I’ve agonised over posting this and I’m probably going to get flamed for it, but here goes anyway. I love the content of the podcast and listen every week, religiously. I’ve learnt so much about training, nutrition and physiology and I really enjoy the dynamic between all the guys. Unfortunately, there’s a small matter that is increasingly spoiling my enjoyment, to the point where I may even have to stop listening. I know many will find it petty, but the constant use of the word “like” as redundant filler whilst discussing a topic is driving me nuts! It’s used literally dozens of times during an average episode, Jonathan being the prime “offender”, closely followed by Nate. I mean no disrespect whatsoever to the guys, but are you aware of it and is it really necessary? Perhaps it’s a California thing? I really hope this will be taken constructively and is in no way meant to cause offence.
Surely this has been addressed in the strength training thread, but would it be a reasonable workout routine to just follow all the benchmark movements?
I haven’t noticed it before, but surely I will now. I think that’s a very reasonable complaint and it’d be good of them to be cognizant of that issue. Jonathan’s overuse of “thereafter” gets me as well, but it’s pretty insignificant in the grand scheme of things.
They do always emphasize to let them know what they can do better!
If it has been addressed (I don’t know, but suspect it is), then it will most likely be in the original post:
Like, what are you talking about?
Anyone else catch the “more podcast content coming soon… different” part from this show?
- First Race Expectations, Beating the Breakaway, Rest Week Diets and More – Ask a Cycling Coach 242 - YouTube
Color me interested.
Lol. @Nate_Pearson, you proved you can’t go long without going long at Leadville man You almost died at the end.
The greater conversation though was one of the best bits of advice I think I have ever heard on the podcast about the long term out look and the knock on effects of weeks and even months down the road. It really extends even to years.
In fairness, he was ripping until he got a bad pack with fluid and nutrition he could not really ingest for the final leg. With a cooler pack and contents he could have taken in, I think that last stretch and his finish would have gone much better for him.
- I’m not really saying anything new, since that is what they all discussed in the related summary podcast, just a reminder of the most likely cause for the hard ending.
I think that was due to no water 3 hours on a hot day.
I went sub 9 with bad descending and super dehydration.
I know the whole saga. My comments was pretty tongue in cheek, I was just leading into my main point about looking at the chronic loading over weeks and months, but it’s absolutely a case in point about cycling that distance is supported by training for it. A GT contender training profile is indicative of the methodology needed to perform at one’s best. Had he done extensive volume, aimed at lower VlaMax and higher FatMax, he would have been at much easier physiological state over that course.
I understand not everyone can, or even wants, to focus on that sort of training depending on goals, time, life etc… But training for it with big distance absolutely is the most effective.
Man, you were awesome. I’m not slagging. I couldn’t get close to your time.
Same here, I’ve used carbs in bottles and real food to great success on long rides. My best century rides required eating something solid no later than mile 65.
Agreed. I’m not a huge fan of CTL, however I do think it does a good job of quantifying the size of your “base” for a hard century or double like DK200. My personal rule of thumb is 80+, and if I was in my 20s or 30s then I’d probably be shooting for 100+ CTL as a 2 week pre-ride target.
Nates time lapse of him eating cereal on Instagram made my day
Just use it as a drinking game - every time they say “like” just take a swig of your bottle (assuming you are riding)
Not to sound defensive, but @Nate_Pearson prefaced this by saying ‘in my experience’, and he followed it up with an explanation why (because solid fuel made him feel out of breath). It doesn’t sound like you are disagreeing it just sounds like you have a different experience.
Each day I faithfully check whether Chad is finally in the sauna.
I did look at that cervelo and it looks good.
I wonder how fast the Chamois Hagar will feel. I can get the same position relative to the bottom bracket as I can with my venge, so that should be close.
The only things in my mind that would make it feel faster are stiffness and weight. I doubt I will feel the aero difference (even though it matters) at gravel speeds.
So if I’m in the same position, why do you think this bike will be slower?
The gravel at DK just isn’t that technical…you mentioned using the Chamois Hagar at Grinduro and that is a totally different beast, and I think it would be a killer bike for that.
But DK is all (gravel) road riding…the CH is overkill, IMO. As everyone seems to say, it is a MTB w/ drop bars. DK just doesn’t need that tool.
I was on my Crux last year w/ 40mm Ramblers and had no issues. I think a bike like the Aspero (or similar) is a great option for DK.
Just my $.02…no change accepted.
I have to agree. The chamois looks too slack for dk. It’d be like taking a 150mm Enduro bike to a world cup xc race. I could be wrong though, it just looks really slack to the eye. I haven’t looked at the actual numbers. Once you actually start riding it I’m sure you’ll know pretty quickly if it’ll be a good long distance speed bike or not.
@Nate_Pearson Well, I don’t know for sure about the Evil. If you have the geometry to closely match your Venge, and make power the way your body is trained, you may be set. Any opinion or reason I can state is only a guess.
Now, that being said, When I think “Evil”, I think so much moto bro science and function. Evil is a MTB company that is dipping their foot into the gravel market because, well, gravel is rad and there is a good profit to be made. That’s awesome, and I bet the bike is fun…in the right situation. As you stated in the podcast, it is a ridged, drop bar MTB. Cool. But a gravel race bike…hardly. I would bet the bike can be comfortable, and I wonder at what cost. I don’t know but I wonder about power transfer through the bike, and the drive train, to the wheels, and how efficient the bike is with the watts provided it by our bodies…especially over long distances. And then there is the issue of racing what I believe is an inferior aerodynamic product. I don’t mean to be a cynic, but more the “devil’s advocate”. I think there are more holes to shoot in the idea of the Evil being a true “gravel race bike”, but what do I know?
Finally, I can tell you my experience. I bought the Aspero, in a 2x with GRX. the whole group is GRX on this stock bike except the crankset. Slapped some fast/light wheels on it. For some reason they speced the bike with an Easton crank set in 47/32. I bought a GRX 48/31 and put a Stages PM on it. With an 11/34 cassette, I am set to tackle any climb, or any flat with options for maximum speed or all the bail out gearing I will need.
So, I made all these changes…Mostly just need creative ways to blow more money on bikes. Then I put some miles on it! Wow! The bike is a rocket ship, and it is very comfortable. I’ve had lots of road and lots of cx bikes, and a ton of MTB’s and I was shocked how well this bike did both comfort and speed. It’s like a full on road race bike the smashes gravel with a ton of comfort. More than any gravel or cross bike I’ve ever ridden or owned. I will also say that I ride my gravel bikes through all sorts of technical terrain when it shows up on rides and this bike did it well. Stable and fast w/ more comfort than I thought was possible from this caliber of bike…
There is $ .02 more for ya. I’m going to sleep now cause tomorrow is race day Good luck, dude!