Joe Friel

How to Optimize Your Economy, Part 2

Joe Friel — Mon, 20 Feb 2012 06:36:53 -0800

Once again I must apologize for the big gap between my posting of Part 1 and today’s Part 2. This is my busy time of year with lots of travel for clinics and camps so time is quite precious. It seems there is always more to do than there is time available to do it. I’m sure you understand.

In my previous post on this topic I mentioned that economy is critical to performance in very long events, such as an Ironman triathlon. I also explained that there are some things that affect economy over which you have little or no control. But there are also others over which you do have some control. In other words, you may be able to do certain things in your training to boost your economy. They will vary a bit by sport so I’m going to describe a few them using economy research done on runners.

Here are five training methods shown in some research to improve running economy along with one study that supported it. I should point out that for almost any topic below I can also find research showing that there is no benefit for a given method. So it often comes down to the preponderance of the studies indicating a trend—or even what seems reasonable to you (we’re then in the realm of “belief,” which is often necessary in the application of science to training). If you click on the research study listed for each method you can read more of the details from the abstract for yourself and even “chase” down the related research to see what others have found. This latter may be done by selecting other research in the “Related Citations” in the upper right corner of the PubMed page.

Intervals. Eight runners did one weekly session of 3-minute intervals at the velocity of their VO₂max (vVO₂max). vVO₂max is what I call peak pace for 6 minutes—“P6”. This is your fastest average pace for a 6-minute, all-out test run. Their economy improved by 6% on average while there was no significant change in VO₂max.

Billat VL, Flechet B, Petit B, Muriaux G, Koralsztein JP. 1999. Interval training at VO₂max: effects on aerobic performance and overtraining markers. Med Sci Sports Exerc, 31(1):156-63.

Heavy weight lifting. A group of triathletes improved their running economy by combining their normal endurance run training with heavy weight lifting twice a week for 14 weeks. (I should point out here that there is also a lot of research showing no benefit from heavy weight lifting, so we’re back to “belief.”)

Millet GP, Jaouen B, Borrani F, Candau R. 2002. Effects of concurrent endurance and strength training on running economy and .VO(2) kinetics. Med Sci Sports Exerc, Aug;34(8):1351-9.

Hills. For some reason there's not much available on this topic, but almost all runners agree on it's benefit. In this unpublished study, hill training twice per week for 12 weeks improved the running economy of 11 marathon runners by 3%. They ran up a 400-meter hill with exaggerated vertical oscillation—“bouncing.” This is closely related to plyometrics.

Sjodin B and Svedenhag J. 1992. “Endurance Conditioning,” in Endurance in Sport, RJ Shepherd and PO Astrand editors. Oxford: Blackwell Scientific Publications.

Plyometrics. Plyometrics for 9 weeks produced an 8% average gain in economy at 5k pace in 10 runners. There was no change in VO₂max.

Paavolainen L, Häkkinen K, Hämäläinen I, Nummela A, Rusko H. 1999. Explosive-strength training improves 5-km running time by improving running economy and muscle power. J Appl Physiol, 86(5):1527-33.

There’s a lot of research on plyometrics which seems quite beneficial for running. So here’s another study. Seventeen male runners improved their 3km times by 2.7% over 6 weeks by doing plyometric training which resulted in improved economy. There were no changes in VO₂max or lactate threshold.

Spurrs RW, Murphy AJ, Watsford ML. 2003. The effect of plyometric training on distance running performance. Eur J Appl Physiol, 89(1):1-7.

Tapering. A 7-day reduction in volume with high-intensity included improved economy by 6% and 5km times by 3% in 8 runners. This is yet another good reason to go through the taper and peak process before a race (as described in my Training Bible books).

Houmard JA, Scott BK, Justice CL, Chenier TC. 1994. The effects of taper on performance in distance runners. Med Sci Sports Exerc, 26(5):624-31.

