Shownotes

Preview

03:35 -

• When I say something is overrated, I don't mean it's useless. Many things we’ll discuss are still useful to varying degrees—sometimes slightly useful, sometimes very useful. The key point is that their usefulness might be overstated.
• It's also important to appreciate the context. I've considered this list within the context of the typical or average age group triathlete. However, since no one is exactly average, some of these points may not be overrated for certain individuals. Context is crucial for understanding each factor.
• We're discussing factors that, in most cases, might be overrated, but that don't apply universally. It's essential to remember this distinction. Additionally, not all items on this list are overrated to the same degree. Some are clearly overrated, while others are more nuanced. Although I haven't ranked them, you’ll likely sense which ones I consider most overrated and which are more context-dependent or thought-provoking.

Swimming

05:33 -

• Swimming is a bit controversial and very contextual in triathlon training. Many people underestimate its importance, particularly in long-distance races like the Ironman, where they haven’t prepared adequately to swim 3.8 kilometres, especially in open water conditions.
• Starting to swim just one to two months before a major race, and only once per week, is often insufficient.
• However, I believe swimming can also be overrated by some athletes and coaches. When you compare the time invested in swimming to the return in terms of race performance, the gains are often minimal, particularly for age-group athletes.
• This is even true in professional long-course triathlon, where the correlation between overall race performance and swim performance is weak. In contrast, bike and run performances are much more strongly correlated with overall success.
• For age-group athletes, swimming becomes overrated when experienced and ambitious athletes swim three to four times per week. The time commitment, including commuting, can add up to many hours but may only result in minor improvements—perhaps shaving off one to two minutes in an Ironman.
• For these athletes, cutting swimming back to twice per week and reallocating that time to running or cycling often yields better race results.
• Athletes with a solid foundation in swimming technique and fitness might even reduce swimming to once per week during some periods, like the winter months, and then increase to twice per week closer to the race.
• This approach is highly individual, as some athletes lose significant fitness when reducing swim volume. Personally, I would need to maintain at least two swims per week, increasing to three when preparing for a race.
• While highly competitive age-group athletes might not podium with limited swim training, most athletes aim for the best overall race time rather than winning.
• If you are an experienced swimmer with a decent foundational technique and fitness, consider whether you're overestimating the importance of swim training relative to cycling and running. The key is to find the optimal balance to maximize overall performance.

Metric W/kg

09:48 -

• In my view, the watts per kilogram (W/kg) metric is vastly overrated in triathlon. The only exception is for courses with significant climbing, like Ironman Nice or Alpe d'Huez Triathlon. For most triathlon courses, including those with decent elevation gain, W/kg is relatively insignificant.
• Even with 1,500 meters of elevation gain over an Ironman bike leg, the rolling terrain allows for maintaining good speed.
• To illustrate, let's compare two athletes riding at 3 W/kg on a flat course with identical conditions. One weighs 80 kg (240 watts) and the other 55 kg (165 watts).
• Assuming a CDA of 0.25 for the heavier rider and 0.24 for the lighter rider, the heavier rider's speed is 39.3 km/h compared to the lighter rider's 35.3 km/h.
• Even reducing the lighter rider's CDA to 0.22 only increases their speed to 36.3 km/h, still 3 km/h slower. This results in a 22-minute deficit of over 180 km.
• This demonstrates that W/kg is not the key factor; watts per CDA are what correlates with speed in triathlon, except for climbing mountains.
• Watts per CDA is harder to measure, which may explain its lack of popularity, but simplicity doesn't equate to usefulness.
• Using threshold W/kg to measure bike performance is even worse. Threshold numbers are inconsistently measured, and how they translate to race performance varies.
• Some athletes can maintain a high percentage of their threshold power during a race, while others cannot, influenced by both fitness and skill. These issues persist even if we report pure watts instead of W/kg.

