To Infinity and Beyond - Becoming a Better DopeyBadger (Comments Welcome)

[bovie]

Is there any discussion as to whether the recommended intake might be based on ideal body weight vs. actual body weight? For an elite runner, they're likely the same, but for others like myself, there's some disparity.

 

[DopeyBadger]

Is there any discussion as to whether the recommended intake might be based on ideal body weight vs. actual body weight? For an elite runner, they're likely the same, but for others like myself, there's some disparity.

That's a good discussion. Unfortunately, I don't believe anything I read directly answered that question. However, I think we can take several papers together and come up with a hypothesis. As you point you, most studies are based on elite athletes and therefore it's kind of an unknown whether not the results seen in them is correlative to results seen in normal athletes.

1) Simplistically (Energy = mass * gravity * distance)

Based on this, if one's weight were higher, then they are going to burn more calories over the same distance. If you burn more calories, then it means you need more calories. As long as one's metabolic efficiency is the same (an assumption) between their higher weight and their ideal weight, then it would mean the higher weight version of yourself would need more carbs stored to run the same distance race. So this would suggest a higher intake is necessary for someone who weighs more than ideal weight.

2) The Tarnoplosky paper examined men vs women and FFS (free fat mass, or their mass without their fat taken into consideration). So this would be similar but not the same for correcting between non-ideal weight and ideal weight since the majority of non-ideal weight is usually in the form of fat.

Tarnopolsky, M.A., S.A. Atkinson, S.M. Phillips, and J.D. MacDougall. Carbohydrate loading and metabolism during exercise in men and women. J. Appl. Physiol. 78:1360Y1368, 1995.

When men and women had the same intake based on their FFM, there was a difference between glycogen compensation.

At 11.7 vs 11.3 g/kg FFM - Men (138%) vs Women (117%)

But if you were instead to use g/kg bw without correcting for FFM

At 7.9 vs 8.8 g/kg bw - Men (123%) vs Women (117%)

It's not a perfect system because at the lower end of the carb loading spectrum women may not react the same. But according to the James paper, when fed the same amount of carbs on a per kg bw basis (not corrected for FFM), then the Males and Females had the same increase (182%).

James AP, Lorraine M, Cullen D, Goodman C, Dawson B, Palmer TN, Fournier PA. Muscle glycogen supercompensation: absence of a gender-related difference. Eur J Appl Physiol. 2001 Oct;85(6):533-8. PubMed PMID: 11718281.

So it doesn't directly answer the question of ideal vs non-ideal, but does give us some indication between body mass vs free fat mass.

3) The Atkinson 2011 paper was done in "sub-elite" athletes. The average marathon finishing times was 4:33, and the range was 2:48-7:40. In this study, it was concluded that if a runner consumed greater than 7 g/kg bw carbs then they finished faster than the normal population and suffered less of a fade. When the authors pair matched each of the athletes who took greater than 7 g/kg bw with another runner that took less than 7 g/kg bw but was the statistically not different between age, BMI, training data and previous # of marathons, the >7 g/kg bw group was still statistically faster. This would suggest that even when a person has a non-ideal bw, they are still better off taking more than 7 g carbs/kg bw then less carbs.

So I think the hypothesis to be tested has a sound basis of data to back it up. A non-ideal body weight person would still be suggested to take in the greater than 7 g/kg bw carb loading procedure to elicit the desired glycogen super compensation and performance benefit. To know for sure, we'd have to see a solid research study to directly answer this question.

 

[Dis5150]

Glycogen Supercompensation (AKA Carb Loading for a Race)

I've got some exciting news to share and I've been doing some serious research digging leading into the Fall racing season. The act of carb loading is not a new topic around here. I've lightly covered the Western Australian Carb Loading Method prior (What do you use for your running fuel? Carbs, yum, yum, yum! My scientific strategy!). In a nutshell, you consume roughly 10.3 grams of carbohydrates for every kilogram body weight (10.3 g carb/kg bw) the day prior to the event. But since then, I've been doing some further digging into the performance benefits, men vs women, and how to practically complete the protocol using Maurten 320 Drink Mix as a possible liquid carb source. I highly recommend practicing one of these methods about 4-6 weeks prior to your event just to make sure you tolerate it (nothing new on race day).

But who really is this important for?
-Research has shown that events over 90 minutes are ones that can benefit from a performance standpoint when doing a carb loading strategy.

Hawley JA, Schabort EJ, Noakes TD, Dennis SC. Carbohydrate-loading and exercise performance. An update. Sports Med. 1997 Aug;24(2):73-81. Review. PubMed PMID: 9291549.

Is there a minimum threshold to see significant gains in % increase in glycogen storage and in performance?
-Yes, it appears that minimum threshold is 7 grams carbs/kg bw in males and 8 grams carbs/kg bw in females. If you do a carb loading strategy that is less than either of these values, then the research suggests you will see no statistically significant additional % increase in glycogen storage or increased performance. So if you do less, you'll just replenish your glycogen storage rather than dramatically increasing it.

Sedlock DA. The latest on carbohydrate loading: a practical approach. Curr Sports Med Rep. 2008 Jul-Aug;7(4):209-13. doi: 10.1249/JSR.0b013e31817ef9cb. PubMed PMID: 18607222.

