Mythbusting

Each Monday, over on Instagram @acier.cc tackles a piece of received ‘ultra’ wisdom or bro-science with a blunt, sometimes hot, but always reasoned take.

Here you will find a selection of myths well and truly busted.

Select your myth to bust:

Uri Geller aside, I am not aware of many people who can propel a bicycle forward solely using the power of their mind. The physical and the psychological are beyond doubt intrinsically linked, but physical force is always required to advance, whatever the distance. Although one of the things that so fascinates me about ultra-distance cycling (particularly self-supported) is that the physically strongest person is far from guaranteed to triumph, as the challenge is so multi-faceted, it must not be overlooked that this is at it’s base a physical endeavour.

There may be merit in positing that the psychological and physical aspects are as important as one another, but placing greater emphasis on the psychological seems to be more of a common trope in ultra than in shorter events. Just as there are physiologically distinct challenges when sprinting 100 metres or slogging out 1,000 miles, the psychological element is unique to each and one is not intrinsically mentally ‘tougher’ than the other.

As the two are so closely intertwined, having confidence and faith in one’s physical ability can hugely contribute to a positive psychological attitude and strengthen one’s will to continue in testing ultra settings. For instance, you may take heart from recalling that you have been through this (or worse) before and that you recognise you are not at your physical limit.

Ultimately, the right mindset is indeed crucial but if the legs aren’t listening then that finish line isn’t getting any closer.

The apparent obsession with FTP in cycling must be viewed with bemusement by other sports. FTP is, after all, just a single metric - the highest power that you can sustain for one hour. In running circles this would be like using your 10 mile PB as a yardstick for how strong a runner you are. The demands of differing length events are discrete, so why such focus on one specific measure 🤨.

I appreciate the value of testing FTP as a means of setting training zones. It is a (not the only) measure of aerobic fitness and, as FTP occurs around the second lactate turnpoint (LT2), maintaining an effort beyond this point becomes quickly unsustainable as blood lactate builds at a rate beyond that it can be cleared. Using a consistent testing protocol can be useful in adjusting these zones over time.

If your goal is to optimise performance in ultra-distance and your focus is primarily on improving FTP, you are looking at the wrong ‘threshold’. My view is that it is far more important to prioritise enhancing sustainable power output at the Aerobic Threshold (or ~LT1), where the body shifts from primarily metabolising fat as a fuel source towards carbohydrates. This intensity, roughly at the top end of Z2 is far more representative of an ultra-distance effort level and can theoretically be maintained forever, given adequate fuelling (until other factors intervene).

The training associated with raising LT1 will likely involve some intervals at high intensity to target improvements in overall aerobic capacity (VO2 max) which may well positively impact FTP. However, this is a case of a rising tide raising all boats, as one will (or, should) not be riding at FTP for extended periods during an ultra-distance event.

One more thing, if you’re going to do a FTP test, please perform it properly. At least the 20 min protocol (incl 5 mins max before) or the full 60 mins. If you can honestly hold the number a ramp test gives you for an hour, you are a rare specimen.

'I’m not racing for the win so I don’t need a coach'

Each of us have our own athletic goals and objectives, determined by what we want to get out of our sport and, importantly, what we enjoy doing. In any race, there are often only a few who are competing for the win and even they may be more motivated by performing to their best rather than finishing ahead of whoever else has decided to show up. The best way to get the highest possible finish in an event, particularly one where you have little to no influence over the outcome of other participants, is to concentrate on getting the best out of yourself.

Two elements key to this are firstly having specialist, or expert, input to inform you of what is required to reach this point and secondly tracking progress & having accountability for continuing this progression towards your desired outcome.

The specialist input may come from yourself if you have the time and interest in researching and putting in to practise effective training methods via a self-designed training plan. Alternatively you could enlist a coach who will do all the heavy lifting for you and can use their expert knowledge and experience to guide your training to your specific needs.

Tracking progress can be done independently by monitoring certain training metrics. After all, that which is measured can be improved. This does require a good understanding of what these metrics are telling you and focusing on those which are relevant to your discipline. Again, a coach can do all this for you and explain why this relates to your goal. You may also benefit from the accountability a coach can provide and, even if you are very self-disciplined, ensure you are doing the ‘right’ things, especially with balancing training stress with rest & recovery.