Power meters and power data

15:18 -

• This one might surprise a few people, but let me explain. Power meters and power data on the bike are incredibly useful and not overrated when it comes to having an objective measure of external load for your training.
• Unlike running, where speed is a poor metric due to terrain, wind, and other factors, power data provides a consistent measure of your performance.
• Factors such as your equipment choice, bike type, tyre selection, clothing, and position can all affect your speed on the bike, but power meters allow you to train consistently at your level, regardless of these variables.
• Power meters are amazing tools when combined with internal load metrics like heart rate and RPE. I love them. However, what is overrated is the accuracy of power meters.
• Most modern power meters are very precise, meaning they are consistent day-to-day as long as you calibrate them as instructed by the manufacturer.
• But this precision doesn't guarantee that your 300 watts is the same as your friend's 300 watts on a different power meter. They may be significantly different, and I don't have the data to specify exactly how much, but the potential discrepancies between power meters are often underrated.
• The key point here is to avoid comparing power data between different power meters. This includes comparing your power data to a friend's or even your own power data across different bikes with different power meters. This is a common mistake.
• For example, you might have one power meter for outdoor training and a smart trainer for indoor training, and you might assume they measure power the same way.
• This assumption can lead to erroneous conclusions about your performance or fatigue if you notice differences in power readings between the two.
• Another mistake is comparing power data with others. For example, if you ride an Ironman bike at 200 watts and your friend rides the same course at 180 watts but finishes faster, the simple assumption is that they are more aerodynamic.
• However, you don't actually know if they pushed the same power, more power, or less. Their watts per CDA might be higher than yours, but whether this is due to power or aerodynamics is uncertain. The accuracy of power data from different sources can vary significantly and should not be underestimated.

Bike Frames

19:20 -

• Overrated factor number four is bike frames. We've discussed several times in this episode how the best underlying metric correlating with bike performance, which is speed, is watts per CDA. With this in mind, upgrading your bike frame is probably one of the most overrated and least cost-effective solutions to improve your bike performance.
• Instead, you can upgrade components such as your front end, saddle, crank length, wheels, tyres, and clothing. These upgrades can have significant impacts on either power, CDA, or both.
• For example, adjustments in crank length and saddle can place you in a position that is both more comfortable and more aerodynamic, allowing you to push more power and reduce drag.
• Investing in coaching and aero consulting can also improve power and CDA.
• However, buying a new bike frame, unless you are on the wrong frame size or switching from a road bike to a TT bike, will generally offer very little improvement at a huge cost. Therefore, a new frame should be the last upgrade you consider.
• It's important to distinguish between bikes and bike frames. In triathlon and road cycling, incredible times are being set due to advancements in equipment.
• However, the real improvements come from components such as a comfortable saddle, optimal crank length, and custom-made aerobars. These components allow athletes to ride in positions that are both powerful and aerodynamic.
• Every time you get a new bike frame, you almost have to start from scratch with re-optimizing the components, especially since some components from your previous bike may not fit the new one.
• A much better investment of time and money, in most cases, is to continue working with your current frame but optimize the setup by continuously refining both the components and your position. This approach will have a much bigger impact on your performance than a new frame could.
• Most people pragmatically understand this about bike frames, but considering how often people buy new bikes, it is clear that the allure of a new frame is still strong.

Compound score

22:15 -

• A compound score in this context is a metric that aims to synthesize or summarize two or more different metrics or data streams.
• A common example is a recovery score from a wearable, which combines factors like HRV, resting heart rate, sleep duration, and sleep quality.
• In swimming, a compound score like the SWOLF score combines the time taken to swim a length and the number of strokes, derived from the concept of swimming golf. In TrainingPeaks, there are metrics like the Training Stress Score (TSS), which combines workout duration and intensity, and Chronic Training Load (CTL), which accumulates TSS over six weeks. The Efficiency Factor (EF) is another compound score, correlating internal load (heart rate) with external load (pace or power).
• Compound scores can be useful within certain contexts. For instance, within a single athlete, CTL can indicate relative training load over time, helping to compare the current training load to previous periods. However, these scores lose validity when comparing different athletes or different sports within the same athlete.
• For example, comparing cycling training load to running training load within an athlete or between two athletes doesn't provide meaningful insights.
• Similarly, the Efficiency Factor is useful for comparing different workouts within an athlete, provided certain conditions are met, like steady-state workouts and accounting for environmental factors.
• However, comparing EF between different athletes can be misleading, as regular age group athletes might have EF values similar to or higher than professionals, which doesn't reflect their actual performance level.
• The primary issue with compound metrics is their overuse beyond their valid scope. For example, comparing your CTL to a friend’s, especially if they participate in a different sport, is not useful.
• Even comparing CTL among athletes in the same sport can be misleading without understanding the underlying thresholds used to calculate TSS.
• Compound scores aim to simplify data, but for a comprehensive understanding, one must look at individual data streams.
• For instance, if an athlete shares their CTL but not their training volume or intensity, it’s difficult to provide meaningful advice. The original data streams contain most of the valuable information, while compound scores offer limited insights.
• The allure of compound scores often lies in their perceived sophistication, which can lead to neglecting the original data sources.
• This misplaced focus is why I believe compound scores, while useful in specific situations, are overrated. They should be used with caution and not as a substitute for the detailed original data streams or metrics they aim to synthesize.

