Please interpret my lactate test results!

Can anyone tell me, based on this, what heart rates I need to be holding for long (=about 2 hours for me!) rides in order to see any aerobic development? Or even how I might determine the zones 1-5 in which to train that I've read about?

Cheers for any help, a bit clueless about what to do with these test results now I've got them!

Power: Lactate: HR:
150...... 1.2 .....127
170 ......1.6........ 132
190 ......1.4 ......132
210 .......1.1...... 137
230 .......2 ........143
250 ......1.7....... 144
270 .......2 ........149
290 .......2.3 ......152
310 .......3.7...... 157
330........ 4.7 ......161
350....... 7.3 ......167

Attached Files

Book1.doc (33.5 KB, 27 views)

When you stopped at 167 bpm you were not able to continue?
I.e. can 350Watt be considered the max power output you can do? (I ask this because I can't see the typical deflection in the hr/power graph)
How long were the time intervals? Did you started with 2 minutes and then kept the work (Power*Time) constant?

The intervals were 3 minutes. No, I wasn't unable to continue but the guy doing the test said I'd passed my lactate threshold. We then switched to 1min intervals and started using a respirator to measure my VO2 max - I got to 400W before failure.

There is a marked jump in your lactic reading around 290w. I would be training there and above to raise your output at which lactic acid affects your long term ability to time trial (lactic threshold)

290 .......2.3 ......152
310 .......3.7...... 157

Before commenting, I would like to know your weight and age.

__________________
Cheers,
George.

23 years old, about 73-74kg. Been training pretty hard at endurance sports for about 4 years now but only recently got into cycling.

It it was my test results, (I wish), I would train at 70-80%, with the occasional sprint/hill to 85-90%.

However you should take the results to a good gym or cycling club. They should be able to advise, forum advice is not to be taken too seriously.

__________________
Cheers,
George.

in all honesty the people testing you should have told you this information

if you want to determine your zones i would recommend this http://www.cyclingnews.com/fitness/?id=powerstern

ric

__________________
http://www.cyclecoach.com

when you talk about the "typical deflection in the HR/power graph" do you mean the "Conconi Threshold" (which doesn't exist)?

ric

__________________
http://www.cyclecoach.com

Thanks for the link Ric. The people doing the test did give me training zones based on the results, but they weren't the same zones I'm used to training with. I've been using the system in Joe Friel's 'training bibles' with zone 1=recovery, zone 2=extensive endurace, zone 3=intensive endurance, zone 4=sub-threshold (just) and zone 5 above lactate threshold. Does anyone know how to correlate the data to those ideas?

Cheers.

'Fraid i don't as i seem to recall the HR training zones i use (when people don't have a power meter) are quite different to Friels. Your best bet, if you want to stay using Friel zones would be to ask them. I can only help you with my zones or the ones i use.

ric

__________________
http://www.cyclecoach.com

Yes, I was talking about that. I already read several times that this doesn't exist, but I still can't understand, I see it very well in my test results.
Can someone point me to a good link on the subject?

Here's a link I found interesting: http://www.lactate.com/triathlon/trwhy.htm

The conclusion may be controversial; would appreciate hearing comments.

Zone 5a (Super-threshold) would be, if you assume your LT to be where you saw the signficant increase, would be just above that. As I'm writing this reply I don't have the data you presented in front of me so I can't talk numbers. I'm assuming you have Friel's Training Bible since you referenced it. There is a section that deals with how to determine zones based upon power and heart rate information.

If you don't have the book let me know and I'll dig into it further for you.

i was going to post a link to some actual peer reviewed studies which showed some of the same conclusions as this page (i.e., that Conconi point doesn't equal anything). i assume, but haven't read all of your link that it's based on the same actual papers.

ric

__________________
http://www.cyclecoach.com