Playing With Numbers....

Montebello is a sweet little climb near my house that has a couple of steep pitches, it’s a favorite.  I use it pretty regularly for what I call 3-peats, 3 times to the school (2 miles up),  usually in the 13-15 minute range.  Today I didn’t want to ‘hit out’ super hard…hoping to keep good form away a bit longer before my annual implosion, so I decided to do a little experiment.  My current FTP is set at 320W, so I thought I’d see the difference in pacing a 320W effort on three trials. First I did the climb at 320W aveage. Then I did it again at a 320W average, but did the first 5 minutes at 10% over (352W) and gradually lost average power the rest of the climb as close to 1 watt at a time as I could. Finally, I tackled the climb at 10% under FTP (288W) for the first five minutes and then tried to raise my average back to FTP over the remainder of the climb in 1 watt increments. Scientific? No, not really…but let’s see what we got anyway:

	320W Steady	320W First 5m 110%	320W First 5m 90%
Time	15:36	15:44	15:28
Average Watts	320	321	321
Normalized Watts	323	323	324
Kilojoules	300	303	298
TSS (Intensity Factor)	26.4 (1.008)	26.7 (1.008)	26.4 (1.00)
VI	1.01	1	1.01

Very interesting…the fastest was the 5m @ 290W start, but let’s see what else stands out...

Here are the three efforts laid out together:

yellow @ 320W, red @ 320W+10% and green @320W-10%:

Recall that green was a steady push from 5:00 on and you can see the slight uptick in power (top graph) and cadence (lower graph). I like to look for landmarks in the files as time stamp reference points. For example in the first 5:00 the file shows a noticeable jump in cadence at around 3:00 –  4:00…this is where the course flattens out for a bit and you can see that the second effort (+10%) moved to both a higher cadence overall and a bit earlier than the other two. In contrast the third effort (-10%) had a much lower cadence in those first few minutes (closer to 40RPM) as I had to try and keep average watts down, so the stair step of cadence comes nearly a minute later, and the power remains well below the other two at all points.

Moving a bit farther up there is a final ramp that shows up nicely. On the first run it is about  1:30 @ 350W and 71rpm:

On the2nd run it is closer to 1:39 @ 302W and 65rpm as I tried to keep the average at 320W for the whole interval.

On the 3^rd pass I am still chasing the 320W average a little bit (started the final climb at ~317W), but had to be careful to not go too hard. In the end that got me to the top in 1:22 @ 359W and 72rpm, very similar to the first pass, so why the 9s second difference in time? Entry speed.

You can see the differences in speed over the last 6:00 of the climb in the graph below. It’s pretty easy to reference landmarks on each and you can see that the final pass was faster in almost every area over the final minutes as I was both chasing the targeted 320W average and covering more ground. The first landmark is the obvious bump in speed around 6:00. The red represents the +10% pace, so I arrived at this ‘flat’ section about 20 seconds faster than the first pass and about 35s faster than the final run. By the second speed surge at around 9:00 the gap is down to about 5-8 seconds over the first pass, but still hovers near 35 seconds to the final run. Finally by the third speed surge, about 11:30 in, the final effort is starting to close the gap, down to about 15 seconds. Note that the final 0.22 miles were done at 9.2 mph (1^st pass), 8.2 mph on the second and 10mph for the third pass. In the five seconds before the final surge I averaged 19.7 on the third interval, but only 18.5 on the second, and a modest 17.3 mph on the first. This section is flat to slightly downhill, offering a small respite before the final surge if needed, or a chance to make up some time if you can.

For comparison let’s look at my fastest time up Montebello, a 13:01 effort that averaged 357W (I was about 7 pounds lighter too!).  The five seconds before the final surge only averaged 16.4mph, but the final surge was done in 1:04 at 473Wavg. The full climb is demonstrably more impressive all around when looked at side by side with these three...

Power:

Speed:

Guess I need to lose some weight and ride harder!

UPDATE: A friend asked a couple of good questions about the climb itself and my efforts relative to the grade, so here is some additional information on the climb - the full climb is just over five miles (5.3) and averages 'only' 6.9%

But I only went to the school:  

Info and the gradient graphs from a really great site:


Here is the raw data:

Raw Data:

Dist    Grade   Alti.   Location
----    -----   ------  --------
0.00    15% 550 start - Stevens Canyon Road
0.01 12% 555
0.04 10% 570
0.07 10% 580
0.10 11% 600
0.14  4% 620 Brookside Stables - left turn
0.16  9% 630
0.18 10% 640
0.22 12% 660
0.25 10%  680
0.28 12% 690
0.30 12% 700
0.33 10% 720
0.35  7% 730
0.38  6% 740
0.41  8% 750
0.44 8.5% 760
0.46 4.5% 770
0.50 6% 780
0.52 6% 790
0.54 8% 795
0.57 8.5% 810
0.59 9% 820
0.63 13% 840
0.66 11% 855
0.69 8.5% 870
0.71 12% 880
0.72 12% 890 Peacock Court
0.75 12% 905
0.77 10% 920
0.80  5% 930
0.84 5.5% 935
0.86 9% 940
0.90 9% 970
0.93 6% 980
0.96 10% 990
0.99 13% 1010
1.02 14% 1030
1.05 14% 1050
1.07 16% 1060
1.08 12% 1070
1.10  8% 1080
1.12  6% 1090
1.15 5.5% 1100
1.18 8% 1110
1.20 11.5% 1120
1.23 9.5% 1130
1.27 8% 1150
1.35 7% 1180
1.38 8% 1190
1.41 10% 1200
1.44 11% 1220
1.47 8% 1240
1.49 4% 1240
1.52 11% 1250
1.56 11.5% 1270
1.60 10% 1295 View
1.65 10% 1310
1.68 8% 1335
1.73 9% 1350
1.75 7% 1360 Pichotti home
1.78 1% 1370
1.81 -2.5% 1370
1.83 0% 1370
1.85 8% 1380
1.87 12.5% 1390
1.89 9% 1400
1.92 9.5% 1410
1.94 8% 1425
1.97 6% 1430
1.99 8% 1440
2.03 10% 1455
2.05 8% 1465
2.07 1% 1470 Montebello School

H.I.T.oo Early

H.I.T. - a current buzzword for lighting it up....High Intensity Training is all the rage! It seems that most everyone has a workout or class that is HIT...and given the nature of exercise physiology one must ask why?

What's the nature of physiology? Well, high intensity - anaerobic (despite the misnomer) efforts are produced via fairly straight forward pathways..namely the ATP-PC system (very short term) and Glycolysis (up to several minutes)...these capabilities - capacities, are the result of developing the infrastructure needed to support them whether by volume of 'stuff' that facilitates energy production or the aparatii that allows sufficient recovery, neither of which I have currently.

As I have both terrible fitness and occasionally surprising power on rides during the last month or so, it seemed like a terrible idea to do a HIT workout on Thursday, but I did it anyway as I was riding with a client and it was on his schedule. The workout is called FTP Coastdowns and it consists of riding 2:00 averaging FTP and then letting that rolling average drop 10 watts or so by softpedaling for 10-20 seconds...then sprinting the average back up to FTP before letting it again drop 10W...and repeating for 8-12 minutes total interval time. Rest intervals should be at least 1:1, but we cut it short a little...anyway, here is what the workout looks like in both macro and up-close views:

Close up of a coast down - 2:00 at FTP'ish (in this case 330W - which is really about 110% of my current FTP) followed by a block of efforts between 5 and 15 seconds at between 400 - 880 watts...usually with about 17-20 seconds at ~180 Watts for recovery.

The upside is that I could do 7'ish minutes of it..the downside is that it was a 10-12 minute interval, and I was DONE by the third block! That I could consistently turn out 5-15s efforts at better than 500W is probably more about Type II muscle mass and genetics than training - but I'll be curious to see what I can do when true fitness returns. True fitness requires taking the time to actually build those systems mentioned above...so that is my goal these next months, but I can't say I'll swear off the hard stuff completely. Here is the workout macro view - 34 efforts like the ones above:

Would I improve by doing just these types of efforts - or doing more of them..probably, but my hypothesis is that I'd plateau much earlier than if I take the time to build a more efficient engine and improve my overall endurance and capacity. Guess we'll see. I need to do some more reading to better understand how this all falls together...

Relative Fitness

We all know the value and import of 'fitness' - that undefined element of racing success that seems so transient and largely elusive depending on how much you ride. If you don't ride you don't have much capacity, but lots of freshness...if you ride a lot you have capacity, but little freshness...what power types call ones training stress balance....and while I appreciate the essence of it, I have of late been a bit perplexed by its application...

I always consider 300W to be a decent reference point of where I'm at. If 300 is easy to hold I'm probably doing ok in my progress, but I don't do too many full hours at 300W, and have only done a 'best' 60m at about 326Wnormalized - or about 4.3W/Kg. I've done much better on 20m or so...up to about a 4.65W/kg (man do I want to see 5W/Kg sometime). Anyway, a couple of weeks ago, after a solid stint of not riding - I did an hour of power at 307Wnormalized, which was very suprising since I had no real fitness, freshness, or capacity to speak of - then again that's not too bad for having a TOTAL of 29 hours of training in April and May, so what gives?