How to Optimize Your Economy, Part 1

Joe Friel — Tue, 14 Feb 2012 06:06:42 -0800

I’ve written before about the three markers of endurance fitness: aerobic capacity (VO2max), anaerobic/lactate threshold (AT/LT), and economy. In my last blog on economy I noted that sport science knows less about economy than the other two, but that it may be the more critical to performance, especially in very long events. Without rehashing everything explained in the above post from March, 2010, here is a quick summary of economy and, in Part 2 which I'll post soon, what you can do to optimize yours.

The less oxygen it takes for you to turn the pedals, run, ski, or swim at any given submaximal workload, the more economical you are. The longer the race, the more critical economy becomes. For a triathlete doing an Ironman this is a huge determiner of performance. For the road cyclist racing a 45-minute criterium economy is still important, but not nearly as critical to the outcome. The same is true of a 5km race for a runner. The reason for this is that the Ironman bike ride is done at a significantly lower power output than a 45-minute criterium or an 18-minute 5km. The crit and 5km are raced at an intensity between AT and VO₂max. So these fitness markers are critical to such a performance. The Ironman is raced at around 70 percent of AT. During such long durations the rider can’t afford to waste energy as the gut has a limit as to how much energy it can process from food and drink while racing. If the rate at which energy is expended due to low economy is greater than the intake rate then the athlete will “hit the wall.” On the hand, the crit racer and 5km runner can afford to waste some of the energy as their race outcome will not be decided by how much energy is wasted as there is plenty of stored fuel available for such a short race and none will need to be replaced. The key issue for the road cyclist and runner is how to optimize economy in order to produce more power or speed.

When riding, running, or swimming your economy is likely between 20 and 25 percent effective meaning that 75 to 80 percent of all the calories you burn are not producing power or speed. Most of that lost energy is expended as radiated heat. That may seem like a lot of lost energy, but it’s common. Interestingly, research reveals that athletes with high aerobic capacities tend to be somewhat less economical than athletes of otherwise similar ability with lower aerobic capacities.

Economy is dependent on many factors, several of which are outside of your control. As an example, in cycling economy is somewhat dependent on the length of your thigh bone (long femurs relative to leg length pedal more economically than short ones) and for all endurance sports economy depends in part on the ratio of your slow twitch to fast twitch muscles (slow twitch are more economical). Such physical determiners of economy largely result from who your parents were. The most significant aspect of economy over which you have control is how you physically pedal, run, or stroke. For example, in cycling “mashers” are less economical than “spinners.” How rapidly and smoothly you apply torque to the pedals has a significant effect on performance.

In Part 2 I’ll go over what the research reveals are affective ways to train to improve your economy.

More on Power Meters

Joe Friel — Thu, 02 Feb 2012 06:27:51 -0800

The diagram here (click to enlarge) illustrates what happens to heart rate, rating of perceived exertion (RPE), speed, and power while riding a bike steadily uphill, coasting downhill, and then on flat terrain. (Please pardon my crude drawing—an artist I’m not.)

Notice that as the hill is steadily climbed heart rate and RPE rise while speed and power remain fairly constant. Coasting down the hill, speed increases as heart rate, RPE, and power decline.

Note that heart rate was slow to respond as the rider started up the hill and continued to increase in the early part of the descent. This lag is common with heart rate.

RPE increased on the climb also as fatigue gradually set in. It rather quickly decreased on the downhill side before rising again as pedaling was resumed on flat terrain.

Speed remained constantly low on the uphill, increased on the descent, and eventually settled in at a steady rate with the return to flat terrain.

Following a steady level on the climb, power quickly responds to the transition from climbing to coasting and from coasting to pedaling on the flat section. It reflects some of the changes taking place in the other three, but does so rather quickly.

The higher the power up the hill and on the flat terrain, the greater the rider’s performance. The same can be said of speed. Only power and speed are directly related to performance. Heart rate and RPE tell us nothing about performance—they simply reflect what the rider is experiencing. But when compared with power, heart rate and RPE also tell us something about the rider’s fitness. When power is high and heart rate and RPE relatively low compared with previous rides on that same hill, we know that the athlete is fitter and faster.

