Sweet Spot Definition: The discussion revolves around understanding the concept of the “Sweet Spot” in cycling training, which refers to the intensity range just below the threshold where sustained high power output is possible.
Training Benefits: Participants discuss the advantages of incorporating Sweet Spot training, including improved endurance, lactate threshold, and overall fitness. It is noted that Sweet Spot workouts are efficient in terms of time and energy expenditure.
Implementation and Integration: The conversation explores how to determine the appropriate intensity for Sweet Spot training, with suggestions such as using power meters, heart rate monitoring, or subjective measures like Rate of Perceived Exertion (RPE). The integration of Sweet Spot workouts with other training zones and the importance of individualization and progression are also discussed.
But extracting key takeaways for practical application is hard, I would not even try and rather just follow whatever TR prescribes
Yes, that summary of topic as such.
No, it is not summary of takeaways. And if you propose one, there are definitely popping up bunch of other participants, questioning some details of your summary.
You’d think that I might have some sway with the folks at TP, but ours was always very much an arm’s length relationship, and I preferred it that way (in part based on knowing what Hunter and Kevin had to deal with with the CEO at the time). The few times I let it be known that they had made a mistake (e.g., labeling them “zones” instead of “levels”, or incorrectly listing me as “Dr. Andy Coggan, PhD”), they just shrugged their shoulders and did nothing. IMO life is too short to deal with such incompetencies, especially when you’re talking about your hobby and not your job. I have enough on my plate as it is (mostly chasing grant money to pay my and other salaries).
Actually, no, you haven’t. It’s “Indiana University Purdue University Indianapolis” (soon to be just “Indiana University Indianapolis”), not “University of Indiana”.
As for being up at this hour, there is work to be done (and a swim practice to get to).
I’m impressed by your dedication to the sport and the pleasure is all mine.
I’m also impressed that you have time to reply to people like me being a man of your stature. My brother is an also a professor in a different field at a top Ivy League school. He barely has time to reply to my text messages, especially this time of the year.
I’m honored you took time out of your busy schedule to address my comments at 6am on a Saturday.
Just to clarify, if you were referring to me, I personally wasn’t trying to argue with @The_Cog or dispute anything he is saying/has said. Quite the opposite, actually. I am just trying to get clarity around something that is obviously both so broadly misunderstood yet extensively used by all of us.
And to be fair, as an exercise physiologist myself, I do have a reasonably sound understanding of the topics we’re discussing. I just was trying to get a better understanding around FTP testing vs FTP performance. Kind of like how when we cyclist talk about VO2, we might say “yeah, that’s the power you can hold for approximately 5 minutes” when in fact that’s not what VO2 actually is at all.
You might want to ping @Nate_Pearson - TR have talked in the past about a desire to support research, perhaps leveraging the data they collect through us. They have a recent vacancy in the training/physiology space too…
I don’t think you realize how much it costs to conduct quality biomedical research, especially if you have to pay salaries (which on average account for ~75% of the cost of NIH grants).
Over the course of my career, I have been PI/Co-PI/Co-I/a consultant on 95 grant applications* seeking $93,980,367 in funding, or an average of ~$1M per application. Except for internal awards (which are easier to obtain), I personally don’t bother applying for anything <$75k, as it commits me to too much work for too little reward.
*Reflecting the fact that I have spent two-thirds of my career surviving on “soft money”, I have actually written more grant applications than original papers.
I would say that multiplying by a fixed factor (e.g., 75%) has the same issues, yes. I therefore didn’t include it in my seven deadly sins for the same reason I didn’t include Hunter’s 20 min test, i.e., too much effort for too little precision.
All of the other methods are fine, but I find this questionable. After seeing 100’s of MTB race files, I think this method grossly overestimates FTP in for certain riders, those micro spikes of 600w add up to the calculation and have nothing to do with MLSS.
About 1 in 20 to 1 in 50 cyclists can generate a true 'NP Buster’s. Those that can, though, can do so repeatedly.
You’re wrong about brief spikes in power, though. ATP synthesis, and PCr resynthesis, is essentially 100% aerobic in nature. You therefore can’t repeatedly perform such efforts unless your muscular metabolic fitness is high enough.
“The muscle is to be regarded as an accumulator of energy, energy available for
rapid nonoxidative discharge, stored during previous oxidations. The transformation of glycogen into lactic acid, the action
of the lactic acid on the muscle proteins,
and the neutralization of the lactic acid by
the alkaline buffers of the muscle, are the
vehicle by which this stored energy is
made manifest; during recovery the process is reversed at the expense of a portion
of lactic acid oxidized. The accumulator
has been recharged at the expense of oxidations required to run the dynamo. We
must regard the muscle, therefore, as possessing two mechanisms: (a) the anaerobic
one of discharge and (b) the oxidative one
of recovery.” - A.V. Hill, 1923