What kind of increase in performance could I expect?
-According to Atkinson et al. 2011, you could increase performance by as much as 0.17 km/hr for every 1 g carb/kg bw at 7 g/kg bw or more. Additionally, it appears it allows you to better maintain pace at the tail end of the race. There are certainly flaws with this paper, but it is supportive to the idea of an increase in performance. By increase in performance, I mean that you can achieve peak performance based on what your data suggests. But it does not mean you're suddenly going to become superman/superwoman and far exceed your performance limit. So what does this mean in real marathon finish times?

Say a person had data to suggest peak marathon performance was a 6:48 min/mile (2:58 marathon). Let's say to achieve that would require 10g/kg bw carb intake. If we use a 0.17km/hr decrease from 10g down to 6g it would suggest the difference in performance would be a 2:58 vs 3:07. So the carb loading strategy would suggest an increase in performance of about 5% for this runner.

Say a person had data to suggest peak marathon performance was an 11:00 min/mile (4:48 marathon). Let's say to achieve that would require 10g/kg bw carb intake. If we use a 0.17km/hr decrease from 10g down to 6g it would suggest the difference in performance would be a 4:48 vs 5:12. So the carb loading strategy would suggest an increase in performance of about 8% for this runner.

Do we know this to be fact? No. But the data would suggest that it is something to consider given the highest correlation in this study was shown to be gender, BMI, training distance 2nd week prior to race, and then pre-race carb loading strategy.

Atkinson G, Taylor CE, Morgan N, Ormond LR, Wallis GA. Pre-race dietary carbohydrate intake can independently influence sub-elite marathon running
performance. Int J Sports Med. 2011 Aug;32(8):611-7. doi: 10.1055/s-0031-1273739. Epub 2011 May 17. PubMed PMID: 21590642.

If I do a one-day protocol (like the Western Australian Method) does it have to occur on the day prior like in the research study?
-A separate research paper (Arnall et al. 2007) has shown that carb loading can allow muscle glycogen to remain significantly elevated for as many as 5 days after the loading period. As long as no exercise at a low effort was greater than 20 min (as was conducted in this study, so you could possibly go longer, but this study did not analyze that specifically) and a 60% carb diet was followed afterwards.

Arnall, D.A., A.G. Nelson, J. Quigley, et al. Supercompensated glycogen loads persist 5 days in resting trained cyclists. Eur. J. Appl. Physiol. 99:251Y256, 2007.

So with that being said, here are some methods to consider.



Western Australian Method (my recommended carb loading strategy)

The Western Australian carbohydrate loading procedure comes from the Fairchild et al. 2002 paper. In the original paper, the authors concluded a 1-day carb loading procedure with 10.3 grams/kilogram body weight of carbohydrates consumed could yield an average gain of 190% of normal glycogen storage. A drawback to the original research was the need for a glycogen depletion (GD) exercise the morning of the carb procedure. The GD exercise was a 5 min warm-up, then 150 seconds of cycling at 130% VO2peak (really really really fast), and then 30 seconds of all-out sprint. Not necessarily a desirable workout to be carried out the day prior to your big race.

Fairchild TJ, Fletcher S, Steele P, Goodman C, Dawson B, Fournier PA. Rapid carbohydrate loading after a short bout of near maximal-intensity exercise. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2002 Jun;34(6):980-6. PubMed PMID: 12048325.

However, a follow-up research article (Bussau et al. 2002) showed that the GD exercise was unnecessary for the glycogen supercompensation to occur. Additionally, no statistically significant increase was seen in glycogen storage when increasing the WA protocol from 1 day to 3 days. This follow-up article cemented this protocol into a 1 day carb consumption with no need for any intense exercise proceeding the big race. In my mind, a win-win. It's important to note, the subjects of this research were all men who trained about 11 hours per week with a VO2peak of 59 (around a 1:20 half marathon or 2:47 marathon).

Bussau VA, Fairchild TJ, Rao A, Steele P, Fournier PA. Carbohydrate loading in human muscle: an improved 1 day protocol. Eur J Appl Physiol. 2002 Jul;87(3):290-5. Epub 2002 May 28. PubMed PMID: 12111292.

In order to carry out the WA protocol, do the following:

-On the day prior to the event, consume 10.3 grams of carbohydrates per kilogram body weight.
-80% of those carbs should be in liquid form in order to aid in absorption. This is where Maurten Drink Mix 320 comes in (see towards the end of this).
-The protein (g) and fat (g) values are suggested based on a 90% carb, 7.5% protein, and 2.5% fat diet on that single day.
-In theory, you would be able to store 190% of normal glycogen storage.
-In theory, if glycogen depletion were the only limiting factor (it isn't), then using the below calculation would yield the time which is the fastest you could run without taking in any nutrition during the race (in theory). That is not necessarily how fast you can run the event, rather it is meant to show whether the need for in-race nutrition may still be necessary given your goal time. This value is calculated by the following method:

((60/(vV02mph*(((Carb storage (kcal) / Estimated Calories burned (kcal))*100)+5)/100)))*26.2)/1440 = Time to glycogen depletion

Something that may become immediately evident is the sheer amount of carbohydrates and calories needed to carry out the WA method. This may be a significant increase for most females. But as will be noted in the Tarnoplosky and James methods, a significant increase in caloric intake and carb intake (by ratio to body weight) is a critical step to yield glycogen supercompensation in females. But with that being said, this method isn't for everyone. Not everyone wants to attempt to consume several hundred grams of carbohydrates the day prior to the event. So below are a few other options.


