I've been running a training experiment since the start of the year, based on the notion that aging athletes can still improve one performance thing: efficiency.

It's common knowledge that we can't do anything about the gradual reduction of max. heart rate, and thus the reduction of VO₂max. We can slow down the decline through training, but there's not stopping it.

But we apparently can continue to improve efficiency, or the ability to produce the same power at a reduced heart rate. And the best way to increase efficiency apparently is through long endurance workouts and strength training.

So since January 1st, I've been doing only long indoor climbs at high zone 2/low zone 3 pace, as well as regular leg strength workouts. My total workout training stress score (TSS) and duration was about the same as last January, when I was doing only mixed-pace rides and no strength workouts.

The results: Here is my power vs. heart rate graph comparison. Red is last year, blue is this year.


Lower is better. It's clear that my power at a given heart rate is significantly lower than last year. Except at the higher power outputs, which I haven't trained so far this year.

The advantage of being able to put out more power at endurance/tempo heart rate should be obvious. I'm hoping that this improved efficiency will be a good base for improving the threshold power. We'll soon see.

Did you mean your HR at a given power is lower?

In any event, I'm not sure the ratio of watts/HR is that informative. To the extent that we're talking about aerobic production of power, we know that general metabolic efficiency doesn't change very quickly, so not on the order of five weeks. Likewise, A-V O2 differential doesn't change very quickly over the same time frame. So, over a shortish period of time, power generated aerobically is pretty closely related to cardiac output. Cardiac output is just HR * stroke volume, so watts/HR is mostly a proxy for SV.

Maybe your SV has increased, but probably not because of things you've been doing since Jan 1.

I get what you're saying, as the efficiency factor (EF) isn't really showing aerobic efficiency (watts/O2), but watts/heart beat.

But something significant happened in January versus last year, and it seems to have happened over the span of weeks after I started the training change up (my workout change-up actually started after Thanksgiving).

Here are the power:HR traces for the 4 quarters last year. Pretty consistent until the 4th quarter, where the Pwr:HR up to mid-tempo starts dropping.



Whatever the mechanism, I'd call this progress.

Looks to me like most of that 4th quarter change in watts/HR was at the low end, but with a cross-over at higher power.

Nonetheless, it does look like something changed. Have you made any other changes since Thanksgiving?

Efficiency Factor (EF) measures aerobic fitness by dividing Normalized Power (NP) by average heart rate (EF = NP / avg HR). Since it's NP, wouldn't it depends on the workout's intensity, with a cap on duration on both the upper and lower range since it's HR, and compared accordingly? For me, it's like HR drift, useful but too narrow in application.

That's interesting. I don't pay much attention to HR measures so I didn't know that EF was NP/HR. However, Terry's charts were either HR vs. power (so I presumed avg HR vs. avg power) or % threshold HR vs. (avg?) power.

Since EF uses NP in the numerator, shouldn't it use something like TRIMP in the denominator?

Could the difference just be down to less residual, chronic fatigue because you've eliminated the interspersed higher intensity rides? Moderate exercise in hot conditions also increases stroke volume.. not sure if that could be a possible reason not sure of your training conditions..?

Those indoor long climbs - how long?

The strongest I ever got, I was doing 3 sets of 30 with increasing weights, the last set only able to do maybe 27 reps, full depth, ass to grass squats. I was doing circuit training, so it was a few minutes between sets. Plus sometimes an hour of Z2 or Z3 on the step mill - "the stairway to hell." Gym twice a week. Plus of course long competitive group rides. Early 60s. Increased efficiency translates as more power, period. One has a tendency to go by HR really, not power, it's more about breathing which is tied to HR. That's assuming that one is giving everything one can. One tries to get power up at specific breathing rates. Which is of course efficiency, or at least one can call it that. Most studies find that gym work increases endurance, which translates as less HR drift. I don't really know anything about the mechanism, just that it works.

talk your doc into an echo, see what your stroke volume and EF really is

of course, you don't have a data point for "before..."

The only other change since Thanksgiving was adding in more strength workouts, specifically squats and lunges. I was inspired to increase my strength workouts from this paper: Louis et al, Strength training improves cycling efficiency in master endurance athletes, Eur J Appl Physiol (2012). Not a huge group size, but the results were remarkable.

Those power:HR graphs are from intervals.icu. It looks like it's using average power, but I'm not sure.

