I think my lack of FTP progression is causing mental distress

Your body today is completely different from when you were racing. This body has carried you through life and kept you alive and borne everything the world has thrown at you. Get to know what your body – this body today – needs, and compare your progress only to this time frame, not to your racing days. Plus, you’re right: what we understand about training has evolved considerably since then! What a cool learning curve to explore!

Good news! This isn’t an either/or question! You can try both approaches: increasing intensity vs. increasing volume. The trick is to move one lever at a time, and be patient enough to allow your body time to adapt to each change.

Fueling:
My best guess is that if you are completing fasted Sweet Spot workouts without fatigue, your power output is likely well below your actual Sweet Spot power. Fasted work is one of those “marginal gains” things that confers most benefit after you’ve built the foundation of your engine, which is to say, after you’ve increased your capacity to produce higher absolute power. Even then, pros will almost never do fasted work at intensities above endurance. You want to start with the basics, which will get you 90-95%, then later, after you’ve nailed that 95%, try the marginal gains for the extra few % (hence the term “marginal”). I’d hypothesize that fueling your workouts will give you the biggest return, and I’d recommend making this change first for at least a couple of weeks. Try having 40-60g CHO during your ride (e.g. 20g every 20 min, or space out your intake evenly between intervals, aiming for a relatively constant “flow” of CHO during the workout). I’ll bet what feels “easy” now will quickly feel ridiculous, and that you’ll find yourself capable of sustaining much higher power with less discomfort pretty quickly. I’d also be willing to bet this lever alone will result in FTP gains for you.

Intensity:
I also think you’ll make big gains with some VO2 work without increasing volume. The cool thing is that time in one training zone can affect your capacity across multiple zones. By adding some high end work, you’ll be able to increase your capacity across a broader range of zones than sweet spot alone. Since you have time constraints, I’d start by swapping in the VO2 work and see how that goes. You obviously don’t have a lot of time, or you’d already have been adhering to the training plan’s longer rides. AFTER you’ve tried fueling for at least two weeks without making other changes, THEN try subbing a VO2 workout for the longer scheduled ride each week.

I am very confident those two levers will result in vastly different outcomes for you. BUT if they don’t, the next thing to try would be sticking to the scheduled plan and doing the longer scheduled rides. You don’t need to add extra until you’ve just tried doing the plan as written.

More volume isn’t always the answer, especially when your body is already under a lot of stress (fasted training is crazy stressful on the body, and your busy schedule is probably limiting recovery). If you were coming off a few years of high volume training and racing, then volume would more likely be a limiter. It’s important to find what can work for you, given your individual constraints, which includes scheduling. I strongly advise that you aim to get the absolute most out of every hour on the bike right now, before you start adding on hours. If your time on the bike right now isn’t the highest possible quality (read: power output), adding more time isn’t the best answer. Quality over quantity.

The key is to be patient enough to adjust ONE thing at a time, and to give your body time to adapt. Don’t try to do all of things at once! Start with fueling. See how it goes. You’ll probably feel loads better. If that works for you, keep it going, and THEN add the VO2 work. Give that at least couple of weeks. In the words, aim to ONLY try these two things during SSB I. Then you’ll have a clear picture of which lever works best for you. If neither works, try doing all of the scheduled workouts (incl longer ones ) in SSB II.

Hope that helps!

I have a question about this. I’ve been doing fasted training for a couple of years now, since I simply can’t eat for my 4 am workouts. I am able to complete Sweet Spot, Threshold and lower VO2Max (I seldom do those) workouts like Antelope+5, Stromlo, Ainslie, Marcus Baker, etc. without eating anything, only on some black coffee and water.
So if I’m able to complete the workouts, isn’t that the same as completing the workouts with fueling beforehand and during? The way I see it, not fueling only impars you if you can’t complete the training.

Not fueling impars whole training. If the volume is low you can get away with it. But the intensity and volume rises (i started with lv year ago and now it is 10h/wk) fueling is, in my opinion, the most important part and the element that drastically changes how the whole training feels.

You do not have topping your carbs and pushing 120 g/hr but even 60 g/hr and recovery shake after + proper nutrition during the day dramatically changes how every workout feels. I see fueling more as a long term game, not only acute help with particular workout.

I’m a triathlete and am on the bike 6-7 days a week. I also add 3-4 runs a week, usually around 40-50 km.

Last week, my TSS was 775 and my workouts were: Mount Deborah and Taku-1 on Monday, Boarstone, Ainslie+4, Picket Guard, Warren+1 and Recess-4 on Friday, West Vidette and Tenaya.
Week before, 894 TSS, did Bird-1 and Obelisk on Monday, Indianhouse+3, Carson+2, Gibbs, Round Bald+2, Allegheny and Koip.
2 Weeks before, 936 TSS, did Bald Knob and Lazy Mountain on Monday, Perkins-1 and Detling -3 on Tuesday, Antelope+5, Tallac+2, Conness+2, Galena+3 and Appalachian.

