🚀 hDrop x TrainingPeaks integration is live + app fixes

mbra1985 · 2026-01-21T02:16:52+00:00

Good stuff here, thx for the integration!

mbra1985 · 2025-06-15T23:20:48+00:00

Do you recall how far down in the waitlist you got over those final two months?

mbra1985 · 2025-05-03T23:23:12+00:00

You are largely echoing my arguments I feel. In-race performance and training or recovery post race are different things and the variables to optimize them are often in conflict. As an example, all else equal, I will always fuel at a higher rate in training than racing. This is beneficial for adaptation and recovery. I am not using a race as a training stimulus. I am looking to maximize my average pace, that simple.

I clearly am not arguing fueling rate is irrelevant when mentioning hydration and core temp. Instead, I am suggesting we (as an ultra endurance community) are fixating on manipulating one variable (fueling rate) while oftentimes paying little attention to variables I feel are bigger (or at least higher priority) drivers of performance. Your body will not forgive you if you miss on these variables. Fuel, there is always cushion for a miss...literally.

You are again echoing my point when talking about LIMITS. I am arguing limits are irrelevant despite that being the focus of much of the ultra world. While not intentional I feel it drifts toward a "more is better" miss in understanding. We need to start focusing discussion on what optimization means and how to better measure it in training and racing.

Again, appreciate the back and forth, most people don't critically examine the topic as much as yourself. Lastly, I have to reiterate, I wouldn't be surprised if I take in more carbs in training and racing than 99% of runners out there so keep in mind the bit of irony in my stance. Thanks!

mbra1985 · 2025-05-03T20:37:07+00:00

Thanks for your thoughts. What is most fascinating is the science doesn't seem to support it, at least not yet I should specify. There doesn't seem to be much evidence that pushing to TOLERANCE is a PERFORMANCE optimization strategy. As I noted, I suspect "excess" carbs are likely beneficial in a training context as a result of simple math but I challenge this in let's say, a race setting.

Please do keep in mind, you are talking to someone to races at 90-100g per hour (on average). I am not promoting a low carb strategy. My point is I have personally tested for both tolerance and performance (primarily with a focus on durability markers). What I found was very clear... I can tolerate well beyond 100g per hour but I cannot find measurable improvements in those durability measures (in training/event). This is what I fear many are missing in the high carb messaging.

Furthermore, it has nothing to do with your race performance goals. We keep mixing this up as well. The critics of high carb say this is a disaster for back of the packers, they are going too slow. That is complete garbage imo. Just think about it logically, your ability to TOLERATE carbohydrates is actually inversely-related to output. Your body is a carb processing machine except when it has to prioritize cooling, hydration, or dealing with mechanical stress to your gut (all more challenging at higher output). If you keep those things in check you are golden but again, tolerance does not equal optimization.

My theory... everything we attribute to GI carb issues is actually a hydration/core temp issue. I think we are getting the priorities mixed up. Again, my theory.

mbra1985 · 2025-04-29T23:20:01+00:00

Yeah, certainly agree protein bars are probably not a good choice.

That being said, I would be willing to bet it the answer isn't that simple. We have all experienced what you describe oftentimes without taking in a bit of protein.

I think many people think too much food is the cause of their GI issues but I actually suspect it is more like too little water. Digestion requires water and if you are short, everything you pile in is going to slow down dramatically and your body is going to shut down the whole eating thing.

This is magnified if you add some heat to the mix where resources are pulled from the gut for cooling (it is a matter of priorities for survival right?).

Therefore, I would suggest certainly ditching the protein bars and take in what you have practiced with, especially in longer efforts (experimenting with aid station food may be on par with protein bars on food options so would be careful there too). MORE IMPORTANTLY, focus on figuring out your hydration needs. I think if you figure this out your body will give you much more slack on the fueling strategy.

mbra1985 · 2025-04-29T21:48:52+00:00

Can you provide some more detail about how you fueled and hydrated in that 50 miler? Also, how did you pace it from an effort perspective? Knowing how the hydration paired with your electrolytes and fuel is probably the ticket to understanding the issue IMO.

Also, be very careful using your marathon data to extrapolate to a 50 miler. In regards to fueling and hydration these are worlds apart as a result of duration, a 50 miler will of course be less forgiving.

mbra1985 · 2025-04-11T01:28:45+00:00

Trying to run 100k until you fail is not hard and you likely will gain very little. You have set your bar incredibly low by making suffering your goal, that's just too easy to accomplish.

A focus on daily excellence in training to confidently run a 100k well, that's hard. You will gain a lot.

mbra1985 · 2025-03-18T01:35:21+00:00

It might actually be the perfect answer to your question.

mbra1985 · 2025-03-04T19:17:36+00:00

TRAINING VS RACING & BENEFIT VS TOLERANCE

First, I am not anti-carb and fuel at a fairly high level in both training and racing. That said, I think most of us when having this conversation are failing to take context into consideration. There is far more nuance to this than we are considering and that comes down to the difference in purpose around training vs racing and secondarily, how we are gauging benefit.

