Yes, I did the lab test. Four efforts at 5min, 2.5min, 2.5min and then all out for min 2min to max 4min. Blood was taken from earlobe after each effort.
1 Like
A slightly off-topic point here in this excellent thread but Iād second that impression of you that āthe longer you listen to the TR podcastā not only the better one might feel about dialing down but also the more confused you are on their whole training plans. At times you might think they are just loose recommendations and itās not only ok but nearly imperative that you change them to a great deal if you want progress and are not at a very early stage in consequent training regimes.
1 Like
yeah for sure, they are as good as any canned training plan, but (i) what are your current weaknesses and (ii) how your body is responding, those are two things they can simply never know. you gotta use them as a starting point and then modify from there.
i agree that itās a weird progression of knowledge. You start out feeling like you know whatās going on, you learn more, feel the satisfaction from that learning, then suddenly realize you donāt know nearly as much as you thought you did, fall down into a pit of despair, and then slowly climb back out. 
Well yes, indeed. In a certain way this is a mundane fact and just to be expected. a) the more you know the more you know what you donāt know and b) after a certain amount / time of getting stronger by just doing any riding at all regardless how badly composed or structured it may be you have to be more refined.
But I didnāt want to address these two very basic facts of, well, life.
Iām too old (generally speaking and in my cycling history, so to speak) to not have several cycles of this under my belt. 
No, I wanted to share my impression that also the TR podcast crew seems to have undergone a not so slight transformation either in their understanding of their product itself or in admitting that their indeed canned training plans are just a starting point and they have to edited according to the needs and wants of the user. While in earlier times youād more or less get the repeated reinforcment to stick to the plan (and deviations only because of life getting in the way, work/family commitments, sick etc.) to the letter. Nowadays itās more the like of āof course you have to throw away those short weekend trainings. They are just there because no sane person wanted to comply to longer stuff than 1 or 2 hours on the trainer anyways. Add longer outdoor rides!ā and āYes, go ahead, use our low volume plan and add the key workouts you really need.ā
I may exxagerate a bit with the last sentence. But I think you get the idea.
1 Like
Thanks for confirming. Iām sorting out the issue with my field test. Definitely could have done a better job overpacing my second attempt at 20-min test. Not sure if that is the issue, or something else. Should find out soon.
Yes I can see that, for awhile I was thinking of doing low-volume Build plans and adding endurance workouts. Then mid-base I re-examined what worked for me in the past. And I decided to focus on 2 hard workouts a week, with 3 mid-week rides and a longer 3-8 hour weekend ride. The TR Full Distance Triathlon plans are the closest fit, but still required more adjustments than I had patience.
Would love to see the TR Full Distance Triathlon plans be adjusted by Coach Chad and turned into plans for road cyclists with 8-12 hours a week to train. My preference is to make minor adjustments built around a week with a) two hard workouts on Tue and Sat, and b) more aerobic endurance work. Can see the value of TRās 3 hard workouts a week (low-volume plans) if all Iām doing is riding on the trainer, but Iām riding outside and want a plan designed around that instead of the trainer.
2 Likes
So I purchased a 4-pack of (field) tests from Scientific Triathlon / Mikael Erikkson, if you are interested in INSCYD testing I can highly recommend going this route.
Iāve got another 2 weeks in current sweet-spot block, and putting together a plan for the next couple of blocks. As Iām thinking thru these training blocks, thought Iād brainstorm a bit with the forum. For context Iām in my late fifties and about 5 years of endurance experience. Have ramped my training up to 8-11 hours/week over the last couple of months, with a lot of longer zone 2 workouts.
Appreciate any thoughts about what to focus on next. Iāve got a preliminary plan, and have already discussed (email) with Mikael. Thanks.
1 Like
Looks like VLaMax is already pretty low, so focus on Increasing VO2max. Endurance rides, and above-threshold intervals I think are the INSCYD recommendations for that (thereās a graphic somewhere further up this thread with the up and down arrows).
And focus on flat time trials or races instead of climbing.
What do you think so far about the INSCYD approach? Is it making sense? Did it tell you anything surprising?
1 Like
Thanks and that is basically what Iām thinking too, and from WKO history it looks like there is an āeasyā 10% gain to be had on absolute vo2max (the low/med/high ratings are age adjusted). Weight will naturally come down a bit over the next 6 months so relative vo2 will improve too.
The low VLamax was surprising, I hadnāt done any real sweet spot work until February. And my sprint power (absolute) is decent. Looking out a bit, that low VLamax seems like an off-season opportunity to focus on leg strength in the gym and develop more fast twitch. As best I understand, developing more FOG fibers in the gym means avoiding max efforts (say 80-100% 1RM) and focusing on more of a sweet spot in 60-70% range. Still need to do more research on that.
1 Like
I listened to a recent zwift podcast, it seems Zwift have partnered up with INSCYD and the test will be available in zwift soon!
4 Likes
From what I understand, explosive squats in the 10-15 rep range per set will do the trick.