Both the performance and the experience of creating the performance are important. These may be referred to as “output” (power and speed) and “input” (heart rate and RPE). The most reliable for training and racing purposes are power and heart rate (the exception being in bicycle road racing when RPE is critical to dealing with all of the sudden changes in intensity). Comparing these two makes measuring progress in training much more meaningful. If you know only your heart rate you are lacking the most critical piece of information—what you are accomplishing with your input. Training with a power meter is like watching a movie in 3D instead of only in 2 dimensions—much greater depth and meaning.

Why You Need a Power Meter

Joe Friel — Sat, 28 Jan 2012 09:11:36 -0800

Should you buy a power meter? After all, they aren’t cheap and sport is already expensive. You’ve spent a small fortune on bicycles and all of their assorted and costly components. And don’t forget the entry fees, travel to races, special foods and supplements, and on, and on, and on.

And why get a power meter since you already have a perfectly good heart rate monitor? It’s just one more gizmo to have to figure out.

So why should you get a power meter? The short answer is that you simply are more likely to achieve your race goals by training—and racing—with a power meter than without. It is the most affective tool you can get to go faster on a bike.

Here’s Why

Don’t get me wrong, heart rate monitors are great intensity-measuring devices, also. But heart rate by itself actually doesn’t tell you much. It’s like the tachometer on a car—it tells you how hard the engine is working. Nothing more.

For example, what if your heart rate is 10 beats higher than usual? What does that mean? Is it good or bad? The only way to answer that question is to know if you were putting out more power or less than usual.

Input data such as heart rate isn’t meaningful until it is compared with some measure of output. Output is critical to success; input isn’t. After all, they don’t give awards at races to those who worked the hardest or had the highest heart rates (input), but rather to those who had the fastest time which results from high power (output).

Let’s get back to why you should get a power meter.

No More Guessing

Should you buy a power meter or fast wheels? Given the choice I’d recommend a power meter every time. When it comes to speed the engine is always the most important part. A power meter will help you develop a bigger one. With sleek wheels you still have a small engine.

How do they make your engine bigger? Power meters remove most of the guesswork that goes into training and racing. For example, I’ve known athletes who when doing intervals with heart rate monitors don’t call the work interval “started” until their heart rates reach the targeted level which could take several minutes. During that time they are guessing how hard to work. With a power meter you soon learn that the interval starts as soon as the power hits the targeted zone—which means right away. You get the intensity correct immediately with no guesswork. The intervals don’t taper off near the ends any more either. This means no wasted training time and precise intensity.

Also, realize that you’re not trying to train the heart solely when doing intervals or any workout, for that matter. In fact, what happens in the muscles during workouts, not the heart, is really the key to your success. Heart rate monitors, while quite valuable to training, have many believing that training is just about the heart. It isn’t. Power meters allow you to focus more on muscle.

Cheating With Power

Using a power meter in a long steady-state race such as a triathlon or long time trial is almost like cheating. When everyone else is fighting a head wind, excitedly going too fast down wind or guessing how hard to push when going up hill, the athlete with a power meter is just rolling along at the prescribed power. He or she will produce the fastest possible ride given the conditions so long as the optimal target power has been determined through training and observed closely during the race. While something similar can be done with heart rate there are some confounding factors such as the excitement of a race, cardiac drift, the acute effect of diet and the slow response of pulse on hills, accelerating out of corners or when passing others.

Power meters also provide highly accurate details about how your fitness is changing throughout the season. I test the athletes I coach regularly using a combination of heart rate and power. Without this information I really wouldn’t know for sure if they are making progress. I’d just be guessing. Now I can precisely compare output with input by dividing the average (or, preferably, “normalized”) power for a workout by the average heart rate. An increasing value for similar workouts tells me fitness is improving.