I could go on, but you get the point. Total TSS with runs included is usually around 1000. So you can’t really say my volume is low. 95% of these workouts were fasted.

Ok - you have proved your point, you can do workouts fasted.
I, on the other hand, cannot do them fasted and nutrition highly affects my training - especially when doing longer SST or Threshold workouts.

P.S.
Nice volume - congrats.

It’s just NOT enough hours…especially given warm-up time. Not nearly enough to stay off a plateau. I did sweetspot/Vo2 for 10 years on 6 - 8 hrs and I hit the wall. It didn’t help that I had ZERO aerobic base, having done only ONE ride longer than 3 hrs (4.5 hrs) since I started structured training in 2008. In June of 2019 I decided that things needed to change and so out went sweetspot and in came Polarized, with a doubling of the number of hours I was putting in. It was just 3 and 4 - 4.5 hr rides and Vo2 from then on.

I’m also 51 but I’m NOW riding 20 - 24 hrs on my off weeks at present. I shoot for 10 - 12 on work weeks…more if I can fit it in. This amounts to around 70 hours per month…which will put me on pace to surpass the 650 hrs of this past year. I picked up ~40W in FTP in 2020 but THAT was based on 14 - 16 hrs…with NO sweetspot training at all…just Vo2 max once a week (Polarized) and high volume at LT1/AeT.

I’ve also grown impatient at times, even with the progress of last year…moving from 40 to 42 kph avg speed in TTs but I keep reminding myself that I’m really only 18 months in on “proper riding” and what’s more is that I have SERIOUS time to make up…having wasted the years between 2008 and 2019. The engine had to be rebuilt totally from scratch…but I’m so happy that I did because I NOW understand what I didn’t back then.

In December I finally returned to sweetspot after 18 months, but it will only encapsulate part of the 20 - 25% intensity plan going forward. I will keep 75 - 80% of hours on LT1/AeT and THAT is non-negotiable.

My last eFTP was 267W back in May of 2020…with best 23 min at ~280W in an August TT that I won. At the end of this month I’m hoping to test closer to 300W. Six months from now I’m hoping to be above it as I really zero in on both the SST and Vo2 max intervals…along with the 20+ hr weeks.

I’ve been told that the only way I will get to 300W FTP at 51 is through PED’s…but we shall see what 20 - 25 hr weeks can do for performance over the next eight months. I plan to do the MOST in a May build-up right before this year’s TTs begin, hopefully to get the simultaneous benefit of both a blood volume increase and best cardiac adaptation from block period Vo2.

Last year was more polarized, but this year will be more pyramidal. I think I left a lot on the table by not doing sweetspot last year…but we shall see. At just 68 kg, you have to put in the time to get over 300W FTP.

It’s not about whether you can do the work fasted, it’s about whether doing the work fasted is the best way to reach your personal goals. Fasted workouts will force you to work harder and make you feel worse than fueled workouts. If your priority is weight loss or similar, that may be an acceptable downside; if it’s raw performance, maybe it’s not. If you’re hitting your marks fasted, awesome; imagine what you could be doing with fuel.

I don’t think there’s a universal right answer here. It’s too dependent on what you’re trying to get out of your training. :woman_shrugging:

Not fast? 4wpg at 52. I would love to be there! I am 56 years old and close to 3.5wpg, and thought that was ok!

That’s why I asked the question above. All this time I thought that the main problem with fasted work was not being able to do your workouts. Listening to the podcast and reading @ambermalika’s replies made me wonder if there’s more to that. If someone can provide some studies on this topic (not just n=1 opinions), that’d be great.

Sorry, studies showing that fueled workouts correlate with a higher performance capability than fasted workouts? A search of Pubmed/Google Scholar/ResearchGate will probably get you sorted, or check out books like The Endurance Diet or Eat Race Win. It’s not controversial. Here’s the first result from a search:

No. I know that Fueled workouts provide higher performance capability than fasted workouts. That’s kind of common sense.
Studies that show that completing X workout just as prescribed in a fasted state would bring less progress than completing the same X workout just as prescribed fueled.
For example: that completing Galena right on target fasted < completing Galena right on target fueled.

Hm, interesting! Or restated (since fuel = higher performance), would completing Galena at 100% yield the same progress as Galena at e.g. 103%?

Now that makes me even more curious.
I always thought that completing a workout either fasted or fueled would give you the same results, the only difference being the RPE.
Doing the ramp test fueled and therefore getting a (reasonably) accurate FTP and then doing all the workouts fasted = baseline FTP in one state and workouts in a different state, but done as in same state.
On the other hand, fueled baseline FTP would still be the same even if I was doing all the workouts fueled thereafter.
Nailing your workouts in either case should therefore lead to similar improvements. Or am I wrong?

