What's YOUR creatine level.

So, what's the level of creatine in your blood?
Don't know?

Let me put it like this.
British Cycling, the organization that is in charge of cycling in the UK (and, incidentally, issued the racing licences held by Mr Wiggins' and Mr Froome) say they have been using it on their cyclists for a decade (their words).
Apparently, creatine increases endurance, and that extra endurance allows harder training, which is why it is associated with extra muscles. It is not the creatine as such that gives you the muscles, it is the extra training it allows.

I took creatine supplements of about 9mg a day for 3 weeks in the Summer (along with some BCAA supplements and some multi-vitamins). Whether it helped me, I don't know, because I have no control to compare it to. The three weeks, I am assured by my body-building friends (body-builders tend to be creatine fanatics!) wouldn't have added much muscle, but I "probably" got the endurance benefits. Summer over, and I stopped taking it again. Within a month or so it would have all been pee'd out of my body.

So, do I know MY creatine levels?
Well, actually, I kind of do.
It has been measured during several of the other sets of tests I have had over the years.
Here are my numbers (no supplements involved - these are my "natural" numbers)
1st April 2008 (age 43) = 68 umol/L
16th June 2009 = 63 umol/L
23rd June 2009 = 68 umol/L
30th June 2009 = 69 umol/L
7th July 2009 = 69 umol/L
28th July 2009 = 64 umol/L
9th December 2009 = 57 umol/L
18th February 2013 = 61 umol/L
13th October 2015 = 62 umol/L

Apparently, "normal" is between 63 and 111 umol/L.
It is safe to conclude, therefore, that I have pretty low levels of creatine, and I sometimes fall below the "low" end of the "normal" range.
Extra creatine, therefore, could well be expected to have a significant effect on me, which is why I took it.

Do you take sports supplementation?
Do you know your "natural" levels, or are you just taking them because everyone else does?
For serious sport, there is always the medical exemption. A guy like me, with the various long-term health issues I have piled up over the years, could get an exemption from loads of stuff that would get other people banned :-)
(As a side issue, what makes you think that some of the KOMs on Strava weren't set by blatantly doping athletes!).

Creatine turns out to be "legal" for sport. I suppose it is because you can get a lot of it just from eating a weird diet!

So what do YOU think about "legal" sports supplementation? Should only dietary-induced creatine be OK?
What about the most popular supplementation - caffeine.
Good bad or ugly?
Let me know what you think.

Training Peaks - worth a look?

Massive overtraining (circled in red) recorded in Training Peaks... or not.

I'm giving Training Peaks a try. I'll get onto a fuller review at a later date, but here are a few snippets to start out.

1. The "app" seems to be an add-on to the online program, rather than being a stand-alone app.

2. There is a "free" version and a paid "premium" version. The "free" version is basically a training diary, plus the program calculates how "tough" the workout was (Tss - training stress score). The "premium" version (costs £75, $120, €105 per year) gives you the fancy graph you see above.

3. Training Peaks makes the usual "default" assumptions - no, my resting heart rate ISN'T 60 (!) and my "threshold" heart rate ISN'T 148 either!

4. The "default" assumptions can be changed, but only in the computer version, not the app.

5. The amount of information is almost overwhelming. Be prepared to a lot of reading up on various topics to get the best out of Training Peaks.
Or get a coach that can do it for you!

6. Training Peaks, even in the "free" version, allows some pretty fancy analysis - stuff that "free" Strava users can only dream about.

"Premium" users get to see the graph at the top of the page which allows even more analysis.

For example, do you know when you are recovered enough from a hard training session to take on an event? How long should your tapering period be? (If you don't taper, then I think "premium" Training Peaks might be a bit beyond your needs for the moment. Even I taper!)
(update: Strava has a "fitness and freshness" page in "Premium", but it was really Training Peaks that started this stuff!)

7. Training Peaks assumes you start logging you rides etc. from a low level of fitness. So you look ("premium" version only) like you are getting massively fit in the first few weeks, but are so fatigued that you should be unable to walk, let alone train. I "preloaded" about 2 months of estimated activities to "flatten out" the initial training figures. Another few months of "real" activities, and the graphs will be showing sensible numbers ... An example can be seen in the picture at the top of the post ("premium" version only), where Training Peaks has assumed my fitness level is far lower than it actually is, and the area I have marked in red would normally be showing a dangerous level of overtraining, but it just a "getting going" artifact.
See the update section further down for an example of a more sensible graph that I have preloaded with the bulk of my major activities going back about 4 months. Yes, I really do perform about 100 TSS points of activity at medium intensity on 5 days or so a week!
You can set "start fitness" numbers in Training Peaks, but without a coach, or a friend who uses Training Peaks, how would you know what numbers to start at?