Ultimately, anyone can benefit from external input for their preparation for an event or goal, regardless of how ‘competitive’ they view themselves. The right input is also crucial so your expert should be someone who truly understands your particular discipline.

‘I need to train hard every day to continue to see improvements in my fitness’

No doubt you need to train hard and often if you want to see gains, especially if you are already performing at a high level. But taking this too far and neglecting rest & recovery is a great way to find yourself on the slippery slope to unsustainable levels of fatigue and potential burnout. Introducing a novel stress to the body offers the potential for adaptation, but only if that stress is correctly dosed and is followed by a period of reduced stress to allow for the adaptation. This stems from the General Adaptation Syndrome which I detail in my article on Periodisation (https://www.acier.cc/knowledge/periodisation-historytradition). A key aspect of Periodisation is managing this fine relationship between fitness and fatigue.

Fitness and fatigue track in the same direction but at different rates. This is the basic principle of the TrainingPeaks metrics of Acute Training Load (ATL) and Chronic Training Load (CTL). ATL represents fatigue as it is accumulated over a shorter timescale, but also shed faster. Fitness, or CTL, takes longer to build, but also diminishes at a slower rate when training is reduced or ceases. The balance of the two is meant to represent ‘form’, although the optimal figure for form is personal and discipline-dependent.

How much recovery is enough though? This depends on the person and the relative dose(s) of intensity. For some who are highly trained, this may just be a case of alternating hard/easy days without the need for a full rest day every week. For others, a day off may be needed after highly stressful sessions. Attention should also be paid to periodising recovery over differing timescales - scheduling a de-load/recovery week every few weeks will consolidate gains and provide for a valuable psychological break from intense training before returning with a reinvigorated eagerness.

So, instead of training hard every day, think of it rather as training smart each day to see those continuing improvements.

'I have to deprive myself of sleep to get the best out of myself in ultra-distance events'

For many ultra-distance events the clock never stops. So that means sleeping is cheating, right?

Not quite.

In ‘shorter’ events, perhaps involving only riding through one full night, one could reason that the time lost for sleeping could be outweighed by keeping moving. Providing that there is no risk to health and safety on the bike. But for anything longer there is going to come a time that you will have to sleep. Getting enough sleep and of the best quality possible is going to be crucial to be able to continue performing optimally.

A key point to bear in mind is that sleep is by far your number one recovery modality. No amount of ‘recovery’ shakes you down will have the same beneficial effect. How that is dosed and what the duration should be, like so often, depends. There is evidence that timing your shut-eye to wake up at the end of a 90 minute sleep cycle can be optimal, but the quality of sleep is also vital. As for the time you are ‘losing’ when sleeping, think of the accumulated time you are spending not moving across the full 24 hour period. Swapping that hour you spent earlier in the day uploading those selfies to Instagram or waiting for that table-service coffee for an extra hour snoozing is often a worthwhile exchange.

Like many things, our tolerances and reactions to an element of sleep deprivation are very personal. Knowing your own limits are often gained through experience, but even this is a risky strategy as pushing things too far could have repercussions beyond just riding a bit slower if you cannot stay upright on your bicycle.

Remember why you are doing this. It’s likely a combination of pleasure and exploring one’s limits. It’s not pleasurable and you’ve gone beyond your limits if you find yourself in a zombie-like state because you think sleeping will cost you time.

‘Watching YouTube videos and listening to podcasts will give me all I need to optimally prepare for my ultra-distance event’

Don’t get me wrong, I’m one of the first to sing the praises of Dylan Johnson’s videos and the TrainerRoad podcast. They are entertaining, and give some very solid general training advice. But that’s also the first issue with this approach if you are preparing for an event that is far from ‘general’. Unless the content you are consuming is specifically targeted for an ultra-distance audience (and of a reliably good quality) you may find yourself adopting an approach that may well get you fitter, but not for the specific aspects really required to excel. For instance, focusing too much on improving FTP (see MM#2). General advice, however sound, is also not tailored to your individual circumstances. This is where many fall in to the trap of thinking that “just because it worked for <insert race winner/pro>, it will work for me too”.

