This is a more complex topic that I intentionally presented in a simplified way. Fat burn is not missing from the model as presented however, it is an aspect of the calories "that come off the body". I discuss some thoughts around fat adaptation in the article I mentioned (link is in the description). The TL;DR is that unless you are riding at low intensity, running off fat is not a viable strategy. If it were, we wouldn't "bonk". Some amount of your caloric debt will be covered with fat at most intensity levels. The lower the intensity, the more fat can be used to pay that debt. The body prefers glucose however. It is the quickest, and most efficient way to create the ATP your muscles need to activate. The more glucose, and things that can be easily converted to glucose (i.e. fructose), you can intake the less fat the body needs to burn. Lowering your fat requirement increases the available intensity level. This video is targeted at racing but the nutritional discussion is applicable to any ride where performance is an aspect of "success". There are many different way to define "success"; that will pivot around your goals. The approach to fueling will vary depending on what those goals are. If you're going on a 5 hour Z2 ride, with the intent to maximize fat burn, you would not want to fuel the same as a race. But, if you were going on a 5 hour Z2 ride, where the intent is to hold a more consistent power level, and be in a place where doing it again the next day, you will want to run a higher carb mix. This is probably a topic that I need to dive into further in a future video. Nutrition is a lever that we can pull. How we pull it depends on the goals for the ride, and the next ride.

The mechanism is a little unintuitive. The lever rotates separately from the axle. Turn in the axle in the open position, then close the lever to test the tightness. If it's not snug, open again and tight some more, then test. When you get to a good place, you can move the lever to the desired place without tightening the axle. Then close it to snug everything up. Hope that helps.

@@Mamilian thanks so much for the quick reply and support! Verry much appreciated! The problem I have is that the lever is too tight, so I need to untighten it, but I can't figure out how. Reading your advise, am I right to conclude that I cannot simply first snugly turn in the axle to the right snuglieness and afterwards tighten the lever? But I need to balance the tightness of the axle with the tightness of the lever? If so, this is the only way I am able to snugly tighten the lever, but this seems wrong, because now the axle is not fitted as tightly as needed.

@@bhghjhjlbhb357 kzbin.info/www/bejne/gKqmZ3anjNF4jdU

Thanks! I appreciate the "for you young guys" :D.

How would you clamp the normal post in the seat tube? I don't see how that could work; I have a Speed Concept. Even if that was an option, that's a lot of work to clamp the bike. Especially if you have Di2 with the battery in the seat post. FWIW, the easy way to work on a TT bike if you can't clamp the seat post, is to hang it from the saddle. Most TT saddles can be gently clamped as well - if you need more stability.

@@Mamilian not a lot of work. Most seatposts come in three sizes. You just remove the aero and install regular. No seat will be moved so reinstall at the same height and your off. Now it won’t work with anything other than round post holes of course.

@@tasaman I'm not aware of any modern TT bikes that have a round post. Do you have an e.g.? If you have Di2, it would be disconnection the battery, making sure the cables didn't get stuck in the bike when you stick in alternate seatpost, then getting the tape out to ensure that you put it all back together correctly. There are easier options: kzbin.info/www/bejne/nqfXmnimnciVprc

I will be fighting for the DFL award :D

If it's a medium cage (the model number is printed on the mech), you're good to go. Likely that you'll need to add a link or two to the chain.

The purpose of "rear shelf", as I understand it, is to align the rings during installation and likely also provides some level of support to the ring during use, assisting the chainring bolt so it is not the only load bearing element. I'm not sure I understand what you're asking to be compared. I provided the measurements for the respective spiders in each video. The most important number there is likely to be the width of tab where the rings are mounted (this sets the distance b/w the rings when they are installed), as this will impact shifting performance. Here we can see that the Croder spider is much closer to the spider on the Specialized Power Crank.

@@Mamilian yes, i can agree that the most important measurement is the thickness of mounting tabs.

How would you test that? With your hands? Testing component failure modes is very difficult without specialist equipment. I'm not going to build a rig that does that, not when there are alternatives that aren't designed poorly. Just to be clear, if you're cool putting that in your bike, I have no problem with that. You get to have your preferences and I get you have mine. I prefer to use things that are well designed and less likely to fail.

@@Mamilian on a bike of course, you have to pedal a bit, and you will see if it works or not ....

You're suggesting I should test a product that I have concerns around the safety and function on the bike? This isn't the kind of thing that is going to fail immediately. It's the kind of thing that will fail after use, and during use. If it fails at the wrong time, you could crash. I would rather spend the extra money to just get something that I am comfortable with. Since you commented on the other video, you've seen the difference between these spiders. I don't understand why we are having this discussion.

