Trying to work out my