Recovery modalities

28:10 -

• When considering recovery modalities, I am referring to options beyond sleep, nutrition, and hydration. Common examples include ice baths, cryotherapy, compression therapy devices, compression clothing, supplements, and massage.
• I am not dismissing these entirely; placebo effects can be significant, so their value shouldn't be underestimated.
• Massage deserves special mention, especially in contexts like the Tour de France where it plays a crucial role. Beyond physical recovery, massage provides psychological benefits through human interaction, allowing athletes to discuss their day and vent frustrations, which can be highly impactful.
• This dual benefit makes massage unique among recovery modalities.
• Other modalities like compression boots also have their place, primarily because they enforce rest. If we compare these modalities to intensive desk work, they likely offer benefits. However, compared to sleep, their value is questionable.
• Thus, the optimal recovery might simply be more sleep rather than relying on these additional modalities.
• For professional athletes with back-to-back competitions or intense training days, certain modalities like cryotherapy can be beneficial. In sports like football or ice hockey, where high-intensity performance is needed frequently, these modalities might help.
• However, in events like the Tour de France, the limited time available and the need to prioritize sleep means these modalities are rarely used.
• For most amateur athletes, achieving optimal sleep, nutrition, and hydration should be the priority. Recovery modalities might offer marginal gains if one has the time, such as during vacations or training camps.
• Yet, in everyday training scenarios, these are often impractical due to time constraints. Most experienced age-group triathletes already understand that these modalities aren't crucial. It's usually newcomers to endurance sports who overestimate their importance, similar to how they might overemphasize the need for stretching.

Lab testing

34:25 -

• In the context of recovery modalities, lab testing is often considered overrated, especially for the typical age-group triathlete.
• While lab tests can be highly beneficial in very specific scenarios, such as resolving particular performance discrepancies or identifying marginal gains for professional athletes, they generally offer limited value for most amateur triathletes.
• The common types of lab testing, like step tests and ramp tests to measure lactate or VO2 max, provide detailed threshold information but are often not worth the time and financial investment for the average age-group athlete.
• This is primarily because the detailed thresholds obtained from lab tests, while precise, may not translate into more effective training. The exact numbers are protocol-specific and vary depending on the test conditions.
• For example, different protocols for measuring thresholds will yield different results, which can be confusing and not necessarily useful for improving training efficiency.
• Instead of lab tests, analyzing training data such as power or speed duration curves can offer significant insights into an athlete's profile.
• This approach provides a more practical understanding of performance and can guide training decisions effectively. By assessing performance over various distances or conditions—such as short sprints versus longer climbs—athletes can gain a qualitative sense of their strengths and weaknesses, which can be just as informative as lab results.
• Critical power testing, which is a free field test, is particularly useful because it helps athletes understand their performance profile without the need for costly lab tests.
• The main advantage of lab testing lies in its ability to identify very specific performance metrics, which might be useful for professional athletes seeking marginal gains. However, for most age-group athletes, these small improvements are unlikely to justify the expense.

Workout design

41:45 -

• While workout design and details are important, I believe their finer points are often overrated. For instance, the difference between doing a long easy ride and one with Ironman pace work or VO2 max intervals is substantial and does matter.
• However, once you've decided on an Ironman pace ride, whether your intervals are 20 or 60 minutes doesn't significantly impact the outcome. Spending excessive time on such minor details is less important than focusing on big decisions, like choosing between an easy ride, a VO2 max interval ride, or an Ironman pace ride.
• Equally critical are decisions about training versus resting, riding on a time-trial bike versus a road bike, and selecting hilly or flat terrain. These choices make a substantial difference in training effectiveness.
• It's more beneficial to ponder these aspects rather than the minutiae, such as interval duration or rest periods.
• Additionally, assigning a single power or pace target and rigidly sticking to it can be counterproductive. Intensity should be adjustable within a wide range to suit the day's conditions, such as temperature.
• Especially on easy days, it's better to have a maximum pace or power not to exceed rather than a strict range. This approach ensures you stay within optimal intensity levels.
• To illustrate, it's more significant to decide between two or three-minute VO2 max intervals than to fixate on splitting work and rest precisely.
• Erg mode on bikes often encourages overemphasis on details, leading to potential stagnation. Thus, I challenge listeners to avoid Erg mode for the next four weeks. Continue indoor training if desired but without Erg mode. This change might lead to surprisingly excellent progress.