@@Mamilian yes, i suggest testing them before making those "statements"

If by "those statements" you mean characterizing a product which I believe to be poorly designed and potentially unsafe as poorly designed and potentially unsafe. I don't think that I need to put myself at risk to voice that opinion, an opinion that I checked with an engineer. You are free to disagree. You're free to do whatever you want. It is mind-blowing that having seen the difference between this spider and the Coder spider we're continuing to have this discussion. But hey, it is totally fine with me if you want to risk yourself over a few $. 👍

I haven't used the S-Works version. Word has it they were having issues. My new fav tire is the Schwalbe G-One RS.

@@Mamilian oh RS its also in my list, 40? 45? Easy rolling but to easy flat? Thanks again

@@gabrielmarias972 I have the 35 & 45 sizes. Generally race on the 45. Fast, comfortable, great all-purpose tire.

Do you mean b/w the air compressor and inflator? prestacycle.com/products/prestacycle-co2-compressor-adapter

you are now able to add additional activities like swimming, running, weight lifting etc.

SRAM PG-1170

@@Mamilian thanks..appreciated ! i had seen that mentioned but was unsure if it was the actual used in your test. been trying to pick a cassette so this is great.

I've used them with two different gravel bikes. Both clear a 45.

It's really hard to capture how sketchy that descent is on video; that's part of why I included the footage from the front group. There are a few factors that amp it up, like not being able to see what's coming because of the trees and the off camber turn on really loose gravel. If it was just one of those e.g., it would definitely dial back the risk. The high speed and flatness of the course doesn't help. I've never ridden in Ohio so hard to comment. Have ridden (and raced) in a few other states. Haven't run across anything quite like that one yet.

@@Mamilian I did dustbowl that and a couple times prior and I didn't really even clock that descent as being very dangerous. If I was going to call out a dangerous pinch point, I think it would be the bollards you mentioned, or that rutted out single track.

Possible it is a familiarity or subtle cues thing that folks who do that kind of thing frequently know what to expect and look for.

Thanks for the constructive feedback.

Didn't make it this year.

Eminence, IN

Unfortunately, that probably means it's broken. Making it worse, 4iiii has stopped supporting these PMs.

Schwalbe sells a similar product. Shouldn't need either with the Pathfinder Pro. It's a pretty easy mount on every rim I've tried.

Still on the hunt one I can recommend. Would also cross Xert off the list; in many ways it's worse than JOIN. Only app I've evaluated in this space that is dangerous. Plan to look at FasCat this fall (had too many events going on over the summer to risk following bad plans :))... Have heard good things about Trainer Road's new-ish adaptive training plans, but haven't tried it yet. The important bits are no more than 2-3 high intensity workouts per week, interleaved intensity and recovery days, and progressive overload. The plan should also respect your schedule and goals, and be flexible if you need to rearrange your schedule during the week (no one here is pro ;)). Bonus points if the plan incorporates core/weight work.

Unfortunately, there were external factors that made this less about race craft than might seem. There is a recap for the race where I discussed it. kzbin.info/www/bejne/eqXPeGqOeZhpisUsi=WlpzD_0bFQ5uZMfs&t=844

@@Mamilian I saw your recap doesn’t change my observation. Seems to be a common occurrence

@@tburridge56Thanks for the advice. I'm sure it's well meaning. That said, it's interesting that you've seen the recap and still offer this advice given that I discussed what happened in the moments you mentioned as an area for improvement (i.e. my back blew up). It seems like you might have missed that. In my last recap (Dust Bowl 100) I discussed why I have back issues in more detail. Moving the needle from "back blowing up ~1 hour", to "back blowing up ~4 hours" in the months b/w RR and DB is the only win I really care about. No A races on my calendar. There are a lot of things that I need to work on. The main, fairly consistent, one is with group positioning before the selections happen. I should be doing more to stay in the front wheels. But, realistically, I'm not sure that matters given my goals, and TBH, I'm not sure it would impact the outcome that much. I line up at every race knowing that I am going to lose a bike race that day. While I occasionally set time based goals (I did for RR, and achieved it - my way), most of my goals aren't focused on shaving 10-15 min off my finishing time. IMO, time/speed based PRs aren't that useful. Just so it's clear, it's totally fine for others to have these things as goals, not trying to imply that others should share my objectives. I race to motivate myself to train and to generate training load that is difficult for me to obtain outside of a competitive environment. I would rather add the TSS "doing too much work" than shave the time. Obviously, there's a balance here, but I prefer to set a 2/3/4/5 hour NP PR than reduce my finishing time by sucking wheels. That's not "racing smart". I am aware of that :).

