I guess my point being that longer rides leading to lower glycogen can improve fitness, simply not eating food for long periods of time won’t.
All great points, I just don’t think knowing your lactate numbers and what your ‘ideal’ z2 wattage target should be prohibits or prevents you from riding around however you want. Heck you can choose to ride to the data some days and not others, all the time, or not at all.
Unless of course none of this interests you, which is totally fine. This is to most of us a hobby, and we should all be so blessed to enjoy it however we choose.
It’s my understanding (mostly from the Empirical Cycling Podcast) that fasted rides tend to be done with depleted liver glycogen not muscle glycogen and its the muscle glycogen that needs to be depleted to get the signals. I’m more than happy though to be shown I’m wrong though.
That podcast isn’t wrong!
The increased AMPK signaling via an increased amp/atp ratio is in fact in the muscle cells. It seems that low carb / fasted training isn’t needed to provide signal saturation though, or at least does not improve response / adaptation, and at worst can blunt adaptation from poor recovery.
I agree with that. Whether you do a ride fasted or not, you are still starting off with glycogen in your legs unless you did efforts the day before and then ate keto.
I tried an easy 90 minute fasted ride once and my legs were sore for 2 days like I had done a VO2 workout and I was completely wasted the rest of the day after the workout. I think depleting liver glycogen really bonks you.
No and why it is potentially better, outside, because “pure” isn’t as effective as natural variance. Some really dont get it, a spike or two is actually very beneficial as long as it not too long. As is sometimes top end or Z3 and really low or Z1. Consistent Z2 isnt as effective IMO.
Exactly. ERG has made people think that optimal training is sticking to the prescribed watts perfectly. Small variations in power and cadence are good for you, especially if you ever intend to race or even just ride well outside.
And as Amber always said “our bodies are not that precise”.
Now take it a step further…Z2 is a BIG zone, by far the widest training zone. Precision simply isn’t required.
It seems, in the past, the easy endurance rides fasted were good.
I did quite a few in the past, +/- 90min, and the lack of energy is brutal. I recovery well, I don’t feel more or less tired after a fasted ride. Haven’t done lately.
What I do feel is that if you need to eliminate some weight, they are quite effective.
I wonder if this is something your body can train? YEARS of training for the marathon and heading out on the forest trails for 2-3 hour run and maybe a drinking fountain along the way… I never felt this. To this day I have no issue even on the bike going that long (outside of fatigue).
(Looking back I do wish I had fueled the runs better, I did try but my stomach was super sensitive and it wasn’t emphasized back then like it is now).
Not carrying water on a ride/run is a bit different though from a fasted ride/run.
Agree and should have included this… but I did all morning runs fasted as I would get terrible stomach cramps if any food was in my stomach within the last 1-2 hours. Even my marathon races….
Don’t know why that was, wish it was different. Maybe I could’ve “trained my gut” if I had focused in it. Maybe not.
But in that regard, I do wonder if running fasted and/or the “side effects” of it is something that you can train. Not that you should… it was just a curiosity. Like I said, I have never experienced the fatigue or soreness you mention from a fasted 90 min run or ride.
I have a really sensitive stomach, but have found that I can get away with eating a medjool date before my fasted run just to get rid of that “man, I’m starving” feeling.
Wouldn’t it make more sense for me to link you a podcast? that seems to be the gold standard these days. And trust me it doesn’t take expertise to slap down some lazy hyperbole.
Because that wasn’t what the podcaster said in that reel I watched !!!
Lots of black and white thinking in this thread which is a classic sign of emotional intensity of course another symptom of the popularization of sports science. It used to be that the scientific method relied on others challenging research, conclusions, methods, etc. Now it’s damaging to the online brands and discussion is met with a lot of backlash.
If you mean a podcast/ reel by coaches who actually train high level cyclists and have real world experience dealing with humans of all types. Sure, or you can go by the double blind study of 5 untrained cyclists that trained in a controlled environment, whatever.
There is no black and white thinking, you just think your way of thinking is the only way people should think. Plenty of people disagree with you, so if you throw shade; I’ll throw it back.
IMO, you’re trying to complicate something for the average TR forum visitor. 90% of the people here will have better improvements just from being consistent.
Not going to keep arguing with random people on this thread, but take a step back and tell me if your supposition that it’s either go with coaches or go with a made up low quality study is an example of black and white thinking.
The correct approach is somewhere in the middle. I never said that you have to stick a metabolic cart in a car and drive around all day looking at live data. But I do object to the idea that the “average user” needs to not have access to the material because it would “complicate”. That is not your decision to make.
Thinking of the food you were going to eat when you got home? ![]()
TR prescribes me three hard sessions a week so I don’t need to worry about “zone 2” …a good thing, as I can’t even figure what people are arguing about in this thread any more! ![]()
Peace! ![]()
There’s nothing really to argue about - endurance training is fairly easy. You just go ride.
There is nothing magical about riding right at fatmax. LT1, 1.7-2mmol, or any other magical intensity one can dream up.
And you can’t “ruin” a Z2 or endurance ride.