8 ... Which leads to the next point. If you are going to switch to Training Peaks, then do so when doing general training in the "off-season", NOT while doing structured training in the run-up to an event. Training Peaks relies on quite a few months of data input to give realistic (and useful) graphs (I'm getting bored of writing it, but, again, premium version only).
I believed I have helped things along by loading up about 4 months of activities, including a lot of manual entries to cover the stuff that I don't bother logging on Strava - I don't wear an HRM 14 hours a day, you know!

9. For me, the best feature is the summary graph (yep, premium version only) that shows fatigue, fitness, and "balance". The object is to get fitness as high as possible, yet get "balance" positive by the time you do an event. Exercise increases fatigue and fitness, but rest causes fatigue to fall faster than fitness (this is basically why we get fitter by doing exercise!). Too much rest, and fitness falls unnecessarily - once you are decently rested, further rest won't help, yet fitness is falling all the time. Training Peaks aims to help you get that balance right. In the picture at the top of the post, the blue line (with the shading below it) is my level of fitness, the pink line is my fatigue, and the yellow line is my balance of fitness and fatigue. In the picture above, I can see that if I had an event/race/sportive coming up, I should rest up for a few days, during which time I will lose a little fitness, but recover from a LOT of fatigue. Really, I should be trying to get the fitness line (blue) as high as possible and at the same time get the balance line (yellow) back into the "positive" range before an event/race/sportive.
But don't worry too much about my graph for the moment - the system has yet to catch up with the decent level of fitness I already have :-)

10. Like I said in 8 above, start using Training Peaks BEFORE you need it because in the first few months of use, the figures for fatigue and recovery aren't going to be that accurate unless you really are as unfit as the program assumes. Get a good few months of data in there, and it should sort itself out. See the graph further down to see how loading about 4 months of "old" activities makes the numbers look more sensible. I have kind of repeated this point because it is SO important!

11. You have a LOT of flexibility in how to enter workouts. If you do a regular thing and you work out training load (expressed as tss and intensity) then you can add a manual entry WITH the full effects showing on the training graphs ( you know what I am going to say - premium version only), rather than just the Strava way of adding it to total mileage, but not much else.
I do a physical job, so I measured the outdoor part of it with my 310xt and HRM belt today. So I got an estimate of how much "training" I do as a by-product of my job. Turns out to be quite a bit. I walk about 5 miles (8km) a day, just for starters. But I don't have to measure it every day. I can just use today's figure for a manual entry for other days. Yes, every month or so, I ought to recalibrate the activity, because if I am getting fitter than I am likely to be doing the same amount of "work" at a lower heart-rate, and therefore incurring less "training". But at least I can do it like that.
I don't wear an HRM 24 hours a day, so it is good to be able to make an "educated estimate" of workload. But you have to be honest with yourself - that 30 minute gym session is unlikely to be the same as a 100km cycle session, however much you sweated!

12. No social side. You can make your training public, but if you want social, then that is what Strava is for.

13. No segments. If you want to pretend you are a top rider, then, again, that is catered for by Strava. If you want to train to be closer to actually being a top rider, then that is where programs like Training Peaks take over. Training Peaks isn't about competing with your mates, it is about competing with yourself. Segments can still be useful as training exercises, though, as part of a broader training program.

14. No little trophies and badges. Play on Strava, Train on Training Peaks.

15. Is Training Peaks better than Strava, then? Nope. It is just different, to do different things. I've met a lot of interesting folks through Strava, and picked up a lot of tips. I still use Strava. I like the badges :-) I like the social side. Indeed, my runs and rides are currently "auto-forwarding" from Garmin Connect to both Strava AND Training Peaks.
But Training Peaks has better training tools, especially in the "premium" version, as long as you are prepared to put the hours in to learn how to use those tools properly. Twelve months ago, I would have found Training Peaks rather intimidating. Since then I have read half a dozen training books, maybe 50 scientific papers on training, and a lot of general training articles and blogs. I have spoken to long term marathon runners to check that what I am reading makes sense. I did my first 200+km ride, and about 6 other "metric" centuries. I've learnt a lot, and developed a lot. I think I am ready for Training Peaks. But like I have mentioned before, it is a steep learning curve for a novice without a coach to understand all the graphs and their purpose.