What allows for a baseline of relative fitness that is roughly 88% of an all time best*? The first step was validating the power numbers were ok....so I opened the file and hand edited it..plus I'd calibrated it mid-ride as well, so I feel pretty confident. I think a bigger question is the speed of degradation of ones fitness...without this getting too far into the article format here are some points to ponder...

1. 5 weeks of detraining in swimmers showed a peak VO2 loss of 7% and a similar decrease in resting metabolic rate as well.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22027854

 2. The effects of detraining are less noticeable in long term athletes, and the return to 'fitness' is quicker too...sort of the 'once you've been there, it's easier to get back there" rule. I did find this interesting though - the long term benefits of doping (in this case steroids) as a permanent adaptation (and possible impact on doping jurisdiction:

http://www.doctorsolve.com/blog/2010/08/a-new-kind-of-muscle-memory.html

Ok, so the point of this post was to look at relative fitness - to that end I'd have to say that my sustained steady state fitness seems to have a fairly high basement - that is to say even when I don't train much I can still hit some pretty good numbers on steady state efforts. But, unfortunately, racing is often not about steady state fitness, it's about attack, assess, counter..and that requires the type of fitness that I do not have right now, and which is the kind of elusive that makes one wonder if 6-months will be enough (I doubt it)...

*sigh*

 

Lactic Acid - Part 2

It is a common misnomer that Lactic Acid is the cause of fatigue and cessation of high intensity exercise, yet training plans built around your individual Lactate Threshold are highly effective despite the debunking of the “Lactic Acidosis” rationale. Let’s learn why…

By Matt McNamara

Last month we looked at the intricacies of Lactic Acid/Lactate production and its role in limiting performance. The short summary of that article is to say that Lactic Acid production is NOT the limiter in high intensity exercise, and the science behind that belief was founded on an inferred cause and effect relationship between lactate production and cessation of exercise that, ultimately, proved to be untrue.

While lactate production may not be a limiter, it is clearly a marker of overload and does play a role in athletic development and performance. Lactate Threshold based training, when paired with use of a powermeter, is seen as the gold standard for endurance based performance improvement. So let’s explore the real meaning and value of Lactate Threshold based training.

What Does Lactate Threshold Really Mean?
First off, Lactate Threshold is commonly defined as “the exercise intensity at which lactate production exceeds lactate removal, and thus begins to accumulate in muscle and hence in the blood.” Unfortunately, the definition of what constitutes “Lactate Threshold” is highly variable.

Many researchers establish threshold as the point when lactate concentration rises 1 mmol above an exercise baseline. Others use a fixed value, for example 2.5 mmol per liter, as the threshold point. Still another approach is to use D-max which takes the mid-point between the baseline and maximal lactate concentrations. In the end the most important consideration isn’t the way threshold was determined, so much as the concept of Lactate Threshold (and associated terms) as illustrating the non-linear relationship between lactate concentration and exercise intensity.

It is also important to acknowledge that terms like Maximal Lactate Steady State (MLSS), Onset Blood Lactate Accumulation (OBLA), Ventilatory Threshold (VT), Individual Anaerobic Threshold, Critical Power, etc are talking about roughly the same range of intensity. Each of these, MLSS and OBLA in particular, correlate well with the power training concept of Functional Threshold Power (FTP), which is itself defined as your maximal sustained power output for approximately 60 minutes.


Now that we have a clearer idea of what is meant by Lactate Threshold, and we know that Lactic Acid is not the cause of fatigue, let’s look at other factors that might play a role.

Other Causes of Fatigue
In 2005 researchers from Edith Cowan University in Western Australia set out to do just that. Models to Explain Fatigue During Prolonged Endurance Cycling, Chris Abbiss and Paul Laursen’s comprehensive review of fatigue literature, looked at no fewer than ten different explanations of fatigue.

Abiss and Laursen point out that fatigue is usually defined by the type of research being done. For example, if one is looking into psychological causes then they will tend to classify fatigue as “a sensation of tiredness,” while a biomechanist might look more at changes in force output to qualify fatigue. Fatigue research is also driven by a reductionist approach; those doing the research tend to look for a single ‘answer’ to the question of fatigue.

Among the different paradigms and models explored were the anaerobic/cardiovascular model, the energy supply/depletion model, neuromuscular fatigue, biomechanical, thermoregulatory, and muscle trauma models. In addition the psychological/motivational model, central governor, and complex systems models were also reviewed. A quick summary of characteristics might demonstrate that:

Neuromuscular fatigue tends to be divided into a question of where along the neuromuscular pathway inhibition occurs, while the muscle trauma model seeks to explain fatigue as coming from damage to the muscle itself, or to alterations in the chemical homeostasis.