Specificity

46:36 -

• I often discuss specificity in training, but I believe it's somewhat overrated, though not useless. Some athletes, particularly those training for significant events like an Ironman, intensely focus on their training for months.
• Despite this, their results remain consistent each year. This stagnation often arises because they neglect their fitness for the rest of the year, resulting in a cycle where they have to rebuild their fitness almost from scratch before each race.
• No matter how excellent the training in those focused months is, if an athlete's fitness drops significantly during the off-period, they will only achieve a certain level.
• This cycle leads to similar performance levels year after year. Consistent training throughout the year is crucial for maintaining and improving fitness, far more than the specific training in the lead-up to a race.
• For athletes who train year-round with minimal breaks, specificity can still be overemphasised. Experienced athletes, with a high training age and racing experience, typically need only three to five weeks of race-specific training if their base fitness is solid.
• In contrast, newcomers to the sport may benefit from a slightly longer period of specific training, but not excessively long. Extended periods of specific training, such as 12 weeks or more, can lead to stagnation, injury, or burnout.
• In my coaching plans, we emphasise a general fitness base with shorter specific periods closer to the race.
• For example, our beginner full-distance training plan includes six to seven weeks of Ironman-specific work towards the end. Advanced plans may have even shorter specific periods.
• A well-trained athlete with robust general fitness can perform impressively in an event with minimal specific training. For instance, a world-class short-course triathlete could deliver an incredible Ironman performance based on their general fitness alone, though not at their full potential compared to a specially trained athlete.

Wearables and sensors

52:21 -

• I would not consider devices like GPS watches, bike computers, heart rate monitors, and power meters to be overrated. Despite the challenges with the accuracy of power meters, these tools are incredibly valuable for any triathlete. On the other hand, I find wearables that measure recovery, sleep trackers, lactate meters, oxygen saturation sensors, and various biomechanical sensors to be more questionable in their utility.
• Some sensors, like aerodynamic sensors for CDA measurements and core temperature sensors, have significant potential.
• While I have extensive experience with aerodynamic sensors, I haven't yet tried core temperature sensors, although I see their value. However, similar to power meters, they may never reach perfect accuracy but could still provide useful precision.
• My personal experience with oxygen saturation sensors was disappointing. Although they seemed promising theoretically, their practical application was lacking. This experience has taught me that many devices often appear better on paper than in actual use.
• Regarding overrated sensors, it's important to understand that while specific wearables and sensors can be useful in controlled scenarios to answer precise questions, the general perception that merely collecting data from these devices will improve training or performance is flawed. In fact, over-reliance on these devices can sometimes hinder performance by introducing unnecessary complexity.
• Take sleep trackers as an example. They can either positively influence sleep habits or cause anxiety about sleep quality, known as orthosomnia, which can worsen sleep. Simple methods, like keeping a sleep log, might be more effective than relying on potentially inaccurate sleep quality metrics from trackers.
• Similarly, lactate meters have gained popularity, but using them effectively requires a steep learning curve. They can be useful for specific testing scenarios but are not ideal for daily training due to their inconsistency. Without proper guidance, using lactate meters can impair training quality rather than improve it.
• Overall, most wearables and sensors are overrated because:
  • There are concerns about their accuracy, precision, and relevance.
  • Collecting more data doesn't necessarily lead to better training or performance.
  • Properly utilizing the data requires significant time and financial investment.
  • They can lead to naive interventionism, where taking action based on data might do more harm than good.

Addition by addition

1:02:36 -

• Addition by subtraction is a concept where progress is made by eliminating elements that hinder development and growth, rather than continuously adding new ones.
• Athletes often seek the next thing to enhance their performance—be it a new workout, diet, supplement, or piece of equipment—believing it will help them progress. This is what I refer to as "addition by addition."
• However, athletes rarely consider removing elements to improve. In my coaching experience, significant gains often come from subtraction.
• For instance, reducing the intensity of workouts for an athlete who is overtraining can lead to substantial progress.
• Similarly, eliminating self-imposed diets that result in unnecessary caloric restrictions can be beneficial. Removing sources of life stress, such as excessive work, can also lead to better performance and overall health.
• In essence, while adding new elements can sometimes be the solution, more often the answer lies in subtraction. This approach is not only applicable to athletics but also to professional and personal development.
• Despite its effectiveness, the concept of addition by subtraction is less frequently considered compared to the pursuit of new additions.