Moving On Up

There are many benefits of training with power. But perhaps the best indicator of their value for performance is the elite athletes who use them. Power meters are common with pro road cyclists and they are becoming increasingly popular with pro triathletes. Cyclists are increasingly using them. Age group triathletes have been slow to adopt this technology, which is unusual. Over the past twenty years triathletes were the first to adopt such innovations as aero bars, beam bikes, deep-dish rims, clipless pedals and gels.

The trend is definitely toward the adoption of power meters in road racing, triathlon and mountain biking. Many are leaning that a power meter will help them race faster. Start setting aside a few bucks aweek so that some day you can get one. It will definitely change how well you train and race.

What Is Fatigue?

Joe Friel — Tue, 17 Jan 2012 05:46:47 -0800

Fatigue is a primary limiter standing between you and better performance. If you could delay or resist the sensations of fatigue you would go faster and last longer at a given effort level--the ultimate purpose of training. Yet we never rid ourselves of fatigue, which is actually a good thing because this prevents us from damaging our bodies or perhaps needlessly expending physiological resources. But understanding what brings on fatigue during a race or workout may point to strategies that could raise your fatigue threshold, allowing you to go faster or farther.

Fatigue seems to vary according to the duration and intensity of exercise. An 800-meter runner and a marathon runner may both fatigue greatly during their races, slow down, and struggle to the finish lines, but their specific reasons for fatigue aren’t the same. Or are they? What caused their fatigue? Currently there are three ways of explaining fatigue.

Catastrophe theory. This is the oldest model having been around since the 1920s. It’s the one which is accepted by most exercise physiologists. This model proposes that exercise stops when something catastrophic occurs in the body, especially in the working muscles [1].

Other than overheating and severe dehydration, which can obviously limit performance, the catastrophe model proposes that there are at least two common physiological reasons for fatigue during endurance events: the accumulation of metabolic by-products such as hydrogen ions, especially from lactic acid release (the 800-meter runner); and the depletion of energy stores such as glycogen and glucose (the marathoner). The catastrophe model proposes that when either of these situations occurs the body is forced to slow down. It’s much like a car running out of gas or the fuel lines becoming clogged. A catastrophe has just happened and the body stops functioning normally.

Central Governor theory. The second way of explaining fatigue originated in the physiology lab at the University of Cape Town in South Africa in the 1990s. Here noted-exercise physiologist Tim Noakes, PhD proposed that fatigue occurs in the brain, not in the muscles [2,3,4].

In this model the body is constantly sending signals to the subconscious brain regarding the current status of the working muscles. For example, fuel levels and metabolic by-product build-up are being monitored by the brain. This is a bit like the operation of the thermostat in your home which gauges the temperature and turns the heating or air conditioning system on or off as needed. At some point the brain may make a decision, again subconsciously and the result of perceived exertion, to slow down due to the current status of the body. It’s proposed that this central governor for fatigue evolved to protect the body from damage caused by excessively hard work.

Psychobiological theory. This theory is a bit like the central governor model, but with a twist. Samuele Marcora, PhD at the University of Wisconsin proposed recently that it is, indeed, perceived exertion, a subconscious calculation made by the brain during exercise, that limits performance [5,6]. He proposed that exercise stops well before fuel levels and metabolic by-product accumulation suggests it is absolutely necessary.

In a part of the forebrain known as the anterior cingulate cortex (ACC) subconscious decisions are made regarding conflict resolution and response inhibition. Essentially, this means that during exercise the ACC is weighing the cost of continuing at a given intensity versus the reward for doing so. Dr. Marcora has shown that “fatigued” athletes are able to overcome the sensation at what appears to be the end of exercise to failure and produce a greater output if the reward is big enough.

You have probably experienced this at the end of a race. You may have been slowing down but when the finish line is seen you have the capacity to some how speed up or even sprint. You’re willing to overcome the suffering because the reward, an awe-inspiring finish or perhaps a slightly faster time or higher finishing place, was great enough to overcome the suffering you were feeling. He further suggests that this system evolved to keep us from needlessly wasting energy in the pursuit of food when the prospect of success in finding it was low. But should food appear (perhaps a deer on the horizon) increasing the likelihood of getting it, then the suffering becomes tolerable.