The biomechanical paradigm seeks to define fatigue as the result of decreased efficiency of motion, where increasing efficiency lowers the production of metabolites (like lactate) and energy consumption, helping attenuate increases in core temperature. This segues nicely into the thermoregulatory model which looks at the role of core temperature and the increased demands on the physiological systems brought about as a result of increased core temperature towards critical points at which exercise capacity is reduced or terminated.

While psychologically no single variable appears to be responsible for motor output alteration due to afferent (outgoing) signals, it is thought that numerous mechanisms are responsible for the subconscious perception of fatigue and alterations in central activation and perceived exertion.

The central governor and complex systems theories seek to explain fatigue as a function of oversight by an as-yet-undefined central mechanism, or through the complex inter-relationship of multiple feedback loops seeking to maintain homeostasis, respectively.

Their net conclusion is that any number of systems may contribute to fatigue in a specific way for a specific situation, but in general the limitation of the system is derived from oxygen delivery to the muscles, especially at high intensity.

To further clarify in the Abiss and Laursen article fatigue was defined as “tiredness and associated decrements in muscular performance and function.” This is an important point as much research has looked at performance to exhaustion. The relevance comes when we look at how to best apply some of the factors above into the creation of a responsible training program. Many of the changes we seek are built around the optimization of oxygen delivery and increasing metabolic efficiency during the training year, so how does Lactate Threshold help?

Threshold As Proxy
An individual’s Lactate Threshold is the single most important physiological determinant of endurance exercise performance. It is trainable, reliable, and a sort of proxy for other important metabolic processes that underlie performance.

For example hormone production, like epinephrine/norepinephrine, shows a similar curvelinear relationship with increasing exercise intensity. Plasma potassium concentration, catecholamine concentration, plasma ammonia concentrations, growth hormone, cortisol and many other elements also demonstrate the same threshold type trends as lactate.

Power at Threshold
Now that we’ve established what Lactate Threshold is, how it is determined, and what processes it parallels, let’s spend a little bit of time on what advantages threshold level training can bring to your performance.

For untrained athletes the Lactate Threshold benefits of training can be seen at a wide range of intensities. Simply getting on the bike regularly will bring about many changes including increased mitochondrial density, blood lactate response, and reductions in lactate concentration at a given intensity.

For the trained athlete however, continuous training at intensities around Lactate Threshold has been shown to be beneficial since the time of the fabled East German sports machine in the twentieth century. The East Germans were famous for doing extended hours of training at OBLA!

In a similar vein, Gorostiaga et al in 1991 compared a continuous training group at circa-threshold intensity to one that did only structured high intensity VO2max type intervals (of the type that are all the rage today) and found some compelling differences. While the VO2max group did show a two fold increase in percentage change in VO2max (16% increase v 8% increase), the continuous training group had a ten fold increase in citrate synthase production compared to the VO2max group (25% increase v 2.5% increase). Citrate synthase is one of the main markers for muscle mitochondrial capacity, and is a good reference for total metabolic efficiency.

Both of these examples (the first decidedly anecdotal) serve to illustrate the value of continuous training at an intensity around Lactate Threshold. This has most recently been termed ‘sweet spot’ training, but the idea has been advocated by Lydiard, Coggan, and others in various forms or years. Typically “sweet spot” is defined as approximately 88-93% of your Lactate Threshold power, however the true measure of intensity should be determined by your ability to repeat them over multiple days in a training block.

These circa-threshold efforts should be at least twenty minutes in length, but can last up to two hours or more for advanced athletes. A key determinant of the duration and intensity is your ability to replicate the workout intensity/duration again the next day. A well prepared, motivated athlete doing 60 minutes at 88-93% of threshold power (FTP), should be able to replicate that workload again the second and third days. If you can’t then you probably went too hard, too long, or don’t have a good estimate of your FTP and need to adjust. My suggestion is to start doing some field testing to establish your FTP and then see what you can do. Have fun and let me know how it goes…

References:

1. Abbiss, Chris, Laursen, Paul – Models to Explain Fatigue During Prolonged Endurance Cycling. School of Exercise, Biomedical and Health Sciences, Edith Cowan University, Australia. 2005
2. Coggan, Andy – Explaining Lactate Threshold. Webinar Presentation. 2010
3. Robergs, Robert A., Ghiasvand, Farzenah, Parker, Daryl – Biochemistry of exercise-induced metabolic acidosis. Am J Physiol Regul Integr Comp Physiol 287: R502–R516, 2004

Lactic Acid Article

Lactate and Lactic Acid production are routinely offered as the seemingly natural cause and effect parameters that lead to fatigue and a decrease in performance, but are they really the source of the problem?

By Matt McNamara

If you’ve read anything about training in the last ten years you’ve probably come across the idea of Lactate Threshold and a discussion of how lactic acid production limits performance. The argument often goes something like this:

“As exercise intensity increases lactic acid production rises at a rate that, eventually, overwhelms the bodies ability to buffer this build-up and a decrease in performance naturally follows.”

