/- 10%. No racing planned - just enjoying longer rides lately.

Also, mostly unrelated: if anyone has tips on Garmin discounts/etc., I'm all ears.



Will likely PM you on that soon.

---

Peloton uses a 20 minute test for FTP. While one could get into a lengthy debate on which test is best, I'm sure the 20 minute test is fine for your and my needs (especially given the Peloton doesn't even have a power meter in it) . You won't hit your best score the first time, it takes some practice and knowing where to aim. Try once, then try again in a couple weeks.

I find my Garmin watch to be very accurate for HR on indoor rides (matches Polar chest strap identically). But it can be rather poor for outdoor rides (jostling, cold hands, etc.).

Peloton only calculates zones based on power, not heart rate. Power zones are nice because power is an immediate calculation, whereas HR is a delayed reaction and dependent on other body parameters too. It's nice to keep an eye on both and you could get to know your HR zones by memory too. Throughout training, your HR zones will basically remain unchanged, whereas power zones will go up as you get stronger.

I use a Peloton bike too. It certainly wouldn't have been my choice, but my wife got it and I'll piggyback on her subscription for "free". We don't have space for two trainer setups. If you do the classes, just do the Power Zone classes. The others are mostly garbage. But I skip the classes and watch a movie for zone2 sessions or just focus on the intervals.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fool

Q: getting back into cycling and want to have a better idea of my HR zones/TSS/etc. I don't have a power meter but do have access to a Peloton. I use a Garmin for HR while riding. Should I do a Peloton FTP Test to get FTP and HR zones? Should I follow Friel's guidance? (I don't know if it is the same or different from the Peloton method).

I understand it probably won't be perfectly accurate - though DCRainmaker does say Peloton power isn't bad - I'd just like to establish more accurate HR zones, even if +/- 10%. No racing planned - just enjoying longer rides lately.

Also, mostly unrelated: if anyone has tips on Garmin discounts/etc., I'm all ears.



Will likely PM you on that soon.

---

I think you're fine using Joe's guidance to set HR zones for outside riding.

So, I created an online calculator (aka Google Sheet) - to predict caloric expenditure, carbohydrate oxidation and storage and give recommendations for minimum and maximum carbohydrate intake based on weight, gender, ftp, and workload.

It is not in a finalized state and it likely needs instructions, etc., but it'd be great if people could poke around and see if things are broken and additional features or information could be useful.

Link to Caloric Calculations Sheet

Wow. That's really helpful. From a technical standpoint, I tried editing the General Example, and then realized you had tabs and that the 2nd and 3rd ones were where I need to be. But that's just a user error on my part. Once I got into those, all was self-explanatory and easy to understand.

The moral of the story for me is, holy crap, I don't eat enough when I'm doing long gravel races. This tells me to eat ~600 cals and ~126g of carbs an hour. And since I kind of fell apart at the end of my last couple of races, I think under-fueling is probably the culprit.

Question for you - if I'm doing a 5-hour race - am I trying to consume that quantity of cals and carbs starting in hour 1? Or does breakfast account for some of that? I know some people suggest eating breakfast hours before the start, but I'm not sure I'm up for a 3am breakfast like some people.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by XtrPickels

So, I created an online calculator (aka Google Sheet) - to predict caloric expenditure, carbohydrate oxidation and storage and give recommendations for minimum and maximum carbohydrate intake based on weight, gender, ftp, and workload.

It is not in a finalized state and it likely needs instructions, etc., but it'd be great if people could poke around and see if things are broken and additional features or information could be useful.

Link to Caloric Calculations Sheet

---

Threw in some numbers based on an event I have coming up (TBP) and it all seems reasonable based on personal experience. Stored CHO might be high though? I thought from marathon training that around 2500kcal of carbs stored was expected.

Makes me think about something I've been pondering and really ties into the latest fast talk episode about zones. My 95% of 20min "FTP" from a recent test is 287w. My CP floats around 295-298w based on the timeframe and what I've been doing. Is there a "right" option to set my zones off of? I think the zones feel more appropriate based on the FTP number not CP number (granted this is only a couple % difference), but TSS is scored off "FTP" and in every hard Zwift race I do my TSS hits right around or even over 100/hr almost every time.