You’re probably right. But your baseline will just be lower than if you fuelled properly for the work. Each to their own…

I’m not trying to brag or prove my point. I’m genuinely curious if my way of thinking and my approach is okay and scientifically supported or not. And my question still stands:

Maybe try a little experiment where you do fuel workouts for a few weeks and see how you feel/respond to the training. Completing workouts is a great initial measure. Getting the maximum response or adaptation or result is much harder to determine/measure.

Just my 2 cents…

This is such a good question! RPE often gets equated with performance, but we know they’re different. What current research suggests is that training “low” (as in a low-glycogen state, either due to fasting or LC or LCHF) results in compromised performance in terms of quantitative metrics like pace, time, or power output—not just RPE—at intensities above high-end tempo (i.g sweet spot up through anaerobic) . Qualitative effects on RPE seem to be more subjective according to individual response to LCHF/fasted states (research indicates a high degree of variability here among individuals as well as sexes).

It sounds like what you’re doing is working just fine for you, and that’s probably the most important thing to consider. @ellotheth made a great point that training low can address other positive outcomes aside from maximizing power output/training gains, and I’m not here to pass judgment! Even the best research can only point to general principles; in the end, all that matters is to sort what works best for YOU.

In general I recommend fueling with CHO, because the research indicates a great deal of upside versus virtually no downside (in the absence of metabolic disorders) in terms of performance outcomes. This seems to hold whether an athlete is or is not completing workouts as prescribed. Studies that investigated performance outcomes rarely indicated failure of the athletes to complete the requested training task; rather, performance metrics (power, pace, time) suffered in the LC groups. (Examples: here, here, here, and here; but there are more.)

Evidence in the literature suggests that even if you are able to complete your workouts as prescribed when fasted, you’re likely leaving something on the table in terms of performance-related fitness gains (i.e. absolute power output/ repeatability) by training in a fasted state. This study and this study would suggest that even if you fuel your Ramp Test, if you’re otherwise training primarily fasted, your Ramp Test performance is also likely impaired to a degree, rendering a somewhat lower value and putting your usual workouts at a marginally lower power prescription that falls in line with your capacity for work in a fasted state. This does NOT mean that it’s impossible to continue to improve your FTP training as you are, but it probably means you’re capable of producing more power than at present.

Although evidence-based in terms of research, this is still just a hypothetical discussion. The only real way to know is to experiment and see if you notice a difference, but that’s a personal call. We make our recommendations based on what current research suggests will help you get faster, but we also understand that isn’t always the sole goal. In any case, hope this helps!

I’ve fluctuated between 180 - 265 FTP over the past two years. I used to get bugged out by the numbers, but really I can only put about 3-5 hours a week into training as well so I just realized that I’m never to going to be super strong power wise. But I use the trainer as a tool to maintain fitness and then I really enjoy my outdoor rides and events and I’ve been much happier viewing it that way.

@ambermalika Do you know of any studies on the effects of just not having breakfast but not being in a glycogen depleted state on performance (no breakfast but train ‘high’)?

I think there is cross talk in these ‘fasted’ discussions because ‘normal’ people’s definition of fasted is not having breakfast, where in the literature I have seen it refers to either being LC / LCHF / keto (and presumably having low levels of muscle glycogen) or having a hard, glycogen depleting workout and not replenishing glycogen prior to the next workout (hard workout today, then only eating fats/protein, then workout the next day in a depleted state.) The studies that you posted that I was able to take a quick look at are about LC/LCHF/keto which I think would be different from not having time to have breakfast.

Like @KlemenSj I get up early and don’t have time for breakfast before hopping on the bike and I’m not going to start getting up in the middle of the night to eat and then go back to sleep. But I do not believe I am training in a muscle glycogen depleted state based on all the carbs I’m eating every single day and after every workout. Liver glycogen should be low from sleepy time, sure. Per the literature I don’t think that is ‘fasted’ / LC / LCHF / keto training, per the colloquial definition I am training ‘fasted’ because I didn’t have breakfast.

It ends up making it difficult for me to not be annoyingly pedantic. Don’t get me wrong I think for 99%+ of people training ‘high’ is the way to go and do not advocate depleted training. But people mistakenly think they are doing ‘fasted’ rides and getting the benefits as described in the literature when they are not because they are training ‘high’. Or they don’t have time for breakfast and think it will ruin workouts at Z3 and above because they are ‘fasted’, and it won’t because muscle glycogen stores are not depleted.

Thank you so much for the detailed response!
I’m not LCHF actually, I eat around 8g/kg carbs per day, just not before my training, since I start so early. I always eat a big dinner too, so I guess that’s kind of my fuel for these workouts.

And that’s exactly what I was wondering. Like I said , I’m not trying to prove I’m right, I’m trying to improve.

That’s my situation as well. In all comments above, I said “fasted”, not depleted. I eat a ton of carbs and I’m pretty “topped off” for my rides, that’s probably why I’m able to complete them.