There we are just a taster. I'll do a proper review in a couple of months time when I can say for certain whether the numbers have settled down after there initial rise from an assumed-low base.

Update 29th November 2015:

The first graph again, showing "start-up" artefacts even after being pre-loaded with a couple of months of (mainly) estimated data.

That;s a bit more like it. The data for the last couple of months is the same as the first chart (excepting I have added another day or two to the "current" end). But this time I have added all my big rides and every run I made that was 5km or over, stretching back to July (so about 5 months of data in total). I have similarly used estimates for the non-Garmin part of my training.Slowly rising fitness, with big improvements in "balance" when I have a few days off from work.
After all, I SHOULD have gotten fitter in November - I have run two 10Km runs, and those are the first 10Kms since late July.

So easy to come up with a basic training plan with Training Peaks.
I just entered how many hours a week I wanted as training (1 chose 10). then I enetered any big events I have, and how important they are to me.
For me the "big" event is the one in the middle of the plan (the end of June). It is the local charity "sportive" 100km ride.Then later, near the end of August, I fancy a go at beating my PR for distance in a day. I did 161km in 2014, 232km in 2015, and it would be nice to push the 300km mark in 2016.
These two events are marked with the little trophy with an "A" on it (A = the most important stuff).
I like to start the year with a January 1st ride, so I put in a 50km for that date. But if it doesn't happen, it doesn't happen. I can reschedule it for another day. So that one is just a "C" on the trophy symbol.
The plan is in grey, because it is a plan. When I actual do some of the training, the grey bars get replaced with coloured ones, so I can see what I have done, and what I still have to do.
The plan has added a "light" week on every 4th week (for recovery). Train for more than about 3 months without a "recovery week" and your chance of an injury goes up quite a bit! My busy life means I tend to get a rest week every now and then anyway!
Of course, the plan is fully customisable, so if you really know what you are doing, or you have a coach, they can fiddle with the plan to get the best from it.
But for the rest of us, a decent, sensible, "automatic" plan is a good place to start,
It even handles my "double peak" in the Summer in a sensible manner.

Weight Loss Update - almost the end of November 2015

Almost 11 months of weight loss. Down about 10 kg (22 lbs) overall.

I've been doing these monthly updates about the end of the month. But this month I know I will VERY busy in a week's time, so I'm doing this a week early.

The big "headline" is that for the 6 days I have been 86 kilos (about 190 lbs) or less.
I started the year at 96.6kg (about 212 lbs).
In the Spring I was losing weight at about 2 kilos (4.4 lbs) per month.
5 weeks ago I switched to a low saturated fat diet, and lost 4 kilos (8.8 lbs) in that time.

Because we have "fancy" weighing scales, I can check whether I am losing fat or whether I am just dehydrating (although if one lost 10 kg of body water the physical signs of that would be VERY obvious!).
I bought the new scales shortly after starting the diet which is very low in saturated fat.
This is what the scales say:
25th October 2015.
Wt 88.3 kg, Body fat 21.1%, total body water 56.9%, muscle 38.8%

24th Novemebr 2015
Wt 85.7 kg, Body fat 20.3%, total body water 57.7%, muscle 39.3%

So lets turn those percentages into weight
25th Oct: Wt 88.3 kg, BF 18.6 kg, Water 50.2 kg, Muscle 34.3 kg
24th Nov: Wt 85.7 kg, BF 17.4 kg, Water 49.4 kg, Muscle 33.7 kg

The reason why each set of numbers "doesn't add up" is because muscle also contains some water, so that gets counted twice! I suspect that body fat also involves a very small amount of water being stored.

What is important is that, in the 4 1/2 weeks I have been doing this advanced measuring, I have lost 1.2 kg of body fat.
That's actual body fat.
You can't fake it by skipping breakfast the day of a weigh-in at a slimming club.
You can't fake it by taking diuretics
It's actual body fat.

When most people say they want to lose weight, they mean they want to lose fat.
I have also lost a bit of muscle, but that may be because my fitness regime has been intentionally less that it was in the Spring/Summer.
It also demonstrates the adage that fat people have big muscles - we have to have in order to just shift our butts about!