Heck, I’ve repeated the mantra myself time and again over the years, despite KNOWING that it was an incomplete explanation of what actually happens. The truth is it provides a simple, though not wholly inaccurate, way to explain the well-documented trends of decreasing performance with increasing lactate concentrations. The idea of cause and effect just sort of fit well. So rather than perpetuate mediocre understanding, let’s jump in and learn a bit more:

A Brief, Albeit Incomplete, History
Lactic Acid was first isolated by Swedish researcher Carl Wilhelm Scheel from a batch of sour milk in 1780 (hence the commonly used term “lactic” instead of the far sexier formal name of 2-hydroxypropanoic acid, but I digress). Otto Meyerhoff and Archibald Hill, Nobel Prize winners in 1922, demonstrated that Lactic Acid was actually produced as a side reaction of Glycolysis, a primary metabolic pathway that converts carbohydrate/glucose into pyruvate, in the process converting energy into ATP through a 10-step set of reactions. In the absence of oxygen this conversion is sustained with Lactic Acid. This anaerobic process releases a proton (H+).

This was a key finding as it seemed to offer a cause and effect relationship between lactate production (lactate is, essentially, the salt or base of Lactic Acid) and the extended concept of Lactic Acidosis, or a decrease in pH that results from the release of protons in the system (cell or bloodstream).

This cause and effect relationship was taken as fact by researchers throughout the 20th and into the 21st century. However, in reviewing past and current research, Robergs et al (2004) have shown that there was no actual empirical evidence to support the cause/effect relationship; rather it was largely based on statistical correlation and the reputation of the Nobel Laureates Meyerhoff and Hill (which was richly deserved, I might add).

So, if the cause and effect nature of lactate production and acidosis is not an accurate portrayal of the role of Lactate in the onset of acidosis, and therefore performance, what is?

Debunking Lactic Acidosis
In 2004 Roberg, et al wrote an extensive review of the literature that sought to debunk the long-standing cause and effect relationship between lactate production and metabolic acidosis. Their sixteen page review takes an exhaustive, and somewhat intimidating, look at the true biochemistry of metabolic acidosis.

For example they detail the role of the phosphagen, glycolytic and mitochondrial systems in producing ATP and the differences in how each manages any released protons. They also note the difference in the nature of the proton release in glycolysis depending on whether the carbohydrate was derived from blood glucose or muscle glycogen. Glycogen is less acidifying to muscle during intense exercise.

Roberg then goes on to detail the many benefits derived from lactate production including the alkalizing effect of LDH, Lactate Dehydrogenase, or that it then circulates away the lactate to other areas that need it including the kidney, liver, and heart, for use as a substrate.

Finally, they looked at the role of nonmitochondrial ATP production, via research by Gevers in 1977 and 1979. Gevers established that metabolic processes other than LDH might contribute to the removal of protons in the form of the turnover of ATP via glycolysis. In other words that non-mitochondrial ATP production was likely responsible for metabolic acidosis.

But here’s where lactate threshold based training comes in

Training Threshold
Lactate threshold based training is a great tool. More specifically using the combination of a powermeter and a threshold based training approach is a highly effective way to manage your training.

Andy Coggan recently hosted a webinar on Lactate Threshold via USA Cycling. In addition to a comprehensive look at the establishment, definitions, and relationships of training around one’s lactate threshold. Among the cool takeaways

The first is to see terminology like Lactate Threshold, Maximal Lactate Steady State, Onset Blood Lactate Accumulation, etc as talking about roughly the same range of intensity. It’s likely going to be between about 80-90% of your VO2max for sustained periods of time. This will raise your general metabolic fitness. Further specialization is ideal for targeting specific race preparation

Coggan also noted that it has been shown in a wide array of studies that many other factors and processes contribute to fatigue. Things like epinephrine/norepineprine (adrenaline/noradrenalin), plasma potassium, and cortisol level, etc. often show a similar threshold type profile to that of lactate.

Abiss and Laursen did a comprehensive look at fatigue in 2005. Models to Explain Fatigue During Prolonged Endurance Cycling looked at no fewer than 10 different models of fatigue including the cardiovascular/anaerobic model, neuromuscular biomechanical, thermoregulatory models, and several others. Their net conclusion is that any number of systems may contribute to fatigue in a specific way for a specific situation, but in general the limitation of the system is derived from oxygen delivery to the muscles. Since we established above that metabolic acidosis is not derived from lactic acid, but that lactate production is an important contributor to oxygen delivery, it time to embrace those burning quads and get to work improving that lactate tolerance.