Sherman Method

The Sherman method consists of 3 days of a "normal diet" followed by 3 days of a "high carb" diet. The normal diet was 50% carbs (protein and fat not specified) and the high carb diet was 70% carbs (protein and fat not specified). This method does not require a glycogen depletion workout. Instead, it was conducted with the following exercise protocol:

Low intensity pace (73% VO2max) for 90 min on Day 6, 40 min on Day 5, 40 min on Day 4, 20 min on Day 3, 20 min on Day 2, rest on the day prior to the event, and then Day 0 was the event.

Sherman, W.M., D.L. Costill, W.J. Fink, and J.M. Miller. Effect of exercise-diet manipulation on muscle glycogen and its subsequent utilization during performance. Int. J. Sports Med. 2:114Y118, 1981.

Goforth Method

The Goforth Method examined two possible protocols simultaneously. This method was done either with or without a glycogen depletion (GD) exercise. The GD exercise was 90 min at 65% VO2peak followed by 1 min run:1 min rest at 120% VO2peak for five intervals. This was conducted 7 days prior to the event. For the remaining days between the GD exercise and event day, the participants were limited to 20 min at 65% VO2peak per day.

During days 6 through 4 proceeding the event, the participants (men) consumed an 80% carb, 10% protein, and 10% fat diet. This equated to 9 grams of carbs per kilogram body weight in these men. During days 3 through 1 proceeding the event, the men consumed a 56% carbs, 26% protein, and 18% fat diet. This equated to 6.5 grams of carbs per kilogram body weight in these men.

The men who did the GD exercise saw their glycogen storage increase 147%. The men who did not do the GD exercise saw their glycogen storage increase 124%. The theoretical times needed to ensure in-race nutrition would not be necessary can be calculated like above for these two possible methods (with and without GD). It's important to note, these pale in comparison to the WA method which showed a 190% increase in storage in two separate papers.

This method was done with liquid carbs in part. The men consumed 315 g of liquid carbs per day during the 1st phase (80% carb) and 210 g of liquid carbs per day during the second phase (56% carbs). This would be about 44-48% of the total carbs consumed in these men.

Goforth HW Jr, Laurent D, Prusaczyk WK, Schneider KE, Petersen KF, Shulman GI. Effects of depletion exercise and light training on muscle glycogen supercompensation in men. Am J Physiol Endocrinol Metab. 2003 Dec;285(6):E1304-11. Epub 2003 Aug 5. PubMed PMID: 12902321; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC2995524.

Research Based on Women

Tarnopolsky Method

Most of the research conducted to date in the glycogen supercompensation realm has been based on data from men. But several research articles (Tarnopolsky 1995, Walker 2000, Andrews 2003, Nicklas 1989, McLay 2007, and Paul 2001) have shown that men and women do not necessarily react the same to similar carb loading methods. What may indeed matter more than the composition of the diet is the total caloric intake and the total grams of carbohydrates per kilogram body weight.

Tarnopolsky aimed to test just that in the 2001 paper. Men and women consumed one of three diets for five days.

Normal diet (Men was 3000 calories and 6.1 g carb per kilogram body weight and Women was 2000 calories and 5.1 g carb per kg/bw)
High Carb (Men was 3000 calories and 7.9 g carb/kg bw and Women 2000 calories and 6.4 g carb/kg bw)
High Carb/High Calorie (Men was 4000 calories and 10.5 g carb/kg bw and Women 2711 calories and 8.8 g carb/kg bw).

The content of the normal diet was 58% C, 28% P, and 14% F. The High carb and the High Carb/High calorie were 75% C, 15% P, and 10% F. Lastly, the FFM (free fat mass) relative to carb consumption was equivalent in all three diets between genders (6.8 vs 6.6, 8.8 vs 8.3, and 11.7 vs 11.3).

The method also required a glycogen depletion exercise to occur on the 5th day proceeding the event. It was 60 min at 65% VO2peak followed by a 2:1 run to rest at 85% VO2peak. The remaining days were at 65% VO2peak at 60, 45, 30, and 0 min proceeding the event.

The result was men increased glycogen storage by 138% over normal and women by 117%. Not the same, but one of the higher reported values for females at the time. The value shown shows the in-theory marathon time that would not require in-race nutrition.

This study does reinforce that a high carb diet alone (75/15/15) was not enough to make a significant increase in glycogen storage in females, but was able to make a nominal increase in males. Males had a 123% increase whereas females had a 113% increase. This was likely due to the disparity in grams of carbs per kilogram body weight, but as the author posits this would require a significant portion of dietary calories comes from carbs to hit a value near 10 g carbs/kg bw.

To note, the males in this study had at least a 55 VO2peak (average was 63) and the females had at least a 45 VO2peak (average was 53). A 45 VO2peak estimates a HM at 1:40 and M at 3:28, and a 53 VO2peak estimates a HM at 1:27 and M at 3:01. Just to give you an idea as to the test subjects in this study.

Tarnopolsky, M.A., S.A. Atkinson, S.M. Phillips, and J.D. MacDougall. Carbohydrate loading and metabolism during exercise in men and women. J. Appl. Physiol. 78:1360Y1368, 1995.

Walker, J.L., J.F. Heigenhauser, E. Hultman, and L.L. Spriet. Dietary carbohydrate, muscle glycogen content, and endurance performance in well-trained women. J. Appl. Physiol. 88:2151Y2158, 2000.