References

1. Davis, J. M., and Bailey, S. P. "Possible mechanisms of central nervous system fatigue during exercise." Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 1997; 29(1):45--57.

2. Noakes, T. D., St. Clair, A., and Lambert, E. V. “From catastrophe to complexity: A novel model of integrative central neural regulation of effort and fatigue during exercise in humans.” British Journal of Sports Medicine, 2004; 38(4):511-14.

3. Noakes, T. D. and St. Clair, A. “Logical limitations to the ‘catastrophe’ models of fatigue during exercise in humans.” British Journal of Sports Medicine, 2004; 38(5):648-49.

4. Noakes, T. D. “Time to move beyond a brainless exercise physiology: The evidence for complex regulation of human exercise performance.” Applied Physiology, Nutrition and Metabolism, 2011; 36(1):23-25.

5. Marcora, S. M., Staiano, W., and Manning, V. “Mental fatigue impairs physical performance in humans.” Journal of Applied Physiology, 2009; 106(3):857-64.

6. Marcora, S. M. and Staiano, W. “The limit to exercise tolerance in humans: Mind over muscle?” European Journal of Applied Physiology, 2010; 109(4):763-70.

Should You Use Protein After a Workout?

Joe Friel — Thu, 12 Jan 2012 06:48:26 -0800

It’s common for athletes to take in some carbohydrate after a workout. The desire for sugar is typically high at that time. This is beneficial in that it is known to increase the glycogen stores in the muscles which have been depleted by exercise. Decades of research has shown this to be effective for hastening recovery. And the sooner you recover the sooner you can do another quality workout thus shortening the time to achieve a high level of fitness.

There has been much less research done on protein after exercise, but there is a growing body of work which shows surprising levels of improvement by taking in some protein immediately afterwards. Here are some studies from the last few years all of which support this notion. There is a bit of latitude in how much protein you should take in along with your carb as you can see from study summaries below. The range in these studies was about 26 to 400 calories from protein after a workout. That’s a huge difference. But as you will see, these studies did not examine the same benefits, although there is overlap. More research is needed to narrow this down somewhat. In the mean time you are on your own to decide how much.

There’s little doubt that taking in protein along with carbohydrate immediately following a session, especially a hard workout, is beneficial. I suggest to the athletes I coach that they do this in the first 30 minutes after a hard workout. I leave how much carb and protein up to how they are feeling and what seems appropriate as it’s unlikely that what is needed will always be the same regardless of the many variables (workout duration and intensity, pre-workout and during-workout intakes, weather conditions, and more). The sensations of appetite and thirst should be the driving factors. (Click on the citation to read the abstract.)

Berardi, J. M., Price, T. B., Noreen, E. E., and Lemon, P. W. “Postexercise muscle glycogen recovery enhanced with a carbohydrate-protein supplement. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 2006; 38(6):1106-13.

Six cyclists had a 29% greater glycogen resynthesis using a carb+protein recovery drink following exercise vs. a carb recovery drink only. The carb-protein ratio was 2:1 with 4.8 calories per kilogram of body weight. The carb was maltodextrin and the protein was whey.

Breen, L., Philip, A., Witard, O.C., et al. “The influence of carbohydrate-protein co-ingestion following endurance exercise on myofibillar and mitochondrial protein synthesis.” Journal of Physiology, 2011; 589(16):4011-25.

10 trained cyclists rode for 90 minutes at 77% of their VO2max on 2 occasions. Immediately after exercise and 30 minutes after they drank either carb (25g/100 cal) or carb+protein (25g + 10g/140 cal total). Muscle protein synthesis was 35% greater with carb+protein.