There's an important distinction b/w a Farsports wheel and a Wheelsfar wheel. Wheelsfar take a rim that is manufactured by Farsports and pairs it with hubs/spokes that you specify. In this case I opted for DT Swiss 240 EXP (my fav) and some Sapim CX Ray. These are standard straight-pull spokes that you can have serviced at any LBS. Also, FWIW, my experience with Wheelsfar customer service has been completely fine.

Lol, you're saying you installed a wheel and the spokes came apart? Okay buddy.

@@Silidons91 OK buddy I got pictures

@@Silidons91 also the spokes they use I’ve been told by other Chinese manufactures that there is a failure rate

@@mikekochy1685 Please email me ([email protected]) the photos and a description of what happened. I've seen some reports of this issue with early carbon spokes, but I haven't heard anything recent. Happy to blog about it.

I am OK with you clamping YOUR bike ;P. The resin that holds them together that does most of the breaking, not the CF. The top tube isn't designed for compressive forces around the diameter of the tube. That's why it isn't recommended. Probably one of those things where you can do it 99 out of a 100 times with no issue, but the one time you apply too much pressure, you break the frame. We know it's a bad idea. We know why. Very much an individual tolerance for risk kind of thing.

If you're anywhere close to NE Iowa, the Big River Gravel Series races are awesome. There is always some risk in a race, but I think the organizer does a great job with the course design to mitigate most of that. And there's beer at the end :D. On the back thing. I do (and did) A LOT of core work. That was part of why I opted for surgery, PT essentially told me that there was nothing left on the table. I think planks, all the planks, are the best bang-for-the-buck. I focus on active planks (alternate touch shoulder with stable hips, both with a kettle bell and without) currently. It's a compound exercise that hits several muscle groups. Hip stability work made a huge difference in the years before I had surgery. There are a few machines at the gym that I use for that to hit the glutes/adductors/quads/hamstrings. The first time I had a massive issue with my back I started going to yoga. Down dog, up dog, crescent lunge, pigeon pose, side-bends. It was a huge help. Best wishes there.

I don't think it's fair to characterize calling out safety issues as "fear". As I said in the video, generally the course was very well marked and very well organized, but there were two elements in the course that raise the level of danger to unnecessary levels. The first is that downhill where people crash *every year*. The organizer is aware of this. The guy who won it mentioned it in his video as well. The other is a manufactured hazard at the end. Neither of these elements should be in a race. I don't think it's unreasonable to call that out. I don't think gravel specific training would reduce the risk there. These are dangerous and unnecessary features. There is risk in everything. Racing has risk. Gravel has risk. Add the two together, you get more than 2x the risk. Everyone who lines up at a race has to accept that, and I do every time I go out *to race*. What I don't want to accept is a level of risk that is artificially elevated. When a significant portion of the front group goes down in a corner, that feels artificially elevated. I wouldn't blame their bike handling skills for what happened. Having ridden that corner, I completely understand why they went down. Designing the course to break the groups apart reduces risk. It makes for a better race. I talk about this all the time, because it's true. Smaller groups of similar ability is a safer way to race. Especially on gravel. This course wasn't designed that way. Calling that out isn't *fear*, it's just a fact. But, like I said in the video - that's just something to be aware of with this race. If it was just me, maybe it would be fair to characterize it as a "me" problem. Maybe it would be fair to point out that my bike handling could be better. But, I didn't go down there. I didn't go down on the rest of the course either. I didn't ride the course slow either; probably would have gotten a sub-5 elapsed, on gravel, if my back hadn't blown up. What I did do, is notice that there were an unusual number of people sporting fresh injuries at the finish. I don't think it's unfair, or unreasonable to call that out.

@@Mamilian Fair enough. DB100 isn't for you. What gravel races do you think do this better?

@@mynameiswilson_ At this scale, Gravel Worlds. Smaller races, the Big River Gravel Series. Unfortunately, the organizer of one of my favs (Snaggy Ridge 105) stopped doing it. That would have been on the short list as well.

Racing on gravel in a mass start with 500 people of varying bike handling skills is safer than crits and RR😂

It's the wheels. Swap them for a nice set of carbon rims and you'd probably drop 2lb.

​@@MamilianTrue. Shoot, if I'm going to be in the 19 - 20 range I'll go with Litespeed titanium.