As I have mentioned before, "real" weight loss has physical signs beyond the weighing scales.
I have lost about 2.5 inches (about 6 cm) from my waistline, and I had to buy a smaller belt.
My current pair of trousers (US: pants) have a 36" waist, my previous pair was a 38" waist.
only a couple of years ago, the 38's were getting tight, and I was considering a 40" waist!

The effect of my running is more difficult to measure as there is a "confounding" factor. Do I seem to run faster without too much effort because I am lighter, or because I have developed my muscles to run better?
Owen Barder's excellent "Running for Fitness" website suggests that my 10k time will drop by about 34 seconds for every kilo I lose in weight. So I need to do another "threshold" 10K just to see how much I can get under my previous PR, and compare that with the predicted figure for the weight loss.

Similarly, the effect on my cycling, although I haven't really tested yet, is likely to be substantial.
My bike weighs in at 18kg, but as everyone agrees that it is total weight that counts (bike and rider), the weight I have lost from myself could have been "bought" by staying fat and buying a lightweight bike.
An 8 kilo bike.
How much does an 8 kilo bike cost?
$5000?
$10000?
That's how much money I have saved by losing weight rather than get a lightweight bike!.
And before anyone suggests that I can get a 9kilo bike for such and such, I said an 8 kilo bike.
And remember, most lightweight bikes have the weight quoted WITHOUT pedals.
My figure of 18 kg is from weighing my ACTUAL bike, in full running order, pedals, mudguards (fenders), rack and all.
And guess what: - I can get Mermaid down by another kilo just by changing from my Marathon Plus tyres to a lighter tyre (like Marathon Supreme, for example - cost twice as much as "plus", but half the weight!). Cost $100 to $150 for a "quality" item.
I could take off the STEEL mudguards.
I could take off the rack.
And suddenly, compared with the diet, I am looking at staying fat and buying a bike UNDER the UCI weight limit!
Sub-UCI limit bike, or spend $150 and go on a diet.

I could take off more weight, too.
I have heavy-duty double-wall wheels with 36 spokes each. Another couple of hundred dollars would save quite a bit on the weight of the wheels.
Carbon? I'm pretty sure there are NO carbon parts on Mermaid - even the handlebars are steel!

Seems to me that only a fool would buy a really lightweight bike while still being fat.
But then, as they say, a fool and his money are easily parted.

The logic is compelling.
If you want to go faster and you are overweight, keep your hand in your pocket and lose some weight. I did and saved a fortune.
It is also easier to lose weight on a heavier bike because you have to expend more calories to get up hills etc!

Already got a lightweight bike, but you're still overweight?
Next time you want to buy a fancy upgrade part, get a "winter training bike" - something heavy and tough that can withstand rain and bad roads and salt. 

And then ride it. 

A lot.
That'll get you thinner so when you switch back to your fancy bike, the fancy bike will seem VERY easy to ride, and you'll be a good bit quicker, too.

The mistake folks make is they try to buy speed first (with a lightweight bike), then do the hard bit (losing weight and doing a lot of training) later.
What I am suggesting is that you do it the other way round.

Morning Commute Report: Saturday 21st November 2015

Left the house as usual. Weather forecast was not too promising.
Wearing "Cat" boots, with my waterproof trousers on top.
#teamplatform, of course!
Some "noob" told me last week that you can't tuck your boots inside your waterproof trousers, but I do it anyway (I have loose trousers, and use a modern variant of cycle clips to keep stuff out of the chain! The waterproof trousers are even loose enough, just, to put them on without taking the boots off)
5 thin layers on my main body, and a "helmet liner" (oversized skullcap that covers the ears).
It's about 2 C (36F), so I am wearing knitted gloves.
Reach the roundabout on the main road, and the sleet starts, quickly followed by a power outage on my side of town.
The quiet is broken by burglar alarms going off.
Suddenly, my "urban" commute under streetlighting is VERY dark.
Switch my headlight from "low" to "high", and continue, pushing hard against the 20 mph (32 kph) headwind.
I'm glad my skullcap has a bright yellow band on the lower part, to complement my hi-viz vest (make that 6 layers, including the hi-viz vest!)
My line is a little loose exiting the next roundabout, because I am having trouble locating the edge of the road. But the sleet is fairly light.
After I pass the prison, there are streetlights on again (must be a different substation or something), and it is downhill from here.
Get to work, but the heating is on the blink, so I keep my skullcap on.
Didn't see any wannabee racers out in the sleet - in fact I didn't see any other cyclists.
When I get there, John is already there. John rides MTB with cleats, and comes in early and changes into regular work boots later. The rest of us go #teamplatform, and ride in in what we wear for the day. Back in the day (20+ years ago), John was a  "sponsored" MTB rider, but that was 20+ years ago.
A while later, Richard comes in, wearing hiking boots (#teamplatform again) - he has cycled in on his bike that has a 8-speed Shimano rear hub, but he is complaining about the cold. About 6 hours later he cheers up :-)
Of the three of us, I have by far the cheapest bike, the others having arrived on bikes worth about twice what mine is. Indeed, John has quite a few bikes - a "work" bike, a "turbo trainer" bike, and a few MTB bikes. He is the only one of us with any titanium parts, but not on his work bike. John has a skullcap, too, a merino wool one, with a small peak. And a merino "base" layer. Me, I've just got merino undertrousers on. Plus my polyester skullcap. Richard, who is feeling the cold, doesn't have any merino OR a skullcap.
Just another day in the lives of 3 all-year-round bike commuters.