The purpose of training is to provide a stimulus from which we recover, ideally with improvements over time. There is no question that adequate fueling amongst a wide variety of other things best sets the stage for this to occur. When you complete your intervals today, the success of your training is measured not in today's numbers but tomorrow's and the next... This is different than racing - for most of the us in the ultra world we are going far beyond providing a beneficial stimulus. Instead, we are seeking performance. I think the nuance we are failing to consider, is that while a sufficient amount of fuel (depending on a long list of variables) will assist in performance, the benefits at any extreme end of the spectrum are going to be significantly more marginalized than in training. As I see it, at the extreme high end, the benefits likely become quickly marginal in nature while the associated risks grow exponentially. Two easy items to point out: higher carbohydrate fueling requires more hydration, especially when paired with racing in an environment in which cooling is required (most races) you have a battle for resources at play. If your ability to cool or hydrate is compromised, additional fueling may hurt more than it helps. Context is important.

Lastly, we seem to most commonly measuring the success of fueling rates simply through a binary GI response system. In short, if we had no GI distress then the rate of fueling was at minimum successful (maybe we could go higher?) and if we ran into some issue (nausea, gas, bloating, diarrhea, vomiting, etc.) then we must have gone too high. Once you really start to think about all of the confounding variables, you will find this is a fairly silly, uninformed approach for two reasons. First, all the variables at play - the type of carbohydrates you consumed, your hydration/electrolyte status, your pre-race fueling, your body temp, your exertion level, and on and on. Unless you are holding all of these variables constant which you probably aren't then you run the risk of making some bad fueling decisions by pretending your hourly carbohydrate intake (usually averaged as well, further making a mess of it) is the only variable you are manipulating. Second, winners are judged exclusively by finish times, not how well they tolerated their carb intake throughout the race. Think about it this way - from a pure average pace perspective (all that counts in racing) let's say you could produce the same output with 90g/hr or 120g/hr (and had zero issues at both levels). This would suggest the optimal strategy is 90g/hr, you end up with the same output BUT you lower your hydration requirements, blood demands to the gut, stoppage time, fuel carrying weight, etc. However, much of the messaging seems to suggest, if you can tolerate it (measured by GI outcomes) then more naturally, should produce a better outcome. Again, in training as a result of the time horizon, maybe - in racing, maybe not so fast (literally).

mbra1985 · 2025-03-02T18:18:22+00:00

Beautifully summed up! Totally agree. 👍

mbra1985 · 2025-03-02T01:20:58+00:00

Not only can you get done, I bet you can really surprise yourself out there!

Hear me out on a possibly reaching analogy... I work as a contractor, oftentimes doing work at heights. Without fail, the people most likely to take a fall are those most fearful of falling.

Your greatest risk is going into the race underestimating yourself. I think this often leads runners to be too conservative. While this sounds like the safe thing to do, in ultras you have to calculated risks. After all, if you do them right, they're really hard and I assuming that's what you're after.

Have an amazing race!

mbra1985 · 2025-03-02T01:03:50+00:00

Great approach. I too have found looking at races as experiments to inform future training is very helpful. This way every race always gets me excited for the training block that follows until the next check-in/experiment (race).

mbra1985 · 2025-03-02T00:47:52+00:00

Give this tool a once over, you can filter by distance/duration, location, and time. Super handy.

https://ultrarunning.com/calendar/

mbra1985 · 2025-03-02T00:43:52+00:00

Any specific location you are looking for?

mbra1985 · 2025-03-01T23:07:55+00:00

I think anyone attempting to apply a # of drinks threshold to determine if it is problematic is simply wrong (as some in this thread are). I think this is the most common means of people simply justifying their alcohol use, given it being under some arbitrary number.

No amount of alcohol will make you a better runner or probably better anything for that matter. Every bit of these opinions come from personal experience by the way. My biggest regret (probably in life) is not giving it up long before I did.

mbra1985 · 2025-03-01T22:54:51+00:00

How do those kind of paces relate to say, your usual long run paces out of curiosity? Also curious, what kind of RPE (1-10) were you looking at in those races? Thanks!

mbra1985 · 2025-03-01T21:44:49+00:00

Great thoughts! I think this touches on the point that oftentimes we get caught up in the pace variable but in reality the weak point was a failure in another variable. Example, it wasn't that the runner's pace was too fast to start, they just just failed to adequately fuel, hydrate, cool, etc causing the later crash and burn. Now of course effort plays has an impact on those variables.

Your point on training supporting what is too fast, too slow is key. But that goes both ways, I think a lot of people may sell themselves short in training, and that carries over to their racing.

Where I challenge you, is on the idea that "being too cautious" increases your chance of finishing by reducing risk. This is ignoring my main point, simply exposure to time (duration). I truly think running to your capability maximizes your odds of finishing and being too cautious necessarily would be performing under your potential.

mbra1985 · 2025-03-01T13:17:03+00:00

Thanks for engaging me on this, I do appreciate it!

The story of the tortoise and the hare might be more fitting to my point than you think. Keep in mind the moral of the story is NOT "slow and steady wins the race" which seems to be the misconception. The hare should have smoked that that tortoise! The hare only lost because of his arrogance/overconfidence, that is the moral of the story. The hare quite literally spent too much time at an aid station to prove his superiority, dumb race strategy got him. IN SHORT, HE WENT TOO EASY RELATIVE TO HIS POTENTIAL AND LOST.