Perhaps next time we’ll look at that – drop me a line if you’re interested in a part 2.

References:

1. Abbiss, Chris, Laursen, Paul – Models to Explain Fatigue During Prolonged Endurance Cycling. School of Exercise, Biomedical and Health Sciences, Edith Cowan University, Australia. 2005
2. Coggan, Andy – Explaining Lactate Threshold. Webinar Presentation. 2010
3. Robergs, Robert A., Ghiasvand, Farzenah, Parker, Daryl – Biochemistry of exercise-induced metabolic acidosis. Am J Physiol Regul Integr Comp Physiol 287: R502–R516, 2004

Archive #2 - Cutting Edge Hydration Strategies

The Tour De France is a unique crucible. Weeks long, extreme temperature variations, exhaustive exercise day after day, and otherworldly nutritional demands; Is there a better place to learn and maximize performance for the athlete? One of the areas of deep interest over the last several years is the relationship of hydration, thermoregulation, and performance.

Awhile back I went to a presentation by Dr. Stacy Sims, a post doctoral research fellow, and exercise physiologist at Stanford University. Dr. Sims was part of an exciting project with Dr. Allen Lim, chief physiologist for Garmin-Slipstream. Their goal was to help the team optimally prepare for the Tour De France, and to create effective thermoregulation and hydration fueling strategies for the race.

They project focused on a few critical components, namely a pre-race preparation/acclimation phase, the daily nutrition and recovery of the athletes, and the pre, during, and post event hydration needs. Through the course of the presentation Dr Sims touched on some rather interesting approaches and outcomes.

Hydration and Thermoregulation
First some background on water, hydration and thermoregulation. The human body is 55-65% water. Water is an essential aid in biochemical and metabolic reactions, it cools the body, and helps maintain the acid base balance.

Hydration is the equilibration of total body water (TBW) carried in the intracellular (66% of TBW) and extracellular (33% of TBW) spaces. Dehydration, medically speaking, is when the body contains insufficient water volume to maintain normal body function.

One of the foundational responsibilities of water is thermoregulation. Thermoregulation is “the ability of an organism to keep its body temperature within certain boundaries, even when the surrounding temperature is very different.” For you and I, that means maintaining homeostasis between 37 – 40C (92-100F). Thermoregulation is vital to the maintenance of exercise intensity. Find yourself much on either side of that range and you are in for some trouble.

The Problem(s)
Dehydration, and its role in thermoregulation and performance is broad and complex.
It has been shown that a state of dehydration of as little as one percent (1%) leads to decreased aerobic endurance. At three percent (3%) there is a decrease in muscular endurance, while at four percent (4%) there is decreased muscle strength, fine motor skill, and heat cramps. In addition the maintenance of blood volume is essential for maintaining stroke volume and plasma volume.

Different athletes have different sweat rates, but most will sweat at between 1.5 – 3.0 Liters per hour. That means a 150 pound cyclist can reach 3% dehydration in as little as 45 – 60 minutes with no fluid intake (1 Liter = 1 Kilogram = 2.2 pounds). Unfortunately, gastric emptying is typically in the range of 0.8 – 1.3 Liters per hour, so you are on the defensive immediately. The more so if you start your race or training session hypohydrated (0.5-1% dehydrated) as most of us do by some estimates. You simply can’t drink enough fluid to offset the loss from sweating.

All of this sweating leads to thirst. There are two kinds of thirst. Hypovolemic thirst is the result of sweating, respiration, and/or bleeding. It is a decrease in the extracellular fluid and blood volume. Osmotic thirst is the result of a decrease in the intracellular fluid (e.g. too many solutes). Both depletions must be addressed prior to the onset of thirst.

While there are many products on the market that purport to help with your hydration and electrolyte balance, the truth is that most of them also contain a significant carbohydrate (CHO) load in order to also be seen as a viable fuel source (yet not quite enough to actually be a viable fuel source) and to be palatable. There are a couple of downsides to this. First, the CHO actually serves to increase core temperature (gotta process that food!), secondly it impedes gastric emptying. Often these sports-drinks contain too little sodium to effectively replace sweat salt losses as well. Sodium loss through sweating ranges between 0.8 – 4.0g/hr

The Solution
Dr Sims came up with a comprehensive set of solutions to the problems presented above. First, the team undertook a preparation/acclimation phase that included 30 minute bouts in the Sauna at 100 degrees immediately after their regular training rides. This was to both increase tolerance of warm temperatures and to systematically dehydrate the athletes to create a natural increase in Red Blood Cell (RBC) volume; a natural ergogenic aid.