Andrews, J.L., D.A. Sedlock, M.G. Flynn, et al. Carbohydrate loading and supplementation in endurance-trained women runners. J. Appl. Physiol. 95:584Y590, 2003.

Nicklas, B.J., A.C. Hackney, and R.L. Sharp. The menstrual cycle and exercise: performance, muscle glycogen, and substrate response. Int. J. Sports Med. 10:264Y269, 1989.

McLay, R.T., C.D. Thomson, S.M. Williams, and N.J. Rehrer. Carbohydrate loading and female endurance athletes: effect of menstrual-cycle phase. Int. J. Sport Nutr. Exerc. Metab. 17:189Y205, 2007.

Paul, D.R., S.M. Mulroy, J.A. Horner, et al. Carbohydrate-loading during the follicular phase of the menstrual cycle: effects on muscle glycogen and exercise performance. Int. J. Sport Nutr. Exerc. Metab. 11:430Y441, 2001.


James Method

The James 2001 article represents an important piece to the puzzle. In this study, men and women both consumed about 10 g carbs per kilogram body weight (10.5 g/kg bw in males and 9.9 g/kg bw in females). The participants went through a glycogen depletion exercise of 61% VO2peak for 90 min on day 4 prior to the event. The next three days were spent in the carb loading procedure, but no exercise was done.

Both the males and females were able to significantly increase their glycogen storage to about 182% normal. The females were tested 6 days prior to mensuration and separately 6 days post mensuration. All of these women were on oral contraceptives for at least the last two years and showed no hormonal changes between the two timeframes. This is important to note because according to Marieb et al. 1998 females when not on oral contraceptives showed a greater ability to store additional glycogen during the luteal phase of the menstrual cycle.

Because the males and females showed a similar response when on a similar diet (as expressed as g carbs/kg bw), then it leads me to believe that females may elicit the same response from the Western Australian method as did men. This would eliminate the need for three days (as the James method uses) and the need for a GD exercise (as the James method uses).

James AP, Lorraine M, Cullen D, Goodman C, Dawson B, Palmer TN, Fournier PA. Muscle glycogen supercompensation: absence of a gender-related difference. Eur J Appl Physiol. 2001 Oct;85(6):533-8. PubMed PMID: 11718281.

Marieb, E.N. The reproductive system. In: Human Anatomy and Physiology, E.N. Marieb. Menlo Park, CA: Benjamin/Cummings Science Publishing, 1998, pp. 1056- 1061.


Maurten Drink Mix 320 Advantages as a Liquid Carb Source for Carb Loading

As soon as I became aware of Maurten Drink Mix 320, the real possible avenue of it's use became clear to me. Normally, a carb based liquid product requires a 2 g carb per 1 oz water absorption rate. But Maurten Drink Mix 320 is unique given it is absorbable at 4.6 g carb per 1 oz water. When doing a massive carb loading strategy, this is a HUGE win.

Let's say you follow a 10g/kg bw protocol. Let's say you weigh 75 kilograms. That means you'd need to consume 750 g carb to complete the protocol. If you follow the 80% from liquid source, then that's 600 g carbs. If you did a 2:1 ratio like almost all liquid carb sources require, then you'd need to consume 300oz of water on that day. That's 2.3 gallons of water. It can be done, but man is it tough.

Whereas, let's use Maurten instead. At 4.6 g carb per ounce water, that means 600g carb would need 130 oz water. That's still a ton of water, but it's only 1 gallon comparatively. That's a huge win.

But I couldn't be sure whether this was practical and whether Maurten's product had actually been used for carb loading. Their website didn't have anything beyond in-race nutrition really mentioned. So I reached out to Maurten's Sports Nutritionist whom is partially responsible for the carb loading procedure of some of the top athletes they work with (including the Swedish Marathon Champion). He was nice enough to confirm my ideas on the product as well as confirm they do indeed follow a similar protocol in their elite athletes. As the sports nutritionist pointed out, what's probably most important more than anything when following the protocol is the sheer amount of carbs per kilogram body weight. The liquid source doesn't have to be 80% for it to work. It helps it become a feasible protocol for most. But many of their athletes daily diet is already 7-8 g carb per kilogram body weight and during peak season/high volume can be much higher. So he agreed the 10g/kg bw amount is a good number to try and hit, but that it doesn't have to be solely liquid carbs if you don't want it to be (but from a bulk standpoint can make it easier).


Summary

So the short of it.

If you plan to race longer than 90 min, you'll likely benefit from a carb loading strategy. If you're male, you'll need at least 7 g/kg bw to see a noticeable increase. If you're female, you'll need at least 8 g/kg bw to see a noticeable increase (although based on some of the research I'd argue that male/female are probably the same value if tested head to head for a minimal threshold). For females, this likely means a significant increase in a one time caloric intake. You'll gain some weight (as will males), but the weight gain is offset by the performance gains. The Western Australian Carb Loading Method offers a easy to follow procedure with some major benefits over other methods.

-1 day protocol
-Can occur as many as 5 days prior to event
-Consume 10 g carb/kg bw
-No glycogen depletion workout necessary
-Use Maurten Drink Mix 320 to reduce the water burden of a liquid carb sourced strategy

Very interesting reading. What would you think the results/problems be for someone who is routinely very low carb (<20 per day)? And also does not routinely consume wheat or sugar? My mind went immediately to cupcakes at WDW prior to the marathon, lol! Not optimal carbs I am sure, lol!

