So, is it fair to say that if the service was $100/year for unlimited testing you would be down for it?, despite the doubts regarding the VLMax model?
1 Like
Nope. I can do and interpret field tests for free (or in my case as part of the service I already provide). I don’t need their software to tell me what I can already glean myself. But they want coaches to pay to be affiliated with them, AND charge for testing. Racket. 
Honestly, I’ve never heard of a success story. (Paid endorsements by world tour coaches and riders don’t count.) I’ve heard nothing negative besides the cost. A number of people on the board did Inscyd tests and none reported enormous gains or insights.
Honestly, I don’t see what Inscyd tells you that you can’t glean from WKO or Intervals.ICU or any well maintained power duration curve.
1 Like
I certainly agree, anecdotally, that fueling is the central issue. I can do a great ride and not fuel well, and even back it up with another great ride the next day. But eventually, if I’m not fueling at these numbers, I tank by the end of the week. I think there is some complex biology going on here. This is complete bro-science, but I think there is a lot in the fact that fueling at these numbers convinces your body it’s okay to burn.
I limit the junk food to like 500-800 calories; the rest is all pure dextrose, fructose. I kind of flex it. For me, it depends on what I think my “gastrointestinal distress score” is.
My hot take, as a scientist in a different field with no actual knowledge on this topic, but that isn’t going to stop me from opining, is that effective VO2max would certainly increase and is tied in some somewhat linear way to body mass. But I don’t think the mechanism you are suggesting, where it is about force/load, makes too much sense to me. I think it is probably some higher order central governor-esque phenomenon in which a lot of energy systems and energy management in the human body is fundamentally tied to body weight.
Im not sure that I mentioned force persay, but when I referred to load I was thinking more along the lines of the aerobic system being so highly trained that the super slim rider’s body cannot produce enough oxidative load to make use of the full strength of the aerobic base, thus the conclusion is that by adding to the muscle mass there is an increase in lactate production, an increase in force and an oxidative “load” that is closer to the limit of what the athlete’s aerobic base can do.
Controversial topic, never heard of insyncd but I’m guessing it’s some kind of muscle biopsy test. Point is dialing in the exact progression of VLAmax increase is maybe useful for victor campaenarts as he tries to be able to do both classics and grand tours in the same season.
For more normal competitive cyclists I don’t think it really matters in what increments VLamax is changing, all that matters is that after doing a ridiculous base we shake the habit of feeling good all the time and get the muscles back used to producing as much lactate as possible as quickly as possible so that we can PR in the shorter durations in the weeks before key events
I agree with you, VLAmax testing is somewhat irrelevant outside of the pros that need to fine tune this relationship so that they can change rider profile within the season and still be elite in both 2minutes efforts for classics races and 45 minutes efforts for grand tours. For normal riders as long as the body after base is getting used to producing a shit ton of lactate and force as quickly as possible so that you can start to PR in the weeks leading up to racing, then that is probably fine enough.
VLAmax as a concept is certainly anecdotally a real thing. Ive done a huge base last two winters and it’s always the same thing in may on the early climbing efforts, I’m nowhere near cracking but I also have no ability to increase my speed on the climb to the point where I can blow myself up. By september it’s the complete opposite, surging up to 900w by accident when 700w would do and paying the price. The difference is that the VLAmax by then has gone up with the years conditioning.
1 Like
I’ve heard multiple testimonials of people liking the trading zones it spews and also the remarkable accuracy of derivate measures compared to actual tests (lt1c, Fatmax, vo2max)……these are fast ppl anyways, I don’t have a large sample size.
But $100 a month for unlimited testing doesn’t seem too bad.
I paid $160 for WKO5 three years ago - unlimited testing and modeling for a one time fee.
Aerotune has a competing power profiling / vlamax product for 199 euros per year or a month of access for 25 euros (you probably only need a test 2-4 times per year).
Also, knowing your software derived VO2max is meaningless. Exercise physiologists and coaches who I respect say that the whole “fatmax” concept is BS insofar as one improves fatmax with endurance training, not by riding at fatmax so knowing the number is not that helpful. $1000/year for a lot of not super helpful stuff seems bad to me.
Any magic that comes with Inscyd is probably the coach’s training prescription for the athlete.
4 Likes
Sorry, I meant $100/year
I don’t have an axe to grind here. But wouldn’t be desireable to have your Fatmax as close as LT2 as possible?, wouldn’t that translate in a better rider profile?….A legit question 
VLAmax exists, it just exists in specific muscles and is different in all of them. It’s not a whole-body measure like VO2max is. You can’t really measure VLAmax for a rider… you can measure it for the rider’s quads, glutes, hamstrings, calves, etc. at that muscular level. But each of those muscle groups will have a different value, so how do you determine VLAmax for a rider when he’s in the TT position vs. when he’s on a mountain bike, because the muscle recruitment is different, thus the (bogus) composite VLAmax is different.