Cockburn, E., Stevenson, E., Hayes, P. R., et al. “Effect of a milk-based carbohydrate-protein supplement timing on the attenuation of exercise-induced muscle damage.” Applied Physiology, Nutrition and Metabolism, 2010; 35(3):270-77.

4 matched groups of 8 men each did a muscle-damaging workout. They drank a carb+protein drink (milk) before exercise, immediately after, or 24 hours after. Delayed onset of muscle soreness, power and strength measure 24, 48 and 72 hours after exercise found that the best times to consume the carb+protein drink were immediately after and 24 hours after.

Etheridge, T., Philip, A., Watt, P. W., et al. “A single protein meal increases recovery of muscle function following an acute eccentric exercise bout.” Applied Physiology, Nutrition and Metabolism, 2008; 33(3):483-88.

9 active men ran down a -10 degree slope for 30 minutes at 75% of max heart rate on 2 occasions. Immediately afterwards they took in 100g (400 cal) of protein or a placebo drink. By 48 hours after exercise delayed onset of muscle soreness (DOMS) was high and quad strength was decreased by 10% in the when using a placebo drink. There was no DOMS or reduction in quad strength with the protein drink as compared with a pre-run test.

Ferguson-Stegall, L., McCleave, E. L., Ding, Z., et al. “Postexercise carbohydrate-protein supplementation improves subsequent exercise performance and intracellular signaling for protein synthesis.” Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 2011; 25(5):1210-24.

10 cyclists each did 3 trials of 1.5 hours at 70% of VO2max followed immediately by 10 minutes of intervals. They then rested for 4 hours and did a 40km time trial. During the rest break they drank either chocolate milk (carb+protein), a carb drink (carb) or a placebo (pla) immediately after exercise stopped and 2 hours later. Time trials were faster with carb+protein (8% faster than carb and 9% faster than pla).

Millard-Stafford, M., Warren, G. L., Thomas, L. M., et al. “Recovery from run training: Efficacy of a carbohydrate-protein beverage?” International Journal of Sport Nutrition, Exercise and Metabolism, 2005; 15(6):610-24.

8 runners drank an 8% carb + 2% protein drink and a 10% carb drink on 2 separate occasions between runs to failure followed by a 5km time trial. There was no difference in performances, but there was less soreness after the carb+protein drink.

Ohtani, M., Sugita, M., and Maruyama, K. “Amino acid mixture improves training efficiency in athletes.” Journal of Nutrition, 2006; 136(2):538S-43S.

Supplementation with 6.6g per day of protein immediately following exercise for 1 month increased blood oxygen-carrying capacity and decreased levels of muscle damage.

Pennings, B., Koopman, R., Beelen, M., et al. “Exercising before protein intake allows for greater use of protein-derived amino acids for de novo muscle protein synthesis in both young and elderly me.” American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 2011; 93(2):322-31.

20g (80 cal) of protein ingested immediately after exercise improved muscle protein synthesis (muscle repair) better than taking it in when not preceded by exercise. This worked equally well in both young and elderly men.

My Favorite Books from 2011

Joe Friel — Fri, 06 Jan 2012 08:41:31 -0800

Someone asked me a while back what books I had read recently that I particularly liked. I read a few in 2011. Some were sport-related and the others were just for fun. Here are the three from the sport category that stood out for me and which I’d highly recommend.

Iron War by Matt Fitzgerald. This is the best endurance-sport book I’ve read since Born to Run and Duel in the Sun. Fitzgerald takes you through the details of what happened on October 14, 1989 in Kailua-Kona. I was there as a spectator that day and was unaware of all that was going on (I looked for myself in the book’s pictures—but not there). Now I’ve found out some of the details of that day some 22 years later. He also offers insight into two of the best endurance athletes of the 20^th century—Dave Scott and Mark Allen. Research for the book was incredible.

Tapering and Peaking for Optimal Performance by Inigo Mujika. Although this book has been out since 2009 I didn’t get around to it until 2011. Mujika has done considerable research on tapering and peaking and is considered one of the leading authorities on the topic. I use several of his concepts in the way I peak athletes for competition.

