Diet advice on website vs. book

Benjamin:

In the sections of the book you are quoting there is no mention of fat adaptation training. Those recommendations were meant to ensure adequate energy supplies for long or difficult workouts such as big day of alpine climbing. They are not designed to enhance fat adaptation so I don’t see where the conflict is.
If you want to train to become more fat adapted then use the recommendations you read on the UA site. If you are heading out for the Nose in a day or a sub 10 hour ascent of the North Face of the Eiger then I suggest you fuel up. Two different feeding strategies for 2 different outcomes.

A common adage is: “Train on fat but race on carbs”

Scott

Ben:

I’m not sure what you are asking here so I will try to answer.

“Massively off”? Ok, that’s possible but what are you basing this statement on? Do you think this too high of a HR and pace or to low and slow?

Ventilatory markers like ‘nose breathing’ or ‘conversational pace’ or ‘rate and depth’ show strong correlation to the aerobic threshold. A strong correlation means an r*2 (r squared) of more than about 0.8. If you are not familiar with statistics this would mean that if compare two sets of data, like AeT (as determined in a lab) with a ventilatory field test the data sets would agree 80% of the time. A good correlation does not mean that there will be a perfect correlation for every person under every circumstance. Me make clear on our articles in testing that while we have seen, in hundreds of tests where we compare ventilation to blood lactate, a good correlation. However some people, especially those with a history of high intensity training and thus a low aerobic capacity don’t fit into this model. I can’t explain why and have asked several exercise scientists why this would be. None of them know either.

If you think your numbers are massively off, based on other information or other perceptions of exertion then by all means do not use this ventilation marker. For you the only answer I know of is to get either a blood lactate test or a full metabolic profile test.

Scott

It’s great to hear that you’re interested in fat adaptation and that you’ve been reading up on it! The statements on pages 292-293 and 290-291 may seem contradictory at first, but they can be reconciled with a bit of nuance.

First of all, it’s important to understand that fat adaptation is a process that takes time and is best achieved through a gradual transition. This means that during the initial phase of your training, it’s important to prioritize low-intensity, aerobic workouts and to avoid relying too heavily on simple carbohydrates as a fuel source.

However, as your training progresses and you begin to approach your peak performance, it may become necessary to incorporate more complex carbohydrates into your diet in order to maintain the high levels of energy required for intense physical activity.

With that in mind, the recommendation to eat a big breakfast with a mix of carbohydrates, protein, and fats on pages 292-293 may be more relevant to the later stages of your training and easy meat dinner, when you are engaging in longer, higher-intensity workouts that require sustained energy.

Meanwhile, the recommendation to avoid simple carbohydrates on pages 290-291 may be more relevant to the early stages of your training, when you are focusing on building your aerobic base and increasing your capacity for fat burning.

In terms of the specific question about the “Hike on Hilly Terrain” workouts in the transition mesocycle, it may be a good idea to experiment with different pre-workout snacks to see what works best for you. Some athletes may find that they need a small number of simple carbohydrates to top up their glycogen stores and maintain their energy levels, while others may be able to rely solely on fat and protein.

Ultimately, the most important thing is to listen to your body and adjust your diet and training as needed to support your goals.