Long Term Review - Aldi (Crane) Cycling Jacket

Crane breathable and waterproof cycling jacket

Length of testing: about 6 weeks so far (since late September 2015)
Price: About 20 pounds ($31, 26 Euros)
From: My local Aldi store, during one of their periodic cycling promotions

Pros:

1. Colour/Color - I was looking for a yellow waterproof jacket for cycling . Some folks insist on being dressed in black, and they profoundly believe that colour makes no difference to safety, but they are profoundly wrong. Get a nice, bright, jacket! I sometimes wear red in daylight, but when it gets dim it really has to be yellow or white.
2. Waterproof - I am not a maniac for cycling in the rain, but, hey, I live in a country where it rains quite a bit (Gulf Stream and edge of a continental shelf and all that!).

Garmin 310xt at an even lower price!

Garmin have officially discontinued the 310xt, so the remaining ones are being reduced in price to clear the stock. I payed (iirc) £125 (about $190, €167) for mine, including an HRM belt, but they are now on Amazon for just £110, including postage/shipping.
That's cheaper than the Forerunner 25! (Garmin's current entry-level running watch).
OK, the FR25 has Bluetooth, and phone integration, but the 310xt is a previous model pro-triathlon watch!
You want power and features to make you a better athlete, but you are on a modest budget, then the 310xt has to be THE "value" purchase out there!

So this is what you get.
Bike : £500 max
Tools: £100
Garmin 310xt with HRM: £110
Stages 105 power meter or powertap g3  wheel: under £600

Forget the rest. For £1300 quid YOU can be a monster rider.

You could substitute the 310xt for the also discontinued Edge 500 (Wiggle is currently clearing them out for just £120, with premium hr belt and cadence sensor).
However, for the "value" athlete, running will form part of your program, and an Edge 500 isn't that good for running!

What many folks actually do:
Bike (maybe on bike to work scheme)  £1000
Fancy cycle clothes £300.

Which do you think will go faster after 6 months of training?
The £500 bike plus the "training" stuff, or the £1000 bike with the rider looking very sophisticated?

If you have big bucks, buy what you want, but for value and features, nothing matches the 310xt!

Not got £1300?
Then drop the power meter, and that lowers the budget to just £710.
Power meters allow pacing for rides to be worked out. Heart rate is a bit variable, but as long as you eat properly and go to bed nice and early every night, then they make good pacing tools, too.

My budget was, I guess, only about £500, that's why I have a 18kg (40 lb) bike!
But I still have the 310xt - a well- trained rider on a heavy bike will wipe the floor with a novice on a fancy lightweight bike over any distance more than, say, 50km (30 miles).

Remember, this is old stock being shifted, and once they are gone, they are gone.
It could be a good couple of years before the "replacement" ( the 910xt) is offered at anything like so good a price!

No longer overweight - 10 months on the "Exercise" diet, with a new diet twist for the last couple of weeks

10 months of a diet high in exercise, with a diet low in saturated fat , and still high in exercise, for the last couple of weeks

Just a quick summary, as I already trailed the "big news" a few days back - I am now the lightest I have been for the last 15+ years.
There is always "physical" evidence of the sort of weight loss I have achieved this year - I have just moved from a pair of 38" waist trousers (which fitted a little closely) to a pair of 36" trousers (which fit comfortably). The trousers are the same style from the same supplier, so barring minor manufacturing differences, they should be the essentially the same, apart from the size.