 

[DopeyBadger]

Very interesting reading. What would you think the results/problems be for someone who is routinely very low carb (<20 per day)? And also does not routinely consume wheat or sugar? My mind went immediately to cupcakes at WDW prior to the marathon, lol! Not optimal carbs I am sure, lol!

Tough question. I came across only one article that seemed to discuss this topic during my research binge.

https://www.researchgate.net/public...low-carbohydrate_adapted_athlete_-_case_study

Problem with the study is it is based on one athlete, and is a 15-day change in diet from LC (31 g per day, or 0.5 g carb/kg bw) to HC (335 g per day, or 5 g carb/kg bw). So I don't think it answers the question since the carb loading wasn't nearly high enough.

I will say that an important consideration to cupcakes is their high fat content (even though I know you're joking). Ideally, the carb loading be done with a large % of your diet consisting of carbs. The more fat/protein beyond the 90% carb, 7.5% protein, 2.5% fat used in the WA protocol, the more calories you are likely piling on since you're still aiming for the 10 g carbs/kg bw. So more calories means you'll probably feel even fuller and may gain slightly more weight.

As with everyone else, I'd suggest giving it a try mid-training plan to see how you tolerate it. You can find for yourself what level of carbs works best. Technically, you wouldn't even have to practice before a long run if you didn't want to. You're not testing the performance benefits. Merely, whether or not you can tolerate that level of consumption. This way it would have the least impact on your training.

 

[DopeyBadger]

27 Days to Go (Walk softly and wear a big horn)



Date - Day - Scheduled Workouts (Intervals within desired pace)

8/27/18 - M - OFF
8/28/18 - T - 7 miles @ EA (8:14)
8/29/18 - W - 51 miles of indoor biking (130 min)
8/30/18 - R - 20.5 miles of indoor biking (60 min)
8/31/18 - F - 23.3 miles of indoor biking (60 min)
9/1/18 - Sat - 34.8 miles of indoor biking (88 min)
9/2/18 - Sun - 43.5 miles of indoor biking (133 min)

Running duration = 1:01 hours
Running mileage = 7 miles
Indoor Virtual Biking duration = 7:51 hours
Indoor Virtual Biking mileage = 173.1 miles
Total (training) duration = 8:52 hours
Total (training) mileage = 180.1 miles
Number of running SOS intervals within pace = x/x (x%)

9/3/18 - M - OFF
9/4/18 - T - 25.0 miles of indoor biking (60 min)
9/5/18 - W - 36.0 miles of indoor biking (93 min)
9/6/18 - R - 35.0 miles of indoor biking (92 min)
9/7/18 - F - 2.6 miles @ EA + 11.5 miles of indoor biking (27 min)
9/8/18 - Sat - 4.0 miles @ EA + 26.0 miles of indoor biking (60 min)
9/9/18 - Sun - 5.0 miles @ EA + 33.0 miles of indoor biking (84 min)

Running duration = 1:41 hours
Running mileage = 11.6 miles
Indoor Virtual Biking duration = 6:56 hours
Indoor Virtual Biking mileage = 166.5 miles
Total (training) duration = 8:37 hours
Total (training) mileage = 178.1 miles
Number of running SOS intervals within pace = x/x (x%)

Week of 8/27 - 9/2

After taking 10 days off from running after the Madison Mini HM, I was ready to give running another chance. For the most part, the ankle felt fine. But instead I was dealing with shin pain on the upper inner side of the right leg. Could have been a compensating thing with a change in form. But I was able to complete the run in full (7 miles at 8:41 pace). I tried to run again on Wednesday (the next morning so about a 12 hour turnaround) and couldn't do it. I took a few steps and my shins were screaming at me. So I decided to play it safe and shut it down. I headed to the bike instead for a 130 min ride. I'm still not entirely sold the distance is correct, but using two different methods (speed sensor on the inner ring of the wheel and the trainer's own distance calculation using the rotations of the trainer itself) both have agreed the distance is the same. Possibly where the dramatic number of miles is coming from has to do more with the trainer providing little resistance. Thus, it's like I'm biking in the air without a trainer at all. Regardless, I can tell when I'm working and when I'm not, and I can feel the trainer providing resistance. But I think most of the change in resistance is from me changing gears. At this point, I'm just trying to maintain some semblance of fitness in advance of Chicago and not injure myself further. I broke the news to Steph that I was considering cancelling Chicago and she told me no. Said it was a family vacation trip and just because I might not be in peak shape isn't a reason to still not go. Unless I'm injured to the point that I can't finish 26.2 miles, then we're still going and I'm still doing it. So to confirm I wasn't injured to a point that I shouldn't be running I scheduled a doctor's appointment. I finished out the week with several more bike rides. Either watched "All or Nothing: Michigan Wolverines", some random kid show, or "Jack Ryan" depending on if it was me alone or if G was in the basement with me. BTW, recommend both All or Nothing and Jack Ryan. Both allowed the time to melt away. Kids shows... not so much.

