Science of Getting Faster

This was incredible, thank you! I am really interested in the methods that bring these results because studies are very specific and people water them down to almost incorrect information.

Any plans to ask researchers about how they create their study groups?

The group sizes seem small. For example, in SGF#1 the study was between 9 and 12 people. I can’t get access to AskerJ’s original glucose:fructose study, but a reproduction[0] mentioned the sample size (9 people). I’ve read several of the studies linked from Ask a Coach, and the sample sizes are almost always less than 20 people. I don’t want to give away anything from SGF#2, but that is the reason these small sample sizes worry me.

Also, the labels used for these people are “amateur athlete” or “well trained” or “competitive cyclist” or “recreational athlete”.

Question 1: Are these study sizes really enough to generalize to a population? I am not good at statistics; I really don’t know. It just seems really small.

Question 2: Are there standard terms for the subjects of these studies? Is Cat5 a “competitive cyclist”? I certainly compete, but not if its rainy.

I look forward to the next one!

[0] An isocaloric glucose-fructose beverage's effect on simulated 100-km cycling performance compared with a glucose-only beverage - PubMed


Are these available on youtube?

Seems to be planned, but not fully in place yet:

They will be, just not all there yet. The first 3 are on podcast platforms now.

1 Like

I can’t find it on Spotify, does anyone have a link?

Not for Spotify, I found it here: ‎Science of Getting Faster Podcast - Presented by TrainerRoad on Apple Podcasts

And well annotated links here:

1 Like

I enjoyed SGF #1. I think it was a good mix of technical / medical / scientific while also making it practical. Looking forward to SGF #2, especially since I make my own mix.

It’s about confidence levels and the practicalities of researching. If you can’t get 100,000 people to take part, you just can’t. So you state the limitations of your study and assumptions, and be specific about your conclusions - we found that for a population of 20 male middle aged amateur cyclists who had been training at least an average of 4 hours per week for the previous 6 months that when they did X we saw a strong correlation of Y…or something like that.


I don’t believe so, they should state their terms in the study itself.

Thanks for posting - I had missed these entirely. I listened to episode 2, the glucose/fructose one this morning. I think the takeaway of most interest to me was that you’ll feel better and less fatigued from fuelling during workouts.

1 Like

I recall Jeukendrup once publishing some standards back when he worked with Rabobank. They don’t seem to have caught on, though.

Anyway, probably usually more informative to know somebody’s actual training history than their competitive success.

1 Like

I watched this on YouTube and it confused me a bit.

I had always thought it was best to train cool to get the most out of workouts, then do heat adaptation training separate. The episode seemed to suggest doing tempo work in the heat, is that correct? And was 5 days a week for 1h20min just what the study protocol was, or is that the recommendation? I was thinking of just hopping in a sauna 2-3 days a week for 30-45 min a few weeks out from an event, but now that seems inadequate.