Or does it not matter because they're all just SWAGs trying to communicate an idea and all that really matters is choosing one and being consistent?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kathleenturneroverdrive

Wow. That's really helpful. From a technical standpoint, I tried editing the General Example, and then realized you had tabs and that the 2nd and 3rd ones were where I need to be. But that's just a user error on my part. Once I got into those, all was self-explanatory and easy to understand.

The moral of the story for me is, holy crap, I don't eat enough when I'm doing long gravel races. This tells me to eat ~600 cals and ~126g of carbs an hour. And since I kind of fell apart at the end of my last couple of races, I think under-fueling is probably the culprit.

Question for you - if I'm doing a 5-hour race - am I trying to consume that quantity of cals and carbs starting in hour 1? Or does breakfast account for some of that? I know some people suggest eating breakfast hours before the start, but I'm not sure I'm up for a 3am breakfast like some people.

---

I think I need to dial in the maximum per hour, at the moment it's set to match the CHO oxidation number until that number exceeds 600kcal / hour which is where the recommendation caps. To be honest, I think it's recommending too high an upper limit too soon.

I try for a steady consumption starting 30 minutes into an event and continuing every 30 minutes. I keep it simple and do not vary because I do not have the mental capacity to work it out. I also hit my lap timer every time I eat because sometimes I can't remember if I ate 15 minutes ago or not!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bean

Threw in some numbers based on an event I have coming up (TBP) and it all seems reasonable based on personal experience. Stored CHO might be high though? I thought from marathon training that around 2500kcal of carbs stored was expected.

Makes me think about something I've been pondering and really ties into the latest fast talk episode about zones. My 95% of 20min "FTP" from a recent test is 287w. My CP floats around 295-298w based on the timeframe and what I've been doing. Is there a "right" option to set my zones off of? I think the zones feel more appropriate based on the FTP number not CP number (granted this is only a couple % difference), but TSS is scored off "FTP" and in every hard Zwift race I do my TSS hits right around or even over 100/hr almost every time.

Or does it not matter because they're all just SWAGs trying to communicate an idea and all that really matters is choosing one and being consistent?

---

Almost every training recommendation is based off % of FTP, so I would use that value.
I think CP and W' are interesting for understanding abilities and defining work capacity above threshold. But, for workout prescription FTP is the more universal value.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bean

Threw in some numbers based on an event I have coming up (TBP) and it all seems reasonable based on personal experience. Stored CHO might be high though? I thought from marathon training that around 2500kcal of carbs stored was expected.

---

Stored seems high?
For a 175lb male, I have ~1,200kcal predicted.

This is "useable" CHO stored in the lower body and liver.
Once CHO enters a muscle cell it is phosphorylated and cannot leave the cell.
Liver glucose is, however, able to hit the blood stream to be transported elsewhere.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by XtrPickels

I think I need to dial in the maximum per hour, at the moment it's set to match the CHO oxidation number until that number exceeds 600kcal / hour which is where the recommendation caps. To be honest, I think it's recommending too high an upper limit too soon.

I try for a steady consumption starting 30 minutes into an event and continuing every 30 minutes. I keep it simple and do not vary because I do not have the mental capacity to work it out. I also hit my lap timer every time I eat because sometimes I can't remember if I ate 15 minutes ago or not!

---

I updated the formulas to have the maximum value try to preserve 50% of predicted glycogen stored up to a maximal rate of 480kcal/ hour which is where it caps.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by XtrPickels

So, I created an online calculator (aka Google Sheet) - to predict caloric expenditure, carbohydrate oxidation and storage and give recommendations for minimum and maximum carbohydrate intake based on weight, gender, ftp, and workload.

It is not in a finalized state and it likely needs instructions, etc., but it'd be great if people could poke around and see if things are broken and additional features or information could be useful.