The next step was to create a specific “Pre Event” drink in order to attenuate dehydration and to provide an ergogenic buffering effect. This pre-event drink was used primarily in the time trials and contained sodium bicarbonate and sodium citrate mix in a proprietary ratio (sorry, can’t give away ALL the secrets!), and a 1.5% sucrose concentration. The team used approximately 100 Liters of this mixture during the race.

The goal of the ‘During” drink was to attenuate dehydration. Carbohydrate was generally supplied via food stuffs. The “During” drink was a proprietary ratio of sucrose:glucose, with sodium citrate, magnesium, b-vitamins, and potassium. It contained no Sodium Choloride (NaCL), instead they used Sodium Citrate due to its decreased gastrointestinal stress and higher water retention rate, and inherent buffering effect. The team used approximately 10,000 Liters during the race

The “Post” drink was intended to stop the stress response, rehydrate, promote muscle repair and glycogen regeneration. It contained, among the list, a 1.5% solution of maltodextrim, potassium, amino acids, antioxidants, calcium, magnesium, and vitamins. They mixed over 8,000 Liters during the race.

Each of these drinks was formulated to be slightly hypotonic to increase absorption rates since water goes into the higher solute compartment in simple osmosis. The drinks were <270mmol/L solution compared to the blood plasma which is ~285-290 mmol/L. The ideal composition included roughly 100 mmol/L of Sodium, 6 mmol/L of Potassium, and 1.5 – 2% CHO solution (most sports beverage drinks are in the 6-8% CHO range).

Carbohydrate was also optimized. A sucrose/glucose solution was used during the races as it provided the best balance between increased water and sodium absorption and the highest possible CHO load without negatively affecting the osmolality (an indicator of fluid balance and ease of transport across cell membranes). The recovery drink used a 1.5% solution of maltodextrins, which are absorbed almost as rapidly as glucose with less gastric distress and impact on osmolality.

The Results
The validity of the project can be seen in a number of ways.

The preparation and acclimation component, especially the dehydration protocol, saw the athletes’ red blood cell concentration rise by up to 4%, and total plasma volume to increase by ~7%. This is a natural ergogenic aid akin to erythropoietin supplementation. There was also a decrease in exercising heart rate, an increase in work capacity and less total sweat loss during the race.

The “Pre” event drink was shown, anecdotally (n = 1), to increase power by ~7-8% on a 40Km time trial from 365W to 385-390W (time equivalent of 57 seconds!).

During the race the athletes routinely ingested two times the normal volume of liquid, yet suffered no GI distress. For the balance of the Tour the team used NO IV Drips! That is virtually unheard of in grand tours. At several points the athletes’ urine was ruled ‘too dilute to test’ a testament to the effectiveness of the hydration strategy.

On the results sheet the team placed two riders in the top 10, finished second overall in the team competition and team time trial. During the Stage 18 individual time trial the team had three riders in the top 10, all within a minute of the stage winner.

Summary
Each year a variety of new technologies and methodologies are rolled out in the search for speed and consistency. Technicians buzz around checking details, tightening torque wrenches and generally pondering the speed to be gained. Similarly, the athletes and soigneurs engage in their own daily performance dance. Legs are embrocated, stretched and massaged. Food is constantly ingested and chased by fluids, prodigious amounts of fluids. All in the quest to take the athlete right to the edge of performance

One of the most demanding elements of the race is the quest to maintain hydration, electrolyte balance, and thermoregulation. This year Garmin-Slipstream brought in a leading researcher to help create the perfect plan for the team. By combining a rigorous pre event acclimation camp with the creation of some truly high tech mixtures for each phase of the race the team was able to succeed in the battle for results and the battle for the long term health of their riders. With notable increases in work capacity, fluid retention, and red blood cell volume; and with notable decreases in gastrointestinal distress, exercise heart rate and overall heat stress it can be argued that this type of cutting edge research and implementation was a key element in the team’s success. You can expect this project to make it into your list of hydration and fluid options within the next 12 months or so

References

- Maughan, R. J., and T. D. Noakes; Fluid replacement and exercise stress: a brief review of studies on fluid replacement and some guidelines for the athlete. Sports Med. 12:16-31, 1991.

- Takamara, A., Y. Tetsuya, N. Nishida, and T. Morimoto; Relationship of osmotic inhibition in thermoregulatory responses and sweat sodium concentration in humans. Am J Physiol Regulatory Integrative Comp Physiol 280: R623–R629, 2001.

- Gillen, C. M., T. Nishiyasu, G. Langhans, C. Weseman, G. W. Mack, and E. R. Nadel; Cardiovascular and renal function during exercise-induced blood volume expansion in men. J Appl Physiol, 76: 2602 – 2610, 1994.
Hargreaves, M., and M. Febbraio; Limits to exercise performance in the heat. J Sports Med., 19: S115-S116, 1998.

