No idea, maybe they felt that threshold, polarised, and HIT are the most commonly used ones, as well as that they have supporting data to better visualise their differences in athletes etc. with these three.
Either way, I can relate a lot the article when I stopped with TrainerRoad and went and got a coach (actually from HPC, where the article is from) and my compliance is way higher now, rarely feel sluggish, more excited to ride etc.
That a smooth function provided a better fit isn’t “just maths” - physiological responses always reside on a continuum, even if our pea brains insist on thinking in terms of thresholds.
So if the lower threshold is highly correlated with the higher threshold, are there really two thresholds, or do they both just reflect the same underlying phenomena?
Anyway, don’t you know that measuring lactate is old skool ? New skool is to just measure performance.
You got me curious, so I did a quick PubMed search. These are the only original papers he appears to have published.
(Note that the last one is the only study supporting his company’s approach for estimating muscle glycogen using ultrasound. Other independent studies have reported that it isn’t accurate, or at least not accurate enough to actually be useful.)
Just keep in mind that a model is always a simplification of reality. The study you quote only say that modal A was better than B, not that A is the reality. I guess that was my point. You don’t need to be offensive for that…
This forum is to exchange on training and learn together
No offense intended. We all have pea brains that want to overly-simplify very complex ideas. No doubt that provides an evolutionary advantage, because otherwise we’d be eaten by the sabertooth tiger while being paralyzed by analysis. But, that doesn’t make such simplifications correct - just convenient.
It’s interesting that ISM is posting on CHO restriction today. You mentioned that you experimented with this? What’s your view?
I agree that it’s better to do a 2h ride than 1h hour fasted. Or, better do a 5h ride than a 3h with the first hour fasted.
However, we are not all pro with unlimited time. Could it be beneficial for a time crunch master if done with parsimony? According to ISM there is no evidence.
This speculative review summarizes the various studies that have been done attempting to maximize training adaptations by manipulating carbohydrate availability (including fasted training).
Agree with you about performance, but so what on old skool vs new skool. Personally I’d do a lactate test if it wasn’t so intrusive. Earlier this year I did an INSCYD field test, while its based on modeling there is some interesting (modeled) lactate info.
re: Performance. My heart rate zones have been pretty reliable since getting back into road cycling almost 5 years ago exactly (to the day). Three months ago I started base training, and in early September endurance rides were showing 145W at HR of upper Coggan Z2 (128-133bpm for me). After 2.5 months of mostly training by HR and averaging under 8 hours/week, my performance at upper Z2 HR was up to 175W in mid Nov. And nowadays ~195W efforts are just slightly higher at ~136bpm (low Z3 HR).
Pretty happy with performance improvements using an approach similar to the one outlined by ISM. It’s all about progresion and timing, so I don’t expect to continue training this way much longer.
I’m not seeing a lot of “precise thresholds” discussion from the practitioners of lactate testing.
As opposed to seeing threads where people post about hitting precise power targets on the indoor trainer, despite a) the training zones are approximations, and b) that a +/- 2% tolerance power meter and an accurate 250W FTP field test could be viewed as making FTP a 245-255W range, and c) estimates of FTP are just that, estimates, and accuracy will vary.
That’s the scientists overinterpreting things. Such old skool thinking then spills over to forums like this one, where many mistakenly believe that lactate testing is the gold standard.
New skool thinking bypasses this noise, and focuses on the performance continuum.
I don’t know, I have a hard time believing that doing something once a week or so (pasimony) has a huge effect. Especially when the evidence is so sketchy. Probably does not harm but I don’t think it has huge benefits either. No need to ditch a fasted jog before breakfast, not everyone is hungry in the morning. However, these days people are already scared to eat a simple banans because it could attenutate fat oxidation in the following workout.
I’ve noted that James Morton has changed his narrative on low training. And low is the only real stuff anyway. Fasted, well. Now it’s more about twice a day and so.
What I find interesting, available studies differ in the effect on post-treatment fat oxidation. Only those where the second, depleted session was done has HIT had an sort of training effect on fat oxidation. The other way round not. And this is the recommended approach these days. Furthermore, all these interventions were pretty intense with frequent high/low cycles in a week. Not just once a week.
For me the results on bone health were most disturbing, that’s why I lost interest in this approach in the first place. Not something I would like to mess around with.