The Paleo Solution by Robb Wolf. It’s no secret that I’m an advocate of eating a modified Paleo diet, which is based on the biological concept of evolution. “Modified,” in this case, means adjusted for the unique challenges of high-workload endurance training (see The Paleo Diet for Athletes). Wolf takes a complex concept and makes it not only easily understood, but also funny. I chuckled my way through it rather quickly.

Select Athlete Workshop

Joe Friel — Mon, 02 Jan 2012 06:09:14 -0800

On February 4 the FASTER* cycling center and I will present a workshop in Scottsdale, Ariz., for about a dozen athletes I handpick to attend. The purpose of the selection is to have a small group of participants who have a great deal in common, such as their sport, experience, level of competition, goals and limiters. That allows me to design a workshop which more closely matches the athletes’ specific needs. The idea is to help you get off to a good start on your 2012 season. It’s a workshop—not a lecture. So we’ll layout your training for the year with options included. I don’t often get an opportunity to do this as my seminar attendees are usually quite diverse. Given that it’s such a small group, this will be very hands-on.

I don’t know yet if this workshop will be for road cyclists, triathletes, runners or some other endurance sport. The group could also be novices or highly competitive athletes. If you are selected I can guarantee that you will get a lot of individual attention due to the small number of attendees. If there are more who could be selected to attend I’ll organize a second such session for another weekend. Since this is a first-time event I don’t know what to expect.

I will hold it at the new FASTER* cycling center in Scottsdale, Ariz. (16414 N. 91st Street, Suite 103, Scottsdale, AZ 85260) from 1-5 p.m. on February 4. That’s a Saturday and I’m scheduling it in the afternoon so everyone can get a workout done in the morning (including me).

The cost is $153 if selected.

I expect primarily local athletes to attend but it’s not limited to them. Anyone may participate regardless of location. Out-of-town athletes will need to make their own arrangements for housing and transportation. I can give suggestions for close-by hotels if anyone from out of the area is selected. If you fly in it will be through Phoenix Sky Harbor airport. That’s about 25 miles from FASTER.

To apply go this website and complete the application following the instructions you find there. All applications are due by January 14. By January 21 I will select and notify the athletes. If I find there are a dozen or so who match-up before January 21 then I will establish the group earlier than planned. So the timing of your application may be critical to selection. Payment is due by January 28 (instructions on the website).

Please let me know if you have a question by posting it here as a comment or by emailing me (see CONTACT JOE above).

*FASTER combines a cycling specific wind tunnel, advanced 2D and 3D Fitting, retail store, service department, compression and hot/cold recovery suite, athlete performance testing and locker rooms.

The Fat-Burning Myth

Joe Friel — Wed, 28 Dec 2011 07:28:13 -0800

It’s that time of year when athletes have gained a couple of excess pounds of flab and are starting to think about taking it off. The traditional method for doing this is by doing lots of long, slow miles. The slower you go, the better, according to this age-old way of exercising to reduce body weight. Zone 1 is perfect, right? But is that the most effective way?

In a classic study (Tremblay 1994) on this topic researchers at Laval University in Quebec, Canada had one group of subjects exercise at a low intensity (low heart rate zone 1) for 20 weeks. Another group did high-intensity intervals (15-90-second sprints at 60-70% of max power) for 15 weeks. The low-intensity group burned 28,757 Calories while the high-intensity group burned 13,829.

Guess what happened. The high-intensity group had much greater reductions in skin-fold measurements when expressed in relation to energy expended. This was the result of increased fat metabolism during periods of rest between training sessions. The high-intensity group also had significant increases in the enzymes that burn fat for fuel. The low-intensity group had no changes in these enzymes.

Note that the intensity of these two groups was extremely different. Low heart rate zone 1 is so easy you’d wonder if you were doing anything of value for your fitness. The high intensity was very high. It would be a mental challenge to do this workout several times a week for 15 weeks.

Realize that I’m not suggesting how you should train at this time of year. There’s a big difference between exercising for fat loss and for race performance. I typically see any extra weight my athletes have gained over the holidays gradually come off in the following weeks as training intensity increases gradually without going to extremes in training.

My Most-Read Posts of 2011

Joe Friel — Tue, 27 Dec 2011 06:53:16 -0800

In case you missed something, here are lists of my most-read blogs since I started posting in January, 2007 along with my most-read blogs of 2011.

Most Read of All Time

It’s remarkable how little change there is to this list from year to year. #1, #2 and #4 have been on the list every year. And #3 and #4 have made this list each year since they appeared.

1. Road Bike Posture (September, 2007)

This is a post from 4 years ago. I’ve never figured out why it turned out to be so popular. Having been #2 for the last couple of years, it’s now jumped to #1. It discusses hip position in a seated position on a road bike and shows examples of two riders, one with a position I like and another that’s not quite as nice.

2. Cleat position (January, 2007)

This was the first blog post I ever wrote and it continues to be one of the most read of all time but slipped from #1 to #2 in 2011. Here I discuss a midsole alternative to the traditional forefoot cleat position for cycling shoes. There have been numerous comments posted to this blog by readers, many of which describe their experience after moving their cleats. There have also been follow-up posts to this blog which you can find by doing a search on “cleat position” on the home page www.joefrielsblog.com

3. A Quick Guide to Setting Zones (November, 2009)

As suggested in the title, this post takes you through the step-by-step process of setting up your training zones (heart rate, power, pace) for cycling, running and swimming. It’s one I send readers to who have questions along these lines.

4. Foot Strike in Running (March, 2007)

This is another perennially popular post making the top five for the fifth consecutive year. It provides pictures of two runners at Ironman Hawaii in 2006—one with a relatively flat-foot strike and the other with a heel strike. It briefly discusses the advantages of minimizing an initial heel-first foot strike.

5. Simplified Base Bicycle Training (December, 2008)

This is the first time in the top 10 for this post. It's basic advice for the road cyclist in the winter months. Here I discuss Christmas Star riders, training patiently and the 3 abilities I have riders work on at this time in the season.

Most Read of 2011

Here are the posts that were read most often from my 2011 blogs.

1. An Update on Compression Clothing (February)

I've been writing about compression clothing since shortly after it bagen to appear at races. This post examines the latest research on the topic and summarizes what I see happening.

2. Training for Advanced Athletes, Part 5 (June)

This blog post describes a type of periodization I’ve been using with some athletes for just over a year now. It’s relatively new in the world of sport science but has a lot of advantages for the athlete who races at a high level.

3. Determining your LTHR (April)

This is a bit of grumpy description of what seems to me to be a very simple concept which, for some reason that evades me, is complex for many athletes.

4. Indoor vs. Outdoor Bike Performance (January)

This is my answer to a question asked by a coach which is a common one: Why is it that indoor training performance seems to differ from similar workouts and tests done outdoors?

5. Becoming a Better Fat Burner (January)

One marker of an aerobically fit endurance athlete is a propensity to use fat for fuel while sparing glycogen. This post discusses why and describes how this physiological attribute can be improved.

Thanks for following my blog in 2011. It was viewed 870,263 times and grew by 27% over 2010. I look forward to seeing what’s ahead in 2012. I still have a long list of topics that interest me waiting in the wings. What’s holding me back is time. Just as I’m sure you find, there are never enough hours in the day to do everything I want to do. But regardless, if you have a topic you’d like me to write about please feel free to post it as a suggestion in the comments section below. I can’t guarantee I’ll write about it, but I may.

Also, thanks for your comments in 2011. There were some great questions and discussions. One of the reasons I have a blog is to hear what real-world athletes are experiencing and wondering about. It keeps me in touch with sport in a way that writing books and reading research can’t do. I look forward to seeing your reactions to my posts in 2012.