Sorry, no, I don’t like listening to podcasts. I find speech to be an annoyingly-slow means of information transfer. I can understand, however, why you’d rather not type out your arguments all over again.
Regardless, I still think that you are wrong in how you are interpreting the study. You claim that the study only shows a dichotomous relationship. In fact, Figure 1 of the study shows a continuous relationship between time-to-fatigue and % of VO2max at LT. Critically, it also shows that this relationship exists in both the below-LT group and the high-LT group separately. The authors’ interpretation is therefore correct.
No, that is not all that it shows. Everyone in the low-LT group was over their threshold. Yet, those that were further over fatigued sooner than those who were just barely over. Conversely, everyone in the high-LT group was under their threshold. Yet, those who were further under fatigued later than those who were barely under.
IOW, the authors could have dispensed with the high-LT/low-LT division entirely, and still have proven their points.
Edit to add: here is the key figure from the paper, in case others are wondering what we are talking about.
I don’t mean to beat a dead horse here and keep asking the same questions; after all, you’ve already stated a couple of examples where you believe the model either is wrong or oversimplifies, or both. But from the perspective of hte self-coached athlete, we’ve all had many, many coaches over the years, who’ve given us much advice, that was either the wrong thing or the right thing for the wrong reason, that when you now say “it’s an old model and it’s wrong” we are struggling to understand how much of it is baby and how much is bathwater.
?? Don’t both of them have more peer reviewed publications detailing physiology and biochemical pathways than you? I mean, you get to fall back on your BS.
Right after the vo2max series is over, I’ve got one thing to tackle about the “base” episode since folks seem to think I’m against that kind of riding… but then we’ll probably head to this if I’ve collected enough data by then.
Well nothing talked about here is on a truly biochemistry focus. Funny the criticism being thrown around when there’s nothing here about characterizing protein subunits, understanding the exact mechanism of the active site of an enzyme or balancing the thermodynamics of the reaction. This is all just molecular biology and physiology. Biochem is so deep in minutiae of a particular protein or reaction.
Let’s take some actual athlete data. A cyclist can hold FTP for 60 minutes at 85% of FTP, and hold 90% of FTP for 2.5 hours. Another cyclist can hold FTP for 35 minutes at 90% of vo2max, and 90% of that for 60 minutes. Who has better endurance? It’s the first guy does.
In fact, I’ll go you one better. We’ll look at two more cyclists with an FTP at 84-85% of vo2max. One can hold FTP for 45 minutes, another can hold it for 80 minutes. Who has better endurance? The second guy does.
The point is that arbitrarily setting a % of vo2max and seeing who can hold it for longer is not endurance, it just proves the existence of a fatigue point that we typically know as threshold. We haven’t compared anything about endurance. And vo2max, which is needed for endurance performance, is not the best determinant of it for this very reason.
So if we tell a swath of people to hold 95% of their vo2max for a given time, those with higher vo2max will have an advantage. But the true best determinant of endurance performance is FTP as Andy’s said many times (which I agree with), but I would also add its TTE. If they had gone further to showing that someone can hold their higher FTP as a % of vo2max, then they would have proved it. But if you don’t see that’s not what they did, then you need to read the paper more closely and maybe listen to my old timey podcast episode.
Even if your examples are real, at best they are case studies. As I am sure you know, in medicine that is considered very low-level evidence, lower than the study you claim it disproves.
Biochemistry is the chemistry of biology. You seem to think it’s all enzymatics, but it’s metabolism and other sub-disciplines as well. And even though I’m not describing the enzyme structures or competitive and noncompetitive inhibitors, or even looking at comparative Km values, it informs every aspect of training and analysis I do. So if you want to have a long discussion on the difference between in vivo and in vitro studies of enzyme kinetics, or maybe the difference between the dimer and octamer forms of creatine kinase, give me a call and let’s have a go.
My point being is that is basically just molecular biology. Nothing that’s been discussed is high level biochem, nothing you’d still get in full detail in a cell and molecular biology of physiology text book. The actual chemistry of biology is also applying physical chemistry and organic chemistry to those reactions.
But if you really want to get in to it, I’d be interested in the S value for the dimer vs octamer forms. What’s the gyrational radius? What’s the the sedimentation equilibrium value? Are we really going to discuss something that was published in 1995?