~3600 feet to 6500+ feet. Total time about 1:15 to 3:00. The 3-hour sessions make my sit bones hurt, so I tend to avoid them.

One other item I've noticed -- virtually zero cardiac drift on these long climbs. That's new.

I don't know. I still have days where I feel like I need a rest, so these workouts aren't fatigue-free. I'm riding in a cool room (mid-60s F) with a good fan, so no real heat training.

IMO, these studies definitively prove one thing: We are all getting stir crazy stuck inside.

💯! 😂

That's a nice improvement in delta efficiency. What happened to their performance? Delta efficiency is good but were they faster, or did they have more endurance?

Race cars are inefficient, but fast.

I'll take the blue one with 11mpg... you can have the silver SUPER EFFICIENT one at 60mpg 😀

I think my Sea Sucker rack will fit nicely on the top one. Do they have a tow hitch option so that I can transport my tandem? Could be a deal breaker.

When personal engine upgrades become available, I'll be first in line.

Until those become available, I'm stuck with trying to squeeze a bit more out of this old factory engine.

The point is that efficiency is not the goal.. the goal is performance. Sometimes you need actually need to be LESS efficient to improve performance.. but you can just throw an couple extra snickers bars and a coke on the fire 😀

What is likely a WAY more fruitful endeavour is to make improvements in “economy” rather than “efficiency” which at this stage [efficiency changes ] will likely be tiny..

Well yeah, for sure, the goal (and the measure that training is working) is always performance. But when one has maxed out the big gains (VO₂max, LT)--and if you're in the masters category, those are going down--you have to start looking around for the tweaks that produce gains and/or slow the performance decline. And one of those tweaks is definitely efficiency.

Keep in mind what Steven Seiler writes:

"Since, ultimately, we have a limited "engine" size, improvements in efficiency are critical to additional improvements in performance time...But, if you have been training in sport for a year or more, you must construct your training program with more and more care to continue making progress in those adaptations that have "room to improve" while maintaining the levels of those that have plateaued or are beginning to."

After many years of solid training--and once Father Time starts turning down VO₂max and LF--efficiency is one thing that may still have "room to improve".

Here's Seiler's illustrative graph of adaptations:

Thankyou Terrymorse. Since I am way past my year, I can now slack off, guilt-free with the knowledge that this is as good as I get. Something comforting in that. Now I can ride for enjoyment.

I don't know man, yesterday I rode with a tiny 70-year old all the way just before the climb at Les Matelles to Jacou, a distance of about 30 km at 30.0 km/h, and with up to 50 km/h crosswinds (they were stronger earlier in the day), and we spent most of the time chatting. I can tell you that it was easier for him than for me. By tiny I mean that from the back he looked like a skinny boy!

As you may imagine, due to his small size, he was strong on the climbs, but for instance he dropped me during a rolling hill after St-Croix-de-Quintillargues, we were casually doing about 29 km/h on a false flat in the crosswinds, sth like 0.8 to 1.0%, and as the road started pitching down he decided to attack yet another cyclist in front of us, I was too slow with the down-tube shifters, crosswinds got between the wheels, game over, I caught up with him a couple of kms later and he was still fresh as a daisy.

He had a running background, but it goes to show that even tiny engines can be trained to produce quite a bit of power.

Pretty sure he meant “engine size“ as a metaphor for cardiovascular capacity/VO2max… not the actual physical size of person and not even in an absolute sense… ~W/kg since smaller cyclists need less Watts to go as fast since they need to lift less weight to go up hill and push less air out of way to move forward…

I have found that the biggest levers I have to pull.. especially with the young’ns is smarts, timing, placement, strategy.. at this point in life better than most of the “kids”… but in some situations, there is no answer for pure horsepower and you just need to just get comfortable and ok with that and take the small victories when you can take them.. that’s where I’m at anyways 🤷🏽‍♂️

This is why I've been forced to focus on aero, rolling resistance, and drivetrain efficiency gains. I'm old, fat, and slow -- but every once in a while when everything lines up, I'm just old and fat.

Exogenous ketones is a legal way to essentially increase VO2max.

Esters (e.g. KetoneAid) for big, quick hit must use with bicarbonate.. most research says good for 3rd or 4th hour of ride.. NOTE: no effect to can actually impair short performance of an hour or so though! Ketone diols (e.g. KetoneIQ) for less of a ketone hit, but don't require bicarbonate since work a little slower.. need to go through liver first.

Wut?!

UCI says ketone supplementation is bs