- Montain S. J., and E. F. Coyle; Influence of graded dehydration on hyperthermia and cardiovascular drift during exercise. J Appl Physiol, 73(4):1340-1350, 1992.

- Sanders, B., T. D. Noakes, and S. C. Dennis; Sodium replacement and fluid shifts during prolonged exercise in humans. Eur. J. Appl. Physiol., 84:419-425, 2001.

- Sims ST, Rehrer NJ, Bell ML, Cotter JD. Preexercise sodium loading aids fluid balance and endurance for women exercising in the heat. J Appl Physiol 103: 534–541, 2007.

- Sims, ST, L vanVliet, JD Cotter, and NJ Rehrer. “Sodium loading aids fluid balance and reduces physiological strain of trained men exercising in the heat.” Medicine and Sciences in Sports and Exercise, 39 (1), 123-130, 2007

Putting On The Coaching hat

I've been reading a bunch of stuff lately (see the previous post), but not all if it has been pure candy. I try to read some relevant stuff too. Physiology, biomechanics, stuff that is important to both my day to day job and the performance of my athletes (which is my day to day job - a potential infinite loop of hilarity).

Anyway, there is some good stuff out there from coaches across the spectrum of spots (gotta read it all). I just read some very interesting stuff on the influence of the brain on fatigue and There is also some junk out there as well. A few coaches are pushing ideas and their own theories that are based more on ego than real science. I won't throw them out now, but may later...guess it depends on the quality of my coffee tomorrow. A couple of observations

1. Lots of coaches claim to have the next silver bullet of performance. This year it seems to be Tabata Intervals. Roughly, its a set of 6-8 intervals of 20 seconds ON, 10 seconds OFF performed at about 170% of VO2max (power i presume as the study had them on a cycling ergometer - though they are usually described as 'all out' by those referencing). I've been using them for about a year now intermittently (yep, one of the sheep) and can say that they are both effective and too easy. I haven't done them in the run up to a competition, but my athletes seem to like them. They are hard, but they aren't as hard as some other workouts I do. The argument is that those doing Tabatas had a 14% improvement in VO2 and a 28% improvement in anaerobic capacity over the course of a 6-week study doing these 2 or 3 times a week, while those exercising at 70% of VO2 only showed improvement in their VO2 (53 to 58 ml/kg). It just seems to me that doing a block of these 2 or 3 times a week isn't sufficient to make performance gain - think about it this way...6 sets of 20s is only 2minutes of workload - so although intensity factor is very high, total training stress is very low. Then again, as an interval model they are a valid approach. Then again so is Peak Power. Think of Peak Power as VO2 power. The strategem is to do your peak power for 60% of your T-max (maximum sustained duration at peak power). While a solid approach to High Intensity Training (HIT) I think that the Thibault approach is much more elegant. Dr Thibault has built a model for improving your VO2 power by working across a range of intensities (85-110% of VO2power) and durations (45s - 6:30m). I like it because it offers both a standardized approach and a wide variety of workout options to keep athletes motivated.

2. The next big 'revelation' is the move away from periodization in training. Carl Foster of ACSM asserts that no reliable studies validate the periodized training plan approach. While I haven't read the reference material he drew from, I did look around a bit and found an interesting look at the relative volume of training done at Lactate Threshold at an ACSM Annual conference, chaired by Carl Foster, that could certainly be a backstop to the idea of eliminating periodization if for no other reason than to minimize training time spent at higher intensities. That study, lead by Stephen Seiler, looked at polarizing training (increasing volume of low intensity and essentially decreasing threshold level work) and the positive results that came as a result. My worry is that athletes will simply hear that periodization is out and use it to justify an increase in volume of intensity (defined by me as Level 4/LT and above) that will ultimately lead to stagnation or perhaps overtraining.

Anyway, this idea of ego-centric coaching was all brought home recently on a series of threads authored by a coach with a great list of acronyms and accomplishments behind his name (which is a HUGE pet peeve of mine!!!!) but a complete lack both perspective and couth (sp?). He went on and on about how doctors are, basically, inept and dangerous, how chiropractic will be the wave of the future, and what a jerk another coach is for posting an educational link that happened to also be revenue generating for the other coach. It was distasteful and tacky. That he followed it up by telling this group (that includes many accomplished coaches, PhD's, etc) that the next big thing ("you heard it here first") was having trainers partner with doctors to help both gain credability. What? My first job out of college in 1995 was working as a trainer/exercise therapist in a clinical setting with chronically ill patients - yea...almost 15 years ago!


I guess my point is that each of you should really try and see the big picture with your training. Don't look at the next 'new' thing as the path to greatness. Don't presume that because someone has a lot of letters behind their name that they know what they are talking about. Challenge your sources. Ask questions. Don't settle...