Week of 9/3 - 9/9

Did biking on Tuesday in advance of my appointment. Wednesday afternoon had my appointment with a doctor who didn't have a good idea what was going on. Confirmed with an x-ray that he couldn't see any evidence of a stress fracture at this time. Also confirmed they were still able to see the confirmed stress fracture from January (although they can continue to appear on x-rays for up to a year). He gave me an appointment for an urgent care PT appointment. Biked for 93 min that evening and was hoping to go for 120 min, but Steph's sister showed up home and said I was to pick up Steph from work so the ride got cut short. Thursday morning had the PT appointment. Went through a bunch of explanation and then some exercises. He really cranked on my foot and wasn't able to elicit any pain. Trued the tuning fork method and I could definitely tell a difference between the right and left foot. But it's such a crude method for stress fractures. Decided to treat it as a soft tissue injury at this point. He gave me some exercises to do daily. He also confirmed my legs were the same length, my ankles were stiff, and my hips were sort of weak. But most important of all, he gave me clearance to run again as long as no limping and no increase in pain. I ordered a pair of Zealot Iso on the off chance I would be approved to start running since those shoes are much firmer and may not elicit the same ankle response. They didn't come until Friday, so I rode the bike Thursday evening for another 92 min. Come Friday, the shoes had arrived. So I put on the new Zealots as well as my Zensah compression sleeves. I don't really ever run in my compression sleeves. But I believed they may reduce the vibration in my legs. Since the tuning fork provided the largest pain response, possibly reducing vibration might help. Between the shoes and calf sleeves, things were ok. Not pain free by any means. But the pain didn't get worse and I was able to complete the 2.5 mile run. I stuck to the flattest section I could find (still 81 feet gain which is more than WDW Marathon) to try and avoid aggravating anything. I also chose the side of the road based on how it felt at each moment so quite a bit of zig-zagging. Finished up with 28 more min of biking and then had to pick Steph up from work again (busy season with back to school and football games). Saturday, I ran again on a short turnaround (12 hours) and things were much the same. Still painful, but not nearly as painful as the second day like last week. So well enough that I could keep going. Finished off with 60 more min of biking. Lastly, Sunday I went for 5 miles. Easily the best run of the bunch. By mile 3/4 the pain was dissipating and feeling better. But every once in a while I'd hit a step that things just didn't agree with and back to the same level of pain. Most of the pain seems centered around the upper ankle/shin area. But still no pain to touch. I went ahead and ordered another pair of Zelaots and ordered a pair of Zensah compression that is toe to knee. Hoping that a little extra pressure on the ankle area will help. Confirmed with Steph that as long as I have no setbacks from here until Chicago, then I'll run it regardless of pace. I certainly count that as a victory given the current conditions. The goal is merely to make it to Chicago as healthy as possible and as trained as possible.

I mapped out the remaining time:



I tried to aim for 50% running workload for the first week back (30 miles from 60 mile peak) and then 75% for the second week (47 miles from 60 mile peak). The "week" runs from Friday to Thursday. I'll add in some biking to keep the duration up. So Wednesday's run will be 6 miles (50 min) + biking (100 min). It's not the same as a 150 min run, but it helps. Stravistix data shows a 150 min long run would have been a HRSS of about 170 versus a 50 min easy run + 100 min bike about a 44+55 = 99 HRSS. So quite a bit less. Granted I do believe Stravistix is underselling the HR data of biking since it's using the same HRmax and LTHR from running which I know can't be the same (which means my HRSS is a little low for the HR exclusive biking data). My LTHR for running is about 157, but for biking is more like 147 per my 4/18 FTP Test.

I may even drop some of these runs for a bike instead (primarily looking at 9/21 and 9/28 given the proceeding run day schedule).

Then, I'll try two M Tempo runs on 9/20 and 9/27. We'll see as time progresses whether those even occur. I'll stick with Zealot Iso, compression sleeves, and the flat route likely until Chicago is done. I'm hoping the ankle exercises help things in the next few weeks.

My HRvPace and Garmin VO2max have both taken quite a hit these past few weeks. But based on past data, my HRvPace usually rebounds in about 28 days after running resumes and 14 days after training resumes. Additionally, I ran Hot2Trot on 6/18 and ran arguably the best training run this year on 7/18. So all hope is not lost that I can't make some ground up in these last 27 days. But above all else, a healthier version of me will beat a faster/but more injured version every time. Patience.

 

[flav]

Glycogen Supercompensation (AKA Carb Loading for a Race)

Hi Billy,
This was very interesting, I will definitely look into liquid carb loading from now on.

This thread being about becoming a better Dopey [...], I was wondering how you would play with your findings when there is forced deprivation or glycogen depletion. For example, if you run multiple days challenge or if, for personal/medical reasons, you endup fasting/undereating a few days before the A race day.

 

[DopeyBadger]

For example, if you run multiple days challenge

Thanks!

If I'm understanding this correctly, then you're asking how to deal with carb loading with Dopey? Personally, I've done nothing special for the 5k, 10k, or HM (chocolate milk after race, eat full meal within 90 minutes, drink lots of water). That'll be sufficient to have near 100% stores. Immediately after the HM is done I start carb loading. I have done that for the last two (or three) Dopey's I believe. But no carb loading prior to the other three races. I could see an argument for increased carb intake prior to the HM, but I do believe you may be playing with fire given it does need to "come out" eventually. So you might bloat a lot if you double up on a really high carb loading value (10g/kg bw on day of 10k prior to HM and then again 10g/kg bw on day of HM prior to M).

if, for personal/medical reasons, you endup fasting/undereating a few days before the A race day.