Iām the opposite. Iām doing a lot of low cadence sweet spot to lower VLaMax.
I havenāt taken an INSCYD test but Iāve read enough about it where I think I understand it. And I know from experience what my profile looks like. Lower VO2max, higher VLaMax, lower AT, lower FatMax.
The nice thing about the INSCYD approach is the clarity it gives on the kind of training needed - or at least thatās what Iām telling myself!
1 Like
IMO, thatās something TR needs to pay attention to. A good number of pro teams are using INSCYD, and we all know in cycling that what the pros do has a way of being copied by the masses.
David Tilbury Davis just announced heās partnering with INSCYD as well.
Do you really know? Iāve been seeing an increase in sprint power, and based on that assumed my short power production (VLamax) would be higher than what appeared on my report. How much of that was neuromuscular control (using what youāve got) and how much from strength training (increasing VLamax)? The point is, you donāt really know your numbers unless you take a snapshot.
Without the INSCYD report, my plan was to continue working on sweet spot and threshold for two more blocks of training. I could continue down that path to reduce short power production (VLamax) and increase FTP. With the INSCYD data, Iād argue sweet spot work is chasing diminishing returns and it is time for the āintensityā (non aerobic endurance) work to switch from sweet spot to vo2max work. The goal/focus then becomes increasing raw aerobic capacity above all else.
Iām pretty sure. I played rugby where I was one of the fastest guys around. So know Iām fast in a sprint/fast acceleration/change of direction (or more correctly, used to be!). This points to high VLaMax.
And everything else is low, which I know cause Iām slow on the bike. 
2 Likes
sure, but you donāt know how high. The whole point of INSCYD is to help make decisions on where to direct training, based on where you are. My background from middle school on is that I was slow in the 50 and 100 yard dashes, but was competitive at longer distances above a mile. Classic slow twitch. But my power duration curve has me as a sprinter. And my short power keeps increasing. Which are classic fast twitch. You either believe there is value in having data to direct training, or not. 
1 Like
This also used to be me. I played rugby in high school. My mere survival relied 190% on speed. Also, when I started cycling I had a wicked fast acceleration/jumpā¦but zero sustained power to extend the gap.
No idea what my physiological composition is or if it has changed with age and/or extended periods of non-activity. Would be great to have precise biological data (vs simple power output) but perhaps only after all the ground fruit is harvested.
1 Like
Iām a believer in data for sure. I just donāt want to spend $ on an INSCYD test for what would really just satisfy my curiosity - as Iāll never be fast enough on the bike to win or compete in races, even if I āoptimizeā my training.
So for my practical purposes, I think Iām close enough in my understanding to inform training.
FWIW, I did a 3.5 hr ride yesterday and got a Strava PR on the last hour. Directional evidence that my low cadence SS training is helping improve my stamina.
2 Likes
Ha! The same for me. Allowed me to survive for almost 25 years.
@DaveWh yeah Iāve been training by feel since 2016 and decided it was time to pull in some additional data, rather than spend more money on bike upgrades or what not. Right now Iād rather double down on correlating feel with dataā¦ even to point where Iād drop all my subscriptions and just use WKO5 and INSCYD along with a couple of books for reference (Olbrechtās Science of Winning and the current edition of Training and Racing with a Power Meter). At least for a years worth of training. My goal is strictly a personal challenge - hit 300W before or during my 60th lap around the sun. I already know how to get from 250 to 275, and am working on achieving that milestone first.
6 Likes
So most of my winter training was influenced by this podcast and the olbrecht one as well. I also got a consultation with Mikael and since i already had a lactate meter, he advised me to not go the nscyd route. Also included by the science of winning combined with some old school lydiard basics i decided to hold off on most suprathreshold intervals from October until now. I did do some 4x8 intervals but those were still well below the normal vo2 power range.
Garmin vo2max readings have held steady, but my latest ramp test was the lowest one ive done. So hr for almost every intensity level is now lower than it was. To explain a bit better my power:hr ratio is unchanged, but my lt1, lt2, and 5 min power have all dropped. Lactate at lt2 was 8 mmol last October, now it is just over 4, but is 20 watts lower. I self tested my ramp test ftp, and will use 73% based on a 1 hour attempt.
Im hoping that now im adding 120% intervals along with some sweet spot/threshold for ssb2 that i can get that classic right shift of my lactate curve. Right now the curve sits on top of my one from October, but i had a higher max aerobic power then of plus 20 to 30 watts easy. First session at 120% was very easy and only peaked hr at like 135.
Anyone who remembers the olbrecht interview, its like my capacity is high right now and now is the time to work on developing power. Training too much near your capacity lowers it according to him, so i only expect 3 to 4 weeks of early getting on it, during second half of build. I am not planning to do the full specialty.
Cliffs notes, not doing high intensity seems to have lowered my vlamax, but vo2max has declined. Capacity through high volume is there though to make a big jump in power so may get to last yearās ftp, but at almost half the level of lactate.
5 Likes