The second common issue is the lack of any external oversight or accountability if you choose to adopt and follow a homemade training plan devised from a Youtuber’s recommendations Even if you are extremely driven and don’t necessarily need someone telling you to train to get the work done, an additional set of eyes can help refine your training and spot signs that adjustments need to be made. These are not always clear, or not easily accepted by an athlete who is determined to persist no matter what. The risk of overtraining can be just as, or even more, damaging than not doing enough.

In many cases, having an ‘expert’ in your corner can add great value over and above the knowledge you have absorbed via these media sources. The basic training principles are a great start to building an effective plan, but without tailoring this to the specific demands of your event you may find yourself lacking in certain skills and aspects of fitness. Depending on your circumstances, a coach may be the answer, particularly if they are experienced in the niche you are targeting. In any event, think carefully about how you take on mainstream training advice and whether it really is applicable to you.

'Following a Zwift training plan will help me optimise my indoor workouts for an ultra-distance event'

You know that doing some high intensity work during the winter months can be beneficial. You see that the training plans offered on Zwift are free and give you some structure to your training. Plus, all those fancy coloured charts and variety of workouts means you won't get bored. This is going to allow you to get the best out of your indoor workouts, right?

Well, the first caution I will make is to remember that these plans are generic. I have already highlighted the limitations of following generic training plans and will continue to bang this drum as this is such an important consideration when your ultimate goal is a discipline as unique as ultra-distance. At the time of writing, I don’t see an ‘ultra-distance’ training plan on Zwift so, even assuming the plans are based on sound training principles 🤔, they will only be intended to prepare you for a shorter event (where the determinants of success are very different physiologically). Even though it’s early in the season, having a proper, targeted focus to your indoor training can hugely pay off later in the year as your event approaches.

Secondly, Zwift is primarily an entertainment platform which wants your attention. The plans may give variety to your workouts, jumping between zones every minute, but come up short on some of the basic training principles. There appears to be a lack of measurable progression, especially if it has you doing different workouts each week. The platform’s primary concern is to keep you engaged and entertained, hence the workout titles such as ‘Threshold Fun’. Heaven forbid starting a block with something as boring as 4x 4 mins and gradually nudging up the power/duration over time.

I agree that being engaged and motivated by the workout is important, but this must not be to the detriment of basic training principles such as progressive overload and specificity to get the best out of your indoor workouts.

‘My event is really long, so that means I should also do a really long taper’

On the day of your target event you likely understand that you want to be on ‘form’. This word gets used a lot, but many people may have trouble describing exactly what form actually is. Being on form is a delicate balance between fitness and freshness. That is, having done enough training which is appropriate to your event and being well enough rested for optimal performance on the day(s). Too fresh and you may lack fitness, and too fatigued you will be unable to apply your hard-earned fitness when it really matters. As fitness is a response to training stress, the two are intrinsically intertwined. The key concept to apply to tapering is that fitness decays at a slower rate than fatigue is shed. A decrease in training load in the short term will therefore lead to increased freshness and consequently ‘form’. Although absolute fitness will have fallen, this is offset by the even greater decline in fatigue.

But how fresh is fresh enough when your event is ultra-distance?

Allen, Coggen & McGregor in ‘Training and Racing with a Power Meter’ (2019) surveyed over 200 athletes, using a measure of freshness (TSB) to find optimum levels for varying distances from a few seconds to multiple hours. They found that for efforts less than 5 mins, greater freshness was more important than that for longer efforts. They conclude that the more aerobic the event, the more important it is to be fit, with freshness being more important when neuromuscular power and anaerobic capacity are paramount.

The practical application of this when tapering for ultra-distance events is another matter but it may not be as crucial as one would instinctively think to be fully fresh before cycling a very long distance, with a favourable approach being maintaining a higher training load closer to the event.

'I need to do really long rides every weekend, because my goal event is really long'

If your goal event is really long, then yes, following the principle of specificity, you should certainly do training rides that are very long, especially as that event approaches. But just doing huge kilometerage every weekend (i.e. all-day rides) risks a number of unwelcome consequences and is not necessarily an optimal strategy to have you best prepared come the start date. It comes to training smarter, not just longer.

The primary concern I would have with someone banging out big kms every weekend is how they are factoring in progression. Increasing distance is indeed a form of progression but there soon becomes a point when doing ever more becomes impractical. Most of us have lives outside of this eccentric hobby and doing a 600km Audax every weekend doesn’t allow much time to do anything else productive. The fatigue carried over from long weekend rides also reduces the quality of mid-week training (if there is any).