Link to Caloric Calculations Sheet

---

This is very cool and helpful. Where would you put a daily caloric expenditure for "average" and what value do you change to get to a high metabolism burn rate? Also, does that change the minimum and maximum CHO?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by XtrPickels

Stored seems high?
For a 175lb male, I have ~1,200kcal predicted.

This is "useable" CHO stored in the lower body and liver.
Once CHO enters a muscle cell it is phosphorylated and cannot leave the cell.
Liver glucose is, however, able to hit the blood stream to be transported elsewhere.

---

I thought it was grams not kcal, now it seems low. Just thinking back to the one time I ran a quick marathon, 2:56 so call it 3 hours and had 3 gels in the race.

Using the super rough 100kcal/mi rule of thumb I’d be way upside down. Using low-tempo as an equivalent in your spreadsheet I’d still be upside down by several hundred kcal.

Avg HR was 159 which based on metabolic cart data puts me way into the burning-carbs side of things.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bean

I thought it was grams not kcal, now it seems low. Just thinking back to the one time I ran a quick marathon, 2:56 so call it 3 hours and had 3 gels in the race.

Using the super rough 100kcal/mi rule of thumb I’d be way upside down. Using low-tempo as an equivalent in your spreadsheet I’d still be upside down by several hundred kcal.

Avg HR was 159 which based on metabolic cart data puts me way into the burning-carbs side of things.

---

Drinking any calories by chance? Otherwise that sounds somewhere between suboptimal and total bonk-land.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bfree

Drinking any calories by chance? Otherwise that sounds somewhere between suboptimal and total bonk-land.

---

None. Felt amazing. Slowed gradually for the last mile which was also uphill but otherwise best long run of my life.

I don’t follow or have enough discipline to plan much “training”. I do have discipline/motivation for unhealthy(?) terrain choice climbs that force the issue.

1. Benefit to slowly grinding up impossible dirt to see how far I can make it.
v.s
2. Breaking the climb up with faster spurts and stopping more often?

Both stopping points basically end maxed out lung/heart and no perceived leg failure.

Been defaulting to #1 mostly to stay on bike longer. Is that just training to be slow and tolerant?
#2 feels way stronger for shorter section obviously but stopping points are ugly with heart in throat, try not to get to the dizzy point.

Sometimes I rest to normal riding around breathing. More often I set a goal breath and count breaths to start back up. Typically, between 6-25 wind sucks.
Is one technique more beneficial?

Overall goal is to clean shorter steep climbs (4-10min) that I’m guessing “some” 45-50 year olds can pedal. It’s not bike trail grade stuff and probably pushed up a lot or not ridden often because it sucks.
Basically, I’m only motivated to do any somewhat properly focused training on climbs or let the terrain dictate how hard the ride is. Any tips on how to use the grunt most efficiently to become a better grunter?

Ride 2-4 days a week max. probably could add some extra short rides if I get over my 30min ride not worth it taboo. Most rides have steep stuff that is not bike trail design.

Example of fitness for local aware.
MoPi, boring side: Typically stay on bike but hold bridge railing after that hot steeper double track section and suck about 10 breaths before restarting. I can do it non-stop but it’s slower or less enjoyable.
MoPi, good side: Clear it if motivated, for me it’s the easer MoPi climb but the last pitch is about all I got to keep pedaling to parking lot.
GWT: (Big mtn pass lot to knuckle) Usually gas out on first climb and would like to make it further on that second big climb in the trees before Bald Mountain.
GWT: Brink side to upper double track ridge. Can’t clean it. Goal, 1 or 2 wind suck brakes? No stops?

Getting older, don’t want to keel over with a heart attack. limit last handful of max spaz cranks? I probably tolerate that more than most for my age.
Genetically faster twitch with not huge lung max Vo2 potential compared to athletes I got tested with in my 20’s.

Twice a week of that type of ride sounds good. To further improve, I would add long easy distance rides for cardio (hard to do this on steep mtb terrain), and weightlifting for short duration strength.