New Research on Torque Training, Ketones, Carb Loading and Pacing
Why It Matters
Understanding which training modalities truly boost power and endurance helps athletes allocate limited time and resources efficiently, while the costly ketone protocol underscores the need for evidence‑based investment decisions.
Key Takeaways
- •High-torque sprint intervals boost sprint power and muscle size.
- •Low-torque 5x4‑min intervals show limited gains over control.
- •Post‑exercise ketone supplementation (50 g/day) improves 30‑min TT performance.
- •Ketone protocol is costly; benefits appear after sustained 8‑week use.
- •Coaches should weigh opportunity cost before adding torque or ketone sessions.
Summary
The episode of the Scientific Triathlon podcast examined two recent studies: one on torque‑training intensity for cyclists and another on post‑exercise ketone supplementation during an eight‑week endurance program. Both researchers and host Michael Ericson broke down the methodology, outcomes, and practical relevance for triathletes. The torque study randomized cyclists into a control group, a high‑torque sprint protocol (five 7‑stroke sprints at 70% maximal torque), and a low‑torque 5‑by‑4‑minute interval group (≈35% maximal torque). While both intervention groups outperformed controls in a 20‑second sprint, only the sprint group showed measurable gains in peak power and quadriceps cross‑sectional area; the low‑torque group yielded no statistically significant advantage. The ketone study gave cyclists 25 g of ketone monoester after training and another 25 g before bed, five days a week for eight weeks. Results showed a 4% improvement in 30‑minute time‑trial performance and a 6% rise in VO₂peak versus placebo, but the protocol cost roughly $1,800‑$3,000 per athlete. For coaches and athletes, the findings suggest that brief, high‑torque sprints can be integrated with minimal fatigue risk, whereas low‑torque intervals may not justify their training time. Ketone supplementation may enhance performance, yet its high expense and delayed benefits demand careful cost‑benefit analysis before adoption.
Comments
Want to join the conversation?
Loading comments...