There are significant aerobic adaptations to be gained through doing high volume training and specific adaptations can only really be acquired through fatiguing bouts of exercise (e.g. recruitment of Type IIa muscle fibres). But there are smarter and more efficient ways of realising these in shorter time periods. Looking beyond pure time in the saddle is one means of this, using these rides to prepare for particular challenges of your event, such as night riding or hike-a-bike.

Long, and very long, rides are essential for preparation for ultra-distance events. But they need to be carefully scheduled and progressive, with adequate time to recover and absorb the physiological adaptations afterwards. Just doing the same thing weekend after weekend is a sure fire recipe for stagnation at best, if not burnout.

As pastimes go, ultra-distance cycling is not a cheap one. Once you have the bike and all the equipment, there is also travel, accommodation and daily food costs equating to a typical family’s weekly shop to account for. It’s understandable that some may see getting a professional bike fit as a luxury, or optional extra. The costs, generally a couple of hundred £/€ are not insignificant, but when the cost/benefit ratio is compared to that of dropping a couple of thousand on a new set of carbon wheels, the true value can be appreciated.

If buying a new item of clothing, one usually checks beforehand whether it will fit properly. Although translating this to purchasing a bicycle isn’t quite so exact, seeing a fitter in advance is usually the best option to ensure your steed will be appropriate to you and its intended use. When considering the thousands commonly spent on new bicycles, a hundred or two extra to ensure it actually fits you seems less excessive.

If you’ve already been riding your bicycle for a while, maybe you find it doesn’t give you any issues on your long Sunday ride or that your niggling backside issue is just an occupational hazard. I can however vouch from painful experience that a bicycle which seems to fit perfectly for a day ride can transform in to a machine of torture when ridden consecutively for several days. The smallest imbalance can have an oversize impact on both your comfort and performance. And these two factors are inextricably intertwined, particularly for ultra-distances. If you are able to hold an optimal position comfortably for extended periods of time, your performance will benefit. Plus, this is supposed to be fun and nerve damage certainly is not.

Yes, a bike fit is an additional cost and doesn’t even provide you a shiny new ‘thing’. But when getting your fit right is so key to both comfort and performance, the payback is superior to almost any physical upgrade to your bicycle or set-up.

‘A bike fit costs how much?! Nah, I’m saving for new carbon rims instead’

'Lactic Acid build-up in my legs is causing me to fatigue during my ultra-distance event'

You know that feeling of burning legs, the sensation that a toxic substance is filling your bloodstream and restricting your ability to maintain the effort? It’s not lactic acid.

Lactic acid does not exist within the human body. Blood pH is too neutral and acid requires a very low pH. What does though is lactate, which is produced when carbohydrates are broken down anaerobically during glycolysis.

The original experiment leading to the theory that lactic acid was responsible for muscle fatigue was performed by Otto Meyerhof in the 1910s using detached frogs legs, not live human bodies. It is a matter of historical inertia, based on a misunderstanding about the chemistry, that the term lactic acid is still used when referring to lactate.

But even lactate may not be the direct cause of muscle fatigue. Research has shown that lactate is actually an important fuel source for muscles and that its accumulation does not inhibit the ability of muscles to contract. It provides a rapid source of energy that can be transported around the body in the blood. However, it is additional metabolites produced alongside lactate that are linked to muscle fatigue. Lactate levels in this context can be seen as markers of metabolic instability, rather than directly causing fatigue.

As the modality by which the body produces energy (aerobic/anaerobic) is on a continuum, we are constantly producing lactate in our bodies. It doesn’t suddenly appear at the lactate threshold - rather this is the point at which we produce lactate faster than our bodies can clear it (roughly at FTP). And as greater exercise intensities rely on higher rates of glycolysis, levels of lactate (& harmful metabolites) consequently increase.

So that pain in your legs during an ultra-distance event certainly is not due to lactic acid, it probably isn’t directly attributable to lactate, and if it is indirectly linked to rising lactate levels, you’re likely riding at an effort you can barely hold for an hour, let alone multiple hours/days - so slow down!

Who do you trust more - yourself or that device you are wearing?

I’m a fan of data, and I value the important role it can play in the training process, especially for recording and tracking progress. What can be measured can be improved, after all. But that data must be accurate to have practical utility.

