I’m wondering if Jonathon missed something in his race prep/analysis. I think he based his average power on best bike split, but I believe that’s using just a TT effort and doesn’t consider drafting (unless he considered this by changing his CdA or something).
Also, when he talks about his calorie targets, I think he’s using the additive model for calorie consumption, not the exercise energy compensation model show by Herman Pontzer’s work. My understanding is that the body compensates on the order of 70% of calories burned, so if you burn 100 calorie exercising, you really only need to replace ~70 because the body compensates in other areas. On a side note, I’m not sure if he fits the flow of the podcast, but getting someone like Eric Trexler to talk about this would be super interesting!
Thank you both for getting back to me, i very much appreciate it.
I agree on the principle of slowly progressing but was hoping to see some if this reflected in the plan, for organising time if nothing else. The first week of the plan is 243 TSS and does not go above 260 for the 5 months until the week of the ride when it estimates 450.
During the last couple of years doing the long distance triathlon plans on TR the progression has been shown from the start.
Its the first time doing a cycling only plan so did assume it would be similar.
I use 10 second smoothing on the workout profile on my Garmin and Hammerhead head units outside. For everything beside my workout screen I use 3 second smoothing.
I think a key thing to remember is that good head units reset power averaging when an interval starts. This makes it so when you start a hard interval there is no latency. The power isn’t as smooth for the first ~15-20 seconds, but it shows that surge. In terms of structured outside workouts, I can’t think of a case where I would want to meaningfully adjust my power outside of the start/end of an interval, so this “resetting” that they do takes care of that scenario.
But I think my power would be that smooth with instant power. The way to hold steady power is not to just stare at your head unit. I’m constantly going by feel and just occasionally checking in with the head unit to recalibrate my perception of the effort when necessary. If you’re chasing a number and fixating on your head unit, it will always look noisy and it will make outside workouts a pain.
The pacing plans BBS give you take into context whether it is a TT or Road Race, but that said, if I happen to catch a magic draft all day then my power will be lower. Would be a shame to prepare for that unlikely scenario and show up unprepared for reality.
This is using the Energy Availability perspective. It approaches nutrition from a more measured perspective than the one you referenced.
Thanks for the response, I didn’t realize BB split did that, very cool.
I have listened to that podcast and it was pretty interesting, and ultimately the scale will be the judge, and I’m sure the energy availability method works well for you. I was more bringing up the idea that we don’t necessarily have to replace all the calories burned in activities, and I’m not sure that’s been mentioned on the podcast before. But you are right in that there’s huge variation in that 70% number I brought up. Thanks again for the response!
This isn’t necessarily true. You want to be replacing all of the glycogen you’re burning if you’re training, and if you’re not trying to lose weight then yes, you do want to be replacing what you’re burning, on average anyways.
Playing around with not replacing 70% (edit, misread, 30%) of what you burned (and even much lower percentages than that) is like playing with fire in the long run, isn’t going to be sustainable, and could be a big detriment to training and improvement.
I think the commenter is talking about something like this paper:
Essentially, while you burn 100 calories during exercise, your body then burns less calories at rest than prior baseline, meaning that to avoid gaining weight, you’d only need to replace ~70-75% of what you burned.
Then to clarify, they were talking about calorie intake, not glycogen. Depending on the specifics of the ride you just did, easily half of the calories you just burned were from fat, not your glycogen stores.
Sort of what I was saying, but I misread what he was getting at with the 70%.
You don’t need to replace fat calories burned unless you’re trying to maintain weight, in which case you should. You do need to (or at least should) replace all the glycogen you burned which depends on the intensity and duration. And, additional caloric needs go beyond what you burned during the workout - the recovery and muscle building aspect post workout needs to be accounted for.
It’s a little bit playing with fire for most people to say you don’t need to replace 30% of the calories you burned and most people are going to be better off getting their Protein and Fat needs taken care of, then modulating carbs to at most be in a small deficit.
Right, that’s what I was getting at. But my understanding is that there is a lot of variation in that 70% number, so it will not work for everyone. But if you track your calories closely and your weight loss/gain doesn’t make sense then it is something to consider.
I was unable to create a comment on the youtube video. So here goes;
I am a 68 year old female who has been a Trainer Road user of several years. I recently setup a two day per week Masters training program and wanted to know if I am likely to increase my FTP with this plan. I had used Train Now for the past couple of years. In addition to biking twice a week, I lift weights twice a week and a moderate swim once a week. I missed the last two weeks due to illness. My username is elise700. You are welcome to use my information on your podcast.
I’ll pass this along to the rest of the team, but I did quickly pull up your calendar to take a look at what you’ve got going on now as well as your training history.
It looks like your FTP has increased slowly over the past year while you were training with around the same amount of TSS as now, so I’d say it’s likely that you’ll continue to progress, albeit slowly.
Two rides a week is a bit low for aerobic exercise to see big gains, but those bricks do stack over time!
What are your goals? It sounds like you probably have great overall fitness with all of the strength work and swimming. Does your FTP and aerobic fitness mean a lot to you?
If so, it could be worth looking into adding one more day of riding to your schedule. This, of course, might mean backing off of another activity, (at least at first) depending on what you feel comfortable with, and if that’s not what you’re looking for I’d say keep doing what you’re doing. Your fitness will likely continue to slowly build over time.
Let me know if this helps and if you have any other questions that I can help out with!
Thank you for the quick response. I’m ok with slowly increasing my FTP as I want to keep my overall strength and fitness. When it gets warmer, I’ll likely add an outside group ride once a week.
I just wanted some confirmation that if I’m consistent with my training then I will see improvement.
I’m just restarting TR and will opt for early morning workouts so the timing of this couldn’t have been better. Now I just need to get over a cold that’s been bugging me since Christmas Day
On a side note, I did a lab test the other week which estimated my LT1/LT2 and hence a good estimate of FTP. Somehow TR wanted to downgrade it after my first ride, how can I get AI to bugger off for a while and let me get going with a plan? @eddiegrinwald would you kindly help me out?
TR doesn’t force anything, you can ignore any of the recommendations for any reason. However, one of the benefits of TR is the way it adapts to current training load and fitness - so you may want to think twice about going your own way, after festivities and sickness.
A lot of us like to start the new year with a big training load - I know I do - but it may not be optimal for getting faster!
Cheers! You make a good point. However I did that lab test completely unfit, so I believe the base is somewhat relevant and it’s just been over a month or so.
Cheers!
I did update it once I renewed my subscription last week, but AI had a different opinion (after just one session, rated ”moderate”). That’s why I was slightly surprised.
I had the classic Wahoo HR issue, where it doesn’t kick in until after a few minutes, spikes like crazy and then falls back to the “right” HR. My average was 127, max 193 which was a total error on the HR meter side so perhaps that spooked the AI model.
(after just one session, rated ”moderate”). That’s why I was slightly surprised.