I do think that was partially (plenty of other reasons) my reason for feeling "off" for the 2017 Lakefront Marathon. I got spooked by my weight about a week before the race and probably under ate too much leading into race day. I carb loaded normally, but I think my body was not happy with me. I hit the 10 g/kg bw value, but I just felt off on race day. Didn't have that pop I was looking for. All that being said, I still PR'd that race just not what I thought going into it. So from personal experience and an n=1 it didn't work out for me. But it may not have been the reason. Who knows if I would have done worse without the carb loading or whether if it never actually worked? It's the problem with a serious carb loading method because you don't actually have any feedback to say it worked or not. Kind of blind trust. But I guess you could say that about a few other things related to training.

 

[FFigawi]

What model trainer do you have? Even a basic turbo trainer will provide resistance if you have it set up properly.

 

[DopeyBadger]

What model trainer do you have? Even a basic turbo trainer will provide resistance if you have it set up properly.

"Watt Master Nashbar Fluid" trainer. From what I can tell, the Watt Master Nashbar Fluid is a rebranded Elite Supercrono Power Fluid:

https://www.bikeforums.net/road-cycling/678723-kurt-kinetic-vs-nashbar-watt-master.html

Post partially down the line.

Which means the chamber should look similar to the one in this picture.





It is quite old from my understanding, so maybe the fluid isn't like brand new anymore (a guess). I believe I have it setup properly because the wheel sits on the red part of the trainer and if I try to spin the wheel it won't spin very well. Front wheel for about 14 seconds and back wheel about 3 seconds when applying the same hand forced spin (although maybe that's how wheels on a bike work because of the gear resistance). Additionally, the big wheel that sits on the opposite side of the triangle chamber on the trainer spins around as does the red contact area when the wheel is spinning.

 

[FFigawi]

Never heard of that one, but there are two things you can check. One, is your tire inflated properly? Should be about 95-105 psi. Two, is the tension on the trainer with the tire correct? Most trainers will click as you tighten them against the tire. Normally you want it to be two clicks after pressing onto the tire.

 

[DopeyBadger]

One, is your tire inflated properly? Should be about 95-105 psi.

The outside ring on my tire says inflate to 50-75 psi. I'm at 65 psi.

Two, is the tension on the trainer with the tire correct? Most trainers will click as you tighten them against the tire. Normally you want it to be two clicks after pressing onto the tire.

There only seems to be two options with mine. Contact or no contact. That red lever below the trainer moves it up and down. I can't get it to move any higher to gain more interaction between the two. Additionally, there is a "fluid control" on the connected computer (analog dial). I've got it set to the max setting of 5.

 

[Keels]

I'm not familiar with your exact trainer, but I have a fluid trainer and it doesn't appear like your wheel is in the right position or that your trainer is missing a piece to raise the cylinder into position. Your wheel shouldn't rest on it like a roller, it should be more towards the back of the tire.

Kinda like this:


It shouldn't free spin at all - you will need to peddle it to get it to move. I have no idea what you mean about the front wheel, as that should be static.

 

[DopeyBadger]

I'm not familiar with your exact trainer, but I have a fluid trainer and it doesn't appear like your wheel is in the right position or that your trainer is missing a piece to raise the cylinder into position. Your wheel shouldn't rest on it like a roller, it should be more towards the back of the tire.

Mine looks a lot like this one:

https://www.bikenashbar.com/images/nashbar/web/PDFs/BN-WMF9 Watt Master Fluid Wireless_INST.pdf

Best I can tell there doesn't appear to be any piece missing from the backend. It's not a perfect match though because mine has some extra silver wheel on the side not shown in these pictures (opposite side of the triangle housing for the fluid). Per the instructions, "the weight of the bicycle and rider automatically governs the amount of pressure between the tire and the resistance unit roller, so there's no need for an adjusting knob or other device to adjust the pressure."

I have no idea what you mean about the front wheel, as that should be static.

If I lift the bike off the block it sits on, then I can freely spin the front wheel. Agreed that if it correctly sits on the block, then it doesn't move at all.

It shouldn't free spin at all - you will need to peddle it to get it to move.

Just so I understand correctly, if you grab your back wheel when in proper position and try to spin it just with your hand, yours doesn't spin at all? Mine spins for about 3 total seconds vs the front wheel at 14 seconds (when giving the same effort spin and when the front wheel is lifted off the block). I tried spinning my BIL's back wheel on trainer which does have a knob and I can make it so tight it never spins and so loose it spins for equal time to the front wheel (when off the block). So I could see how mine isn't applying a ton of pressure when no one is seated on it. But maybe per the instructions mine is suppose to be more free since there's no rider weight applying more pressure? But when seated there is a greater amount of pressure not allowing it to spin. But that doesn't seem to be the case either because when I sit on it and my BIL spins the wheel it still spins for about 1.5-2 seconds. So possibly not getting a ton of resistance then?

 

[Keels]

Just so I understand correctly, if you grab your back wheel when in proper position and try to spin it just with your hand, yours doesn't spin at all? Mine spins for about 3 total seconds vs the front wheel at 14 seconds (when giving the same effort spin and when the front wheel is lifted off the block). I tried spinning my BIL's back wheel on trainer which does have a knob and I can make it so tight it never spins and so loose it spins for equal time to the front wheel (when off the block). So I could see how mine isn't applying a ton of pressure when no one is seated on it. But maybe per the instructions mine is suppose to be more free since there's no rider weight applying more pressure? But when seated there is a greater amount of pressure not allowing it to spin. But that doesn't seem to be the case either because when I sit on it and my BIL spins the wheel it still spins for about 1.5-2 seconds. So possibly not getting a ton of resistance then?