The field tests used to estimate it for whole athletes aren’t much different than any other model-derived number, and what the modeling that they want to charge you all the money to use will tell you is that if you have poor sprint power relative to your endurance, AND you happen to NEED sprint power, you should train sprint power. Conversely, if you have GREAT sprint power but relatively poor endurance, you should train the endurance more.
I mean that’s it in a nutshell (there is a little more to it than that), though they have all the things to tell you that what they’re doing is revolutionary because they pay people to tell you so.
2 Likes
Sure, why not?
How do you measure it? (You can’t, in practicality).
How do you move it? (You ride a lot of endurance).
Why do you need to pay for a model to tell you that? And what benefit do you see from knowing fatmax is some % of VO2max based on some model? If you ride enough endurance and your TTE goes up and your FTP goes up (both easily measurable in free field testing), why do you care what your fatmax is doing? The guy with the best fatmax % of VO2max/LT2/whatever doesn’t win the race.
5 Likes
If one had easy access to a metabolic cart, it might be a ‘nice to know’ but knowing the number isn’t that important.
One can also manipulate fatmax with diet - so go low carb, have a better fatmax but be slower on your bike.
2 Likes
Metabolic Cart or Incsyd test. Multiple reports that values are virtually identical. It seems that is the value of the algorithm….Maybe Aerotune is equally precise, IDK.
Sure, in agreement.
It seems that replaces metabolic cart and you can do it multiple times as desired, for a fraction of the cost and inconvenience.
Because the model maps to reality (metabolic cart) in this specific variable. So you can measure it and track improvement.
According to some coaches, LT1/LT2 can stay the same and Fat Max improving. I have not verified if this is actually possible. But it answers your Q…
This misses the point. All things being equal (see point above). You def want to be a more efficient rider.
I repeat, I haven’t done a test, probably won’t do one but if the things I’ve heard regarding their accuracy relative to metabolic cart are true (I have no reason to believe they aren’t), I do se some value in the product.
I think is a false dichotomy. One can and should aim for BOTH!
So again, “in practicality.” Your average athlete does not have access to at-home lactate testing, and if they do, there is a good chance they’re screwing it up and/or not doing it consistently well enough to get accurate measures of VLAmax (ignoring the fact that whole body VLAmax is a misconception anyway). INSCYD does not measure VLAmax any more than your Garmin “measures” your VO2max.
In the end, we aren’t going to agree on the utility of VLAmax and Fatmax as performance parameters, so best to just shake hands and be on our way.
3 Likes
I never argued anything about VLAmax. I was exclusively talking about Fatmax with 3 specific affirmations:
- Seems like INScyd is very accurate at measuring Fatmax
- Having a high Fatmax is desirable and most really fit people exhibit this. WT riders.
- You can increase your Fatmax while keeping MLSS equal.
The only thing you can dispute is #1, but only because you haven’t seen the data.
Why so argumentative with me all the time, man?
No, I can dispute Fatmax being useful for athletes in general. It’s not a performance parameter. It is trainable, but knowing your Fatmax does nothing to make you a better athlete. That’s all I’m saying.
INSCYD does not “measure” Fatmax. It estimates it based on a field test. INSCYD doesn’t actually measure anything except your power output on two given days at four time intervals. It is otherwise a model, no different than WKO5 or Xert. It may well be very accurate at modeling Fatmax. My point is: so what? (For the record, I have done an INSCYD test, it was free, and I did not learn anything actionable from it that I did not already know from my training history and use of WKO).
I would argue that WT riders have a high Fatmax because of the training they do and the volume they ride. Riding high volume makes you fitter, better at burning fat, and brings greater endurance. This is not news.
Yes, you can improve Fatmax without raising MLSS… by riding a lot. Again, so what? In the end, your goal is better endurance, and you don’t need to know your Fatmax to see that.
None of those “facts” require one to know their fatmax or fatmax % of anything. If someone wants to pay INSCYD to tell them to ride more volume and they’ll get fitter, then they may do so. If someone wants to pay INSCYD and track Fatmax for their information, they may do so. I just don’t think it is at all necessary, even for the highest level of athlete.
Bottom line: knowing your Fatmax is not useful for most athletes… I would argue for anyone… because it does not spur action that you should not already be undertaking otherwise.
These are, as always, simply my opinions. I’m happy to continue the discussion on PM, but I really don’t want to continue quibbling about this. Cheers mate.
10 Likes
FatMax is basically a red herring. Sure it is nice ‘metric’ to observe over time, but it is really not actionable informatie with regards to performance. Basically like the rest of the incsyd measures. Don’t get me wrong, the training plans based on it seem pretty solid, bus as mentioned by @kurt.braeckel boils basically down to: your FTP is low relative to your VO2max, but your goal is Time Trialling, now you should train on raising FTP and eliminate anaerobic training for a while.
3 Likes