Funny enough, i said at the onset that TR has made me a faster cyclist, and I have data to prove that’s true. But the reasons for that are not the ones most people cite. I love TR because it gives me a plan, any plan. It’s available on all my devices. It allows me to get my indoor rides in without going to another facility or worrying about weather or traffic. It keeps me accountable and consistent. It gives me this community. It gives me consistent data. TR is on top of the science of cycling.
Even if I just used it to maintain health and wellness, it’s cheaper and more convenient than a membership to a gym/spin class. I pay less for TR + Planet Fitness than I did for my YMCA membership. So, yeah, I’d keep my TR membership even if all I did was use it for endurance rides for the rest of my life. (Though I’m hoping to get the clear bill of health to get after it again.)
Inverse correlation found in a cross sectional study does not mean that the two qualities are not enhanced by the same training methods, or that training for one, might hurt the other. No such conclusion can be drawn, especially with regard to folks not training at the upper echelons of hr/wk.
I am still making no specific claim here, other than the fact that we shouldn’t draw training adaptation conclusions about training based on cross sectional studies. It’s one of the most surefire ways to draw incorrect conclusions and train in a suboptimal way.
In the podcast, they were talking about VO2max vs efficiency. It did really sound though like VO2max and VLAmax were in play here. I’m not sure if Peter Attia or Hutchinson would know that VLAmax even is. Hutchinson is mostly a runner after all.
It’s the first thing I thought of and was wishing I could raise my hand and ask the question during the podcast.
It doesn’t sound like Oskar Svendsen had the greatest coaching or athletic development. He had a lot of potential. Maybe he also didn’t love the grind of pro cycling.