Nope. Mine does not move at all. Rider weight should not affect the resistance provided by the trainer. The way you have it right now, it's serving as a roller and not as it's intended - that's probably why it's coming up with those crazy mph averages you're getting. If used the way it's intended, you're probably at 15-16 mph on the trainer. You should also be able to tell a difference with EVERY gear you change into ... not just when you do a major gear up (ie. big ring, high gear). With resistance, big ring and high gear should be incredibly difficult and almost require you to stand up to peddle.

Think of your back wheel like your foot - the canister should be on the back of your heel/Achilles area, not underneath your heel like a roller skate. Also, I don't think it's supposed to be "free" spinning like you think it is because that would defeat the purpose of a trainer - a trainer is supposed to help you simulate rides and the exertion that comes with those (climbing hills, rolling paths, anything that might call for you to stand up and really work your legs) - hence the fluid to create resistance. Roller Sets are more for balance and handling (and free speed).

Again, I'm not really sure what the front wheel spinning has to do with anything because the front wheel is powered by nothing and has little in common with the back wheel other than the fact that they're both wheels. Even on a rack, your back wheel is always going to free spin slower because it's attached to a chain and gear set where your front wheel is entirely free.

My trainer here in Orlando isn't set up right now, since obviously I can't ride right now. But if I have time tomorrow, I'll set it up and throw a bike on it to show you. It's a really old first-gen fluid trainer, so not much newer than the one you're using.

 

[Keels]

I found this photo of my upright/hybrid bike (not a road bike, but closer to what you have) on my fluid trainer back in Texas. You can kind of see how high up the back the canister (and the large metal rotor-looking thing) is on the back wheel, and how it hangs off the ground and free of the bottom of the trainer:

 

[FFigawi]

Sounds like the best option if you're going to continue to use indoor cycling for workouts is to buy a new smart trainer. The Wahoo Kickr Core, the CycleOps Hammer, and the Elite Direto are the best mid range trainers.

 

[DopeyBadger]

Nope. Mine does not move at all.

Well then that confirms mine is not getting enough resistance.

Rider weight should not affect the resistance provided by the trainer.

Like I said, mine appears to have this be true. Per the instructions, "the weight of the bicycle and rider automatically governs the amount of pressure between the tire and the resistance unit roller, so there's no need for an adjusting knob or other device to adjust the pressure."

You should also be able to tell a difference with EVERY gear you change into ... not just when you do a major gear up (ie. big ring, high gear). With resistance, big ring and high gear should be incredibly difficult and almost require you to stand up to peddle.

I can certainly tell the difference between every shift in gear. The big ring and high gear is nearly impossible for me to hold for any sustainable duration. Maybe like 60 second max if I really went for it. At that point I am completely exhausted and have to switch way down in ring/gears to recover. While HR is not a method to train by, I can tell you that me changing gears is visible in the HR metric in correlation with changes in breathing, sweat rate, effort, and the erroneous wattage output the computer is giving me (while the value is definitely wrong it is nearly the same value depending on what ring/gear I am in - medium ring/medium gear = Value X, and big ring/low gear = Value Y).



That HR at the beginning was erroneous and did not match effort or ring/gear shifting. But at the back end you can see me shifting gears higher and higher to the point where I had to stop and drop back down due to exhaustion and my legs screaming. Not a systematic training regimen, which I know is something that will need to happen eventually. But this is merely to say, I can certainly tell the difference between rings/gears. I feel like I likely need a better setup before I try and attempt a more systematic approach.

I found this photo of my upright/hybrid bike (not a road bike, but closer to what you have) on my fluid trainer back in Texas. You can kind of see how high up the back the canister (and the large metal rotor-looking thing) is on the back wheel, and how it hangs off the ground and free of the bottom of the trainer:

So since the position of my roller seems to be fixed based on it coming into contact with the wheel, maybe that means the wheel is too big. If the wheel were smaller, then it would allow the roller to come up further and additionally it would then make contact with the wheel further down like you have yours.

Sounds like the best option if you're going to continue to use indoor cycling for workouts is to buy a new smart trainer. The Wahoo Kickr Core, the CycleOps Hammer, and the Elite Direto are the best mid range trainers.

Completely agree. Just have to find one I can afford.

 

[DopeyBadger]

Talked it over with Steph and it sounds like she'd prefer a Peloton bike. That way both of us can use it. She's only motivated by classes and group atmosphere training style. So much for "find one I can afford". Granted they do have 0% finance. May have to wait until the house is finished though.

 

[FFigawi]

You can always search for a used one online. Slowtwitch, Craigslist, eBay, and even local Facebook marketplace groups are full of ads for used cycling gear. That's how I sold my turbo trainer last fall. With the new models coming out over the next month or two, there should be plenty to choose from as people upgrade.

https://forum.slowtwitch.com/forum/Slowtwitch_Forums_C1/Classifieds_F2/

 

[DopeyBadger]

You can always search for a used one online. Slowtwitch, Craigslist, eBay, and even local Facebook marketplace groups are full of ads for used cycling gear. That's how I sold my turbo trainer last fall. With the new models coming out over the next month or two, there should be plenty to choose from as people upgrade.

https://forum.slowtwitch.com/forum/Slowtwitch_Forums_C1/Classifieds_F2/

Thanks for the tip! I'll keep checking frequently.