yeah please do. Like, okay, just looking at lactate might miss some things, but it does seem like there’s utility to looking at performance as a balance between short and long power that you can fine tune. Olbrecht’s work is consistent with this. Is there still utility in doing so, but maybe substituting VlaMax for power-modeled glycolytic capacity?
I’m not gonna get into the arguing here because it jyust seems pretty normal for knowledgeable people to disagree about things.
also importantly: @tofel, how have things gone for you a year or so out? Did you ever get your test results validated in a way that made sense? Did you find the training directions that were given to you useful at all?
Yeah, not in @empiricalcycling s world.
I can tell a lot of you don’t frequent the r/velo subreddit where he has been opining for years.
Because it works. There is more than one way to skin a cat, but the coaching tree coming out of the university of cologne has a pretty good track record.
Some of the hate being spewed against weber and lorang without a cogent counter point make him look like a charlatan.
Oh no worries, I’ve been a big vague here for a few reasons. So, they are definitely using mader/heck and jeukendreup’s fatmax was based on that. But they also say they have improved those models… which they have not when you look at the model outputs, regardless of what happens in between. Fatmax still does coincide with LT1 more or less, though, that’s correct, but the regulatory reasoning for why is incorrect. There’s lots of baby with the bathwater, but still plenty of bathwater to clean up.
What Andy’s referring to is that the glycolytic pathway is a “filler” pathway, so it’ll “fall in” only when demand dictates, which logically means his line would be “it doesn’t blow, it gets sucked”. Which is kind of what I’m talking about with people over-interpreting lactate. There are reasons for its appearance, and a different set of reasons for its disappearance, so it’s not a thing that we can consider without more context. And don’t even get me started with the size principle having a role here… So. Glycolytic flux is reactive, not deterministic. On that, Andy and I agree completely.
A few months later I got a second test. Both VLaMax (+0.26 mmol/l/s) and VO2Max (+6.9 ml/min/kg) came out significantly higher. That high, it triggered them to recheck the first test I presented in the OP. Telling me that the data of the old measurement had led to a very rare behaviour of their algorithm, they sent me a corrected version of it (now the jump to the recent one is not not so high anymore). Since then, I played around with these models myself, however, my own Mader/Heck fits both old and new measurement perfectly using the more plausible values of VLaMax and VO2Max and is completely off with the ones of the OP 
Regarding the training directions, I think I took the right way (until now). @empiricalcycling posts made me think about them. I would decribe INSCYD like a compass, it tells you that your goal (with respect to lactate dynamics) is left or right of you. But if you’re balanced the way you strive for, these values do not help you to move forward. We need a GPS 
!
Do you mean Jeukendrup, @empiricalcycling ? Could you point me to his key paper regarding fatmax? Thank you!
the compass analogy makes sense. LIke, some things i’ve always had questions about. E.g., Sebastian has said that for his purposes, VlaMax and Vo2max account for like 98% of what determines your FTP. And has said that Vo2max is useful as it’s a proxy for aerobic energy production. But couldn’t you have two individuals with the same vo2max, but who produce different amounts of energy with that oxygen?
Anyway, I guess the fact is you’re basically ignoring this component, but if it gets results anyway and is at least directionally correct, it’s still useful.
Here’s a selection, presented without comment.
Fatmax_A_new_concept_to_optimize_fat_oxidation_dur.pdf (112.0 KB)
Group- and individual-level coincidence of the ‘Fatmax’ and lactate accumulation in adolescents.pdf (328.2 KB)
There’s nothing about the idea of VLamax having any effect on the electron transport chain, it’s that pyruvate is energetically favorable over fatty acids to produce actetyl coA. This is almost verbatim what Weber said in the scientific triathlon interview. Blood lactate dynamics determine the concentration of pyruvate. It’s not really that controversial.
Two sides:
INSYNCD has a model that lets them derive some interesting and useful physiological parameters from an easy test.
INSYNCD is using an outdated model and marketing.
But this describes only the last 3 meter of this thread 
can you give us the summary of the 2019 portion of the thread? 
Listened to the podcasts. Interesting discussions.
One thing I am curious about whether has been looked at, or maybe should be looked at. If you take a similar population of cyclists, group them based on FTP, test them at a couple of short, very hard durations, and then see whether Vo2max is a predictor of performance at those short, hard durations.
there’s a philosophical divide among coaches about what’s the best predictor of performance, i.e., FTP vs. performance above it. I’d be curious to tease out whether these are the same thing, because maybe they are and maybe they’re not. TR seems to be firmly of the view that the best thing to do is focus on FTP above all else.
when I hear Nate say that on the podcast, the context is time-crunched athletes which I take to mean ~6 hours/week (TR mid volume).
Honestly, no 
But as I wrote here the test results of the OP became invalidated by INSCYD eventually.
FTP is the number one predictor of success.
Thanks!
TR is firmly of the view you are in the first 2 - 3 years of serious training… lol 
Edit: or time crunched.
PS just in case there is a misunderstanding, my comment was in gist.