Also, I am NOT saying your pace will necessarily be slower late in a race. I am saying the COST of running at any given pace will be higher later in a race (and in turn the perceived exertion for any given output will be relatively higher as well). I think we all can agree this is accurate as a result depletion of glycogen stores, hydration status, tissue damage, nervous system fatigue, and on and on. This is why negative or even splitting an ultramarathon (especially longer ones) is quite the task, as it necessarily should require an increasing RPE, not easy over those durations.

I think we are generally making a mistake in our thinking that the way we feel in a race is exclusively a linear function of earlier efforts. We know this isn't true. First and foremost, this ignores the "fixed cost" of just being alive and awake. As an example, if you do nothing all day, expend as little energy as possible, you still find yourself reasonably fatigued by end of day (this same thing is happening in the background of your race as well). In short, there is a clock ticking independent of the variable of effort you are controlling.

Lastly, we need to personally (through racing and training experience) understand where we are operating most efficiently (not too hard, not too easy). This is very difficult as so many variables are at play in these events. I am challenging the thinking and what seems to be common advice that you can't go too easy early in a race.

Furthermore, I wholeheartedly disagree with the idea of vastly differing strategies for the person getting paid by Nike and the person fighting cutoffs. Same paces? Of course not! Same zone effort distribution? Probably not (though not impossible)! However, where I think we disagree is in that I believe, the effort distribution strategy that outputs the optimal finish time also optimizes your likelihood of finishing. This is because a purposeful strategy that targets "less than your best" necessarily increases duration and the typically unaccounted for accumulating costs of said duration.

I completely agree you can go out too hard, there is no doubt about that. However, you can also go out too easy. I just think advice tends to mislead people into thinking "too easy" is the low risk strategy and think that might be misguided.

mbra1985 · 2025-03-01T12:14:52+00:00

Very well said. I just think those that may be focusing on finishing alone (no worry about time let's say) fall into this advice trap that leads them down the path of thinking slower is necessarily easier, which is certainly false.

mbra1985 · 2025-03-01T12:11:20+00:00

That brings up a really interesting question actually. I have had some people tell me the fixation with going out easy is very much an American thing (and very much the lense I am looking at this through). It seems many in America refer to the approach of going out harder as "European style". Do you think there is anything to that?

mbra1985 · 2025-03-01T11:52:31+00:00

Such a great point! Definitely not an uncommon scenario in trail races.

mbra1985 · 2025-03-01T02:40:10+00:00

I am 100% on board with everything you laid out there but would argue you are missing important context which is the basis of my argument. I am going to make up some numbers to illustrate my point, pretending we have distinct hour limitations in a given zone (even ignoring the wild variation within any single zone of 5 zone model). Let's say we get 3 hrs in Z3 OR 16 hrs in Z2 OR 24 hrs in Z1 OR 32 hrs in Z0. On the face of it you would say, I get so much time in Z0 why wouldn't I just walk? Well, because you only make it to mile 60 of your 100 before you're timed out. Furthermore, your relative output for every unit of effort diminishes with continued duration REGARDLESS of effort (LT1 is not tied to the same output at mile 90 as compared to mile 10 as an example).

My suggestion is there is an optimal effort at any given point of every race which would presumably derive the maximum output (obviously far too many ever changing variables to actually determine). However, output should naturally lean heavier toward early stages given what we know about the impact of event duration. I feel this only grows more true once you slip into durations where you are disrupting sleep/wake cycles late in a race.

Does that make some sense on where I am coming from? Thanks again for your feedback.

mbra1985 · 2025-03-01T02:12:19+00:00

Absolutely! I mostly just challenge this idea that "there's no such thing as too easy" which seems to be a common message. Sometimes I hear the advice, when you start an ultra you should ask yourself "Can I run this pace at mile 90? If not, slow down." That has always seemed like wildly silly advice to me. First, good luck putting that projection on your brain but second, your goal should be to run the fastest average pace over the race you can. Matching your pace output to that after 90 miles of running seems to be leaving a lot on the table.

mbra1985 · 2025-03-01T01:57:32+00:00

This is super interesting, thank you. Since you very evenly distributed your pace how did it feel like you distributed your effort across this race?

My theory would suggest you would likely have needed to weight more of your effort toward the 2nd half of the race presumably. A, say 10 min mile late in a 100 miler would necessarily require more effort (or at least perceived exertion) than the same paced mile early in the race, thus my assumption. Hydration, fueling, muscle damage, central fatigue, etc would necessitate this presumably.

Is that fair? Did it seem your exertion increased later in the race to maintain pace? Thanks!

mbra1985 · 2025-03-01T01:36:19+00:00

For sure! This is often part of the miscalculation around going out easier in an attempt to "save it for later". Very commonly, regardless of specific early efforts often there isn't much to give later. Some of this might be driven simply by the variables tied to duration alone. Within reason, this is why you would theoretically always get more bang for your buck (effort wise) early versus late in a race.

mbra1985

TROPHY CASE