100% in the average Joe’s too. I think I was too ambitious with my volume before. I’m going to try doing less overall volume and see how I do.
2 Likes
What’s the rough forward and backward looking time period?
Two weeks.
I think this data is super interesting and opens up all these questions.
IE if I do a sweet spot ride how does that impact VO2 rides I could do in the next two weeks?
V02 efforts have a ‘fast adaptation’. You’ll see the results right away <2 weeks. Z2/LT1/LSD/whatever you want to call it has an adaptation period of months. If you’re looking for correlations in a 2 week window then z2 will look useless other than ‘recovering’ from higher intensity work.
Yes, I’ve said this exact thing on the podcast many times before.
I think it’s super interesting that if you’re a more accomplished aerobic rider you don’t necessarily raise your FTP/VO2/Anaerobic power in that same window. But if you do raise your FTP/VO2/Anaerobic, you are more likely to be able to do a harder Z2 workout (longer or at a higher wattage).
I disagree with this. I think it’s useful in gauging current abilities in different zones.
The half-life of practically all adaptations to exercise training is about 7-10 days.
Example: T1/2 of decrease in blood lactate is ~11 days.
Sure, higher FTP is probably strongly correlated with CP_180min. I believe the point that was attempting to be made with
was that future capacity for adaptations can be correlated with increased time in z2. The hypothesis is extensive work (in z2 at higher volumes) for a period followed by intensive work (v02) leads to better adaptations than doing ‘moderate work’ (sweet spot at lower volumes) followed by v02.
Yes, we have some other cool data on that that is still being processed but we hope to share it with everyone in the coming months. Maybe not your exact A then B scenario but I do want to correlate time in zone to increase in performance for different cohorts.
October was 33 hours and 47 minutes cycling, and broken down pyramidal as:
79.0% : 26.7 hours : z1 & z2 (recovery and endurance)
18.5% : 6.25 hours : z3 & z4 (tempo and threshold)
0.5% : 0.83 hours : z5 & z6 (vo2max and anaerobic)
Agreed. I’ll also claim that more low-intensity work is more sustainable and leads to more consistency. I’ll also claim that additional time in z2 has led to increases in performance, as measured by FTP and (surprisingly) shorter 2-5 minute power. Always hard to be certain, but those claims appear to be supported by what I’ve teased out of my own data.
1 Like
Been running 165’s on the TT bike for years will good results…everything you’d expect with more open hip angle/raise saddle/lower front end etc…
Switched to 165’s on the road bike this fall and one thing that I’ve not come across is how a shorter crank effectively moves your cleat back. For me, with my angles and dimensions the way they are, I really think bringing the cleat back (or getting over the spindle) is key to producing power beyond 5-10 minutes.
Years ago I mistakenly thought “short” cranks affected sprint power which I’ve found simply not true for me. If anything I’m sprinting with more power late in the game compared to longer cranks. It’s impossible to say it’s the length of the crank but, for now it’s a nice coincidence. Anyways, the main point I wanted to make was when you shorten the crank you change fore/aft position over the spindle which I think is under-rated or not discussed much…
Regarding using a buff as a face covering during COVID times, I know that there was a study out by Duke University that I think @Nate_Pearson was thinking of when he said, “Don’t use a buff!”. However, it’s important to point out the following: That study was never meant to test the efficacy mask types. It was meant to study a particular test methodology. There are a bunch of flaws in the study if you’re planning to use it to pick a mask type. Here’s a good article that talks about why you shouldn’t rely on this article for deciding if a gaiter or bandana are a bad face covering:
That article from Duke received a lot of circulation and stuck in everyone’s memory (clearly, since Nate was quoting it now, several months later), but I think it’s important to understand why it doesn’t necessarily say what you think it’s saying. I recommend that anyone who is seriously interested in understanding what makes a mask effective do their own research. There are quite a number of articles that specifically studied masks. Here are just a couple of places to start:
Although that study doesn’t specifically study the impact of reducing covid spread by those masks, I think we can make some reasonable assumptions with the data we have.
- The CDC says to follow the “candle test”, which gator/buffs don’t pass.
- In that study, the gator/buff didn’t do a good job of preventing droplet spread.
I believe that they don’t do a good job because they are designed to be breathable. They are not designed to stop the spread of droplets.
So, if we know #1 and #2, I think we should wear a double layer cloth mask, surgical mask, or N95 (if you’re fancy). Even if you throw out #2, it would still not follow the CDC recommendations.
It might turn out that Corona virus can’t get out from a gator/buff, but until we have that data, it stands to reason that there are more effective face coverings.
Edit: Another thing to note is not all gator/buffs are made the same. If it passes the candle test my confidence in it would be higher.
3 Likes
An unrelated topic, but your comment about the candle test reminded me: I use a similar technique to determine how windproof clothing is. If I can blow through the fabric, it’s not windproof. I’ve bought some $250 pieces of gear that were supposedly windproof, but a quick blow test convinced me otherwise and I sent them back.
1 Like
I agree that a gator/buff isn’t necessarily ideal, but I think that if you’re going to be out on the bike and passing people on an irregular basis, having a buff around your neck is much easier to periodically pull up rather than putting on/taking off a mask. And I think SOMETHING over your face is better than nothing. (I disagree with the findings of the study that some of the items are worse than nothing, because, as other places have pointed out, this is a conclusion that cannot be supported or extended to the general public.)
If the comment was that people are wearing buffs instead of a mask as a first choice in facial covering for all situations, I agree that is not the right choice and we should choose a covering that follows the CDC “candle test” if at all possible.
But my point is that so many people read that Duke University study and immediately started shaming anyone who wore a buff at any time. There is a time and a place when a buff is an ok choice.
1 Like
Possible best of both worlds, something like:
(I’m aware it’s probably the worst of both worlds!)
1 Like
Loved last week’s podcast. After using 165mm cranks on the track for a long time and then having to spend lots of time requesting and ordering smaller cranks for my road bike, it’s good to hear that more people are considering (and experiencing) the benefits of shorter cranks. It turns out that i have recently developed a small bony growth in my hip socket (not attributed to running smaller cranks!!) which means that i would really struggle on longer, standard sized cranks and having a more ‘open hip angle’ is really comfortable. I also ride on 38cm bars so its always a costly exercise sourcing parts!!
If you’re on your bike, outside, and riding by yourself, I think a buff is 100% acceptable. I don’t think you even need to wear anything in that situation.
If you walk into a gas station, you should put on a mask that passes the candle test IMO.
I think we’re in agreement though! 
5 Likes
@ambermalika Just listening to the podcast and couldn’t believe my ears when I heard you say you suffer from cold urticaria. I developed this in my teens and would break out in really itchy hives on exposed areas of skin when I got cold. The doctor hadn’t seen anyone with it before, and I’ve never met anyone else that does either. I think you’re the first person I’ve heard say that they have it. So in a weird way and meant with kindness, it’s good to know I’m not alone! Keep up the great work on the podcast, all of you rock 
3 Likes
On the topic of masks, up here in Canada, a CBC program called Marketplace tested several types of masks in a lab to see how they did. Your “candle test” is a good gauge I’d say.
Link: Marketplace tested over 20 different masks. Here’s what will best protect you and others during the pandemic
2 Likes
Is it me or did the team not talk about healthy snack alternatives? If so where does it start, I may have been away at the time it was spoken about @Nate_Pearson