Hacker News Reader

Comment by sebastianz | Hacker News Reader

> training achieves the same effects as much longer endurance training at much shorter times

The HIIT part of their training has a different purpose than the slower part. Each type of training serves a different purpose.

A lot of discussion currently also revolves around putting more emphasis on "Zone 2 training" with many hours & kms trained at lower intensity, for better endurance and efficiency of slow-twitch fibers.

> read interviews with e.g. professional cyclists, they train significantly less, but at much higher intensities than 7 years ago

Do you have any reference for this claim?

View on HN

Jay Vine recently said in an interview that last year his max hours per week was 30 and that wasn’t training, it was a big week in a grand tour. His coach at least seems to be on a mid 20s hours a week approach.

Jay implied this was a change throughout the peloton, but you can still see old school strategies doing well (Bernal for example does huge volume in base from strava).

One key thing to remember is that humans can't do much more than 30 hours per week of exercise because they can't consume sufficient calories to compensate.

It has come to the point that tweaking nutrition science to feed athletes better so they can train more is a key aspect of the ultra endurance training (e.g. the Norwegian Iron Men around Olaf Alexander Bu).

That's 4 hours of activity a day. That can't be true. I do that. I should be fading away then but hover at the same weight.

4 hours of strenuous exercise. This should consume around 3000 kcals.

Studies have found that humans cannot consume more calories than 2.5x their basal metabolic rate.

You have to misinterpreting something. 2.5x is 4750 calories total. Athletes are eating more then that.

The key insight is that you can eat more, but your body will not consume it.

https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.aaw0341

And nobody is saying you can't expend more energy for shorter times. It is just that you can't sustain it over long times because of our metabolic limits.

During aerobic training, Nils van den Poel would average 33hrs/week (3x7hr, 2x6hr) roughly at 250W, which will be in the vicinity of 850-900kCal/hr depending on his body's efficiency, likely around 24-25%. That averages to 4250kCal/day when spread across the week. At his size and fitness level, he is probably in the 1800-2000kCal/day range for metabolic basal rate. He aimed for 7000kCal/day during aerobic training and gained 5kg during that summer on purpose. Math seems to add up to me.

Do you have the source for this? I tried ChatGPT:

>> Someone on the internet wrote "humans cannot consume more calories than 2.5x their basal metabolic rate" -- which study might they be quoting?

> I am not aware of a specific study that states that humans cannot consume more calories than 2.5x their basal metabolic rate. Basal metabolic rate (BMR) is the amount of energy a person needs to maintain basic bodily functions such as breathing and digestion, and it can vary greatly depending on factors such as age, sex, and muscle mass. However, the total daily calorie needs of an individual also depend on their level of physical activity and other lifestyle factors. So, it's likely that this statement is a generalization or an over simplification.

https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.aaw0341

"Incorporating data from overfeeding studies, we find evidence for an alimentary energy supply limit in humans of ~2.5× BMR"

A good book the topic is Herman Ponzer's "Burn"

The main issue seems the surface area of the GI tract.

Fascinating, thank you. Apparently this means the most I can gain over Xmas week is 2.45kg, which is reassuring.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com