The most accurate and useful data often stems from direct measures. A measure is a classification of raw data such as heart rate, time or distance. Many metrics, including those ‘scores’ from your wearable are rather estimates which are reliant on algorithms frequently utilising assumptions or best guess approximations. For these scores to be truly applicable then, both the measuring device must be accurate, and the underlying algorithm must be robust and relevant to your personal situation.

Despite the wealth of training metrics now at our disposal, whether directly measured or estimated, humble RPE (rate of perceived exertion) still holds a hugely important place. Although a subjective measure, how one perceives the task at hand plays a major role in subsequent performance. The same applies to one’s feeling of readiness to train. If you otherwise feel fit, healthy and ready to roll, how can you be sure that your device has the accuracy to overrule this? In the reverse case, if you were bedbound with a true illness and your device was giving you the green light you wouldn’t (or shouldn’t!) proceed with training as planned.

There is also the danger of succumbing to the ‘noecbo’ effect. This is when negative expectations cause something to have a more adverse effect than it otherwise would have. Seeing your score in the red may have you in hypochondriac mode, looking for the slightest evidence to support your supposed fatigued state.

What this ultimately comes down to is that you know yourself best. A good coach can help to highlight the signs to look out for and provide guidance, and a truly accurate device may provide some useful metrics, but only you can make the final call.

‘The device on my wrist is telling me I’m in the red, I’d better spend the day in bed instead of training’

'Longer high-intensity intervals are more specific to ultra-distance events'

The first thing to clarify is that, when training for an ultra-distance event, no form of high-intensity interval training is truly ‘specific’. By this, I am referring to the effort itself. Ultra-distance events play out over many hours or days, so saying that a 20 minute interval is more relevant than one of 5 minutes purely on duration doesn’t add up when viewing the difference in scales here. For shorter events, there is indeed benefit in replicating expected demands through intervals, for instance if doing a criterium race then the constant accelerations out of corners can be built in to sessions. But even the longest intervals in this context, say 4x 20 minutes at close to FTP, are not efforts that one would (or should) be doing in an ultra-distance event.

If high-intensity intervals are not beneficial for replicating the effort of the event then what is the point in doing them? I view this type of training as primarily for targeting physiological adaptations in a periodised approach which will then be beneficial for more specific training as the ultra-distance goal event approaches. As these are aerobic pursuits, maximising absolute aerobic capacity (VO2 max) can elicit improvements in the body’s ability to transport and utilise oxygenated blood in the working muscles. The crucial aerobic threshold, around LT1 (not LT2, which is approximate to FTP), will likely also be pulled upwards, resulting in an ability to produce higher long-term power at a sustainable metabolic rate.

High-intensity intervals can therefore be a time-efficient way to elicit relevant physiological adaptations for ultra-distance events without the efforts being specific themselves. But longer is not necessarily better.

If I had a penny for each time an athlete tells me that, if all went perfectly, they could have hit a few watts higher in their field test then I’d have a very heavy wallet. The knee jerk reaction could be to ask why, if you ‘could’ have done 5 watts extra, you didn’t do just that?

But whether they could have or not is largely by the by. Particularly for athletes training for ultra-distance events, we must keep in mind the purpose of performing field tests. As a coach, I am largely unconcerned with the raw outcome of shorter field tests, such as FTP or 5 mins, provided that they are an honest best effort on that day. After all, power production over such short time periods is not a good predictor for ultra-distance performance.

Rather, they are a useful guide for prescribing training zones, particularly for high-intensity interval training. Those interval sessions are rarely performed and executed in perfect circumstances, with the athlete in peak form, so basing them off a field test under similar conditions is in many ways more appropriate.

Field tests are not meant to be perfect. The most commonly employed methods of setting training zones rely on an estimate of FTP which itself is an approximation of the second lactate turnpoint (LT2). FTP by definition is also functional - it represents a moment in time for a particular physical effort and will as such vary even on a day to day basis. Training sessions can therefore be guided by the outcome of these field tests, but must always be adjusted according to the individual, their unique abilities and the training objectives.

All this to say, don’t sweat whether those extra 5 watts could theoretically have been found. Your field test result may even be more relevant as a result. But if you really want those extra watts, there is always the ramp test…😉

‘I could have squeezed out an extra 5 watts from that field test if all had gone perfectly’