Printable View
Agreed - I think you can get a bit more bang for your buck these days with a monthly subscription to TrainerRoad, Trainer Day, the newish Fascat app, and the like vs. buying individual plans through Training Peaks. But WRG, if there's something on TP you like/seems good for your goals, there's no real reason not to try it out. It'll interface well with zwift if that's what you use. Edit to add - and you’ll own it for life.
Is It Time to Reconsider ‘Fasted Training’? New Study Calls into Question the Craze for Low Carb
Team Sky caused a stir with its fasted and low-carbohydrate training strategies, but new findings add fuel into the high-carb revolution that's shifting pro cycling.
https://velo.outsideonline.com/road/...sted-training/
——
It’s only one study - but no significant difference in high level cyclists in this study between low carb/fasted and normal/high carb while doing same training program.
That last one is a misleading quote. You should have included this one instead: "Those riding with a low- or no-carbohydrate strategy weren’t rewarded with an extra-efficient fat burning engine."Quote:
Originally Posted by bennymac
The TLDR on this is that "fat adaptation" is not a thing and that one should fuel the work. WT cyclists are faster than ever now, thanks to this. In other words: duh.
The article tries to make it sound like the debate rages on between "low-carb" and "fuel the work", but the reality is that anyone who is paying any attention knows by now that high-intensity exercise requires high-availability fuel. The only people clinging to the "low-carb" ideas are those who are doing extremely long, low intensity efforts (like 100mi runs). I would argue that even they would benefit from, you know, fucking eating.
I don’t think it’s a “duh” idea. Trying to improve mitochondrial fat burning seems like an idea worth testing. The fact that it didn’t make a difference doesn’t strike me as WTF were they ever thinking moment. I’m not an exercise physiologist though.
It's been tested a lot by now, though:Quote:
Originally Posted by bennymac
Strategies to enhance fat utilisation during exercise
Low carbohydrate, high fat diet impairs exercise economy and negates the performance benefit from intensified training in elite race walkers
This episode of Fast Talk discusses both in some detail: https://www.fasttalklabs.com/fast-ta...r-john-hawley/
The only thing that actually seems to work is IV administration of fatty acids, which obviously is not going to happen outside of a lab. The possible criticism of this new study and the race walker study is that they were relatively short-duration interventions lasting 4-5 weeks. You might see different results if you ran a months-long study, but that's impractical and unlikely to happen. Even then, if that were the case you wouldn't expect the pro field to be moving in the opposite direction.
Not trying to argue here. And not trying to say fasted training works.
But there is a difference between doing zone 2 training fasted and doing training while on a low carb diet - those could be combined or not - but they are far from the same thing.
Again - I’m not saying either works.
Uphill Athlete discusses fasted zone 2 training as a potential idea for increasing fat burning capabilities - so I would say that it’s not 100% settled science - but that’s my opinion I’m not an exercise physiologist so my exposure to the studies is limited to what I come across. It’s not a passion of mine nor do I feel as intense about it as some of you clearly do.
I've asked this before, but I'll ask again: what is the motivation to be "fat adapted", aside from the inconvenience of carrying a lot of food to fuel the activity?
People really seem to be attracted to it, despite little/no evidence supporting it, and a lot of science and the entire pro peloton pointing in the opposite direction. So I remain curious: why? Is it just contrarionism?
And FWIW, Uphill Athlete is not an authority on high-intensity work. Their focus is on long, low intensity stuff. They really advocate for very low intensity training (not Zone 2, but rather the high end of Z1).
Lastly, they have recanted their earlier stances: "Attention Uphill Athletes: The information in these articles provides outdated, incorrect, and potentially harmful information. Scientific knowledge evolves as new studies are done and we are on the forefront of tracking and keeping you updated on the current best practices. Since this article was published new scientific and experiential findings directly and definitively contradict the information provided in this article. " https://uphillathlete.com/nutrition/fat-adaptation/
So, yeah.
Didn’t realize this thread was only for high intensity Tour prep training.
Also my bad for posting about something that the uphill guys retracted so long ago (as in 3 months ago). When they included fasted training in their book they must have been trying to be contrarians.
Sorry for wanting to discuss this article/topic. I guess I shouldn’t ever bring up a topic unless I’ve fully researched it outside of here in advance.
Dude, don't be all butthurt. I'm just curious. You can answer the question without being defensive. I think it's reasonable ask someone why they are inclined to adopt an idea that has been thoroughly debunked (in this very thread too, more than once).
I’m not inclined - just interested - probably you and I are misreading each other because I was getting the vibe you were the super butthurt one :)
Maybe we both need more fiber in our diets.
I’m personally more interested in what works for long slow multi day missions than 3-4 hour super high intensity races - so I find the topics around that interesting - even if they don’t work. Studies that don’t show benefit are themselves beneficial.
The crux of all day, multi-day fueling is probably finding the motivation to just keep eating despite being sick of everything. Resupply frequency also probably matters. If you're carrying a lot then fat is efficient since it has so many more calories per gram.
The idea of increasing your fat burning capacity makes a lot of intuitive sense and *seems* like it's something you should be able to train. But, the best way to do it seems to be just to get fitter.
Quote:
Originally Posted by climberevan
I'm not an Uphill Athlete client or even someone that thinks about endurance training but wanted to chime in real quick.
I'd take the Uphill Athlete recanting their earlier stance with a grain of salt since it's followed by 3 paragraphs of Steve House shittalking about his former business partner. Some friends used to be involved with UA and it sounds like the split was less than amicable.
So, I do some fasted training.
I think you need to consider training in two ways:
1. What is the best means of physiological adaptation for success in my "event".
2. What prepares me mentally, physically, logistically, emotionally, etc. for success in my "event".
Almost conclusively low-carb for optimal physiological adaptation is not particularly beneficial. We do need period of low-carb availability to help activate AMPLK / PGC1a etc. but this appears to be just fine to be activated acutely in longer endurance sessions or depleting high-intensity sessions.
However, I like to do long and dumb adventures and while I try to remain fully carb-d up - sometimes it's just impossible to carry enough to keep up. For these times I like having been through period of low-carb availability while training.
The biggest issue though is that the lay-person (and general media) takes one idea and runs with it as gospel. To be honest, training high-carb all the time is likely not beneficial either.... just like training low-carb. However, when used correctly these are the spices that make training a little extra special.
Suggestions for intensity / V02 workouts? Been thinking about this in addition to Attia/Galpin/Huberman's thoughts on V02 improvement. It seems 3-8mins and equal rest and recovery are the sweet spot. 4x 4mins on/off was referenced as a good starting points by Attia, iirc.Quote:
Originally Posted by XtrPickels
I've been pretty content with lots of z2 lately and probably need some intensity. Training for life and general mountain fitness - no specific races. Generally do 2-3 days of riding/running a week in z2 (happily), in addition to 2 days of strength. Given I'm not running as much as I used to, intervals on the bike and uphill running seem like the best way to avoid injury (by minimizing impact).
30/30's too: https://www.fasttalklabs.com/fast-ta...ning-research/Quote:
Originally Posted by fool
Get outta here with your fancy pants nuance!Quote:
Originally Posted by XtrPickels
I’m out here pounding down bags of Holly and Morten’s!
Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums
1:30 into this podcast is relevant. Top performers burn MORE carbs when they are fitter vs less fit.
Performance is tied to the total amount of calories are burned per minute, regardless of source.
https://pca.st/episode/8faa9520-cc5d...2-f2e722eeb0eb
They're strongly correlated, sure, but you can't say "The person that wins is the one who can burn the most calories".Quote:
Originally Posted by climberevan
It's going to be more complicated than that because we're looking at the interplay of VO2max, Economy, Heat Dissipation, etc.
For some events the correlation is higher than others.
Yeah, this time of year is the time that I really focus on 30/30s. I think it's a great way to get intensity into the legs - to get the body used to working at Max Aerobic Power, without pushing too hard on VO2max at this point. Once athletes are comfortable with the 30/30 progression than I move to full-on VO2max work which is usually very taxing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dantheman
A general 30/30 progression would be
"On" = ~130% FTP // "Off"= ~65% FTP. I don't like going lower than this because the increased rest usually allows a higher "on" which ultimately drives more anaerobic contribution vs. aerobic.
Depending on the Athlete I'll do:
2 sets of 6, then 2x8, then 3x6, 3x8, then 3x10. Once someone is comfortable at 3x10 then I typically move to the real "vO2" work. For those you can look into the Bent Ronnestad Fast Start or Variable Intensity VO2 intervals.
Fast Talk Nerd Lab: Variable Intensity Intervals
Fast Talk Article : Intro to Fast Start Intervals
You're not wrong...Quote:
Originally Posted by joetron
I know - because of years of using MuscleSound with Inigo - that he's the first person to recommend that we aren't always walking around topped off on Carbohydrate. That's a sure ticket to putting on unnecessary weight. For general - day to day - training it's ok to be running a deficit. For the hardest training or when performance matters - that's when you want to fully loaded.
I threw up a little just reading that.Quote:
Originally Posted by XtrPickels
This is TGR bruh, peak human performance matters erry day.Quote:
Originally Posted by XtrPickels
But, yes. This is what I’ve been thinking.
I also like my teeth.
Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums
Umm, drink through a strawQuote:
Originally Posted by joetron
Duh...
[/valleygirl]
https://youtu.be/Vn29DvMITu4?si=i-_UPkrXJOdy6vi7Quote:
Originally Posted by joetron
Isn't there also a thread about "Athletic Performance in your 40s"? I'll check there too.
Turned 40 a couple weeks ago and despite it being "Just a number" I have been feeling a bit olderish lately. I am strong, I am eating better than ever, trying to get enough sleep most nights, have gotten pretty into 90 minute "classic" hot yoga....doing that 2 or 3 evenings per week, skiing alpine hard (I know this hardly counts as exercise though.......although it feels like it when you are cranking non stop laps in bumps).
Slowly getting my bike legs back. Fuck it's hard on a trainer. Have had some warm days recently and seen guys out on actual bikes but I've been too busy during daylight hours to get my own ass out there.
I know there are no shortcuts, but what do I need to do differently now than I did at even 35 to feel "less tired and less sore". Yoga feels amazing but holy shit it smokes me. Probably need to get back into the weight room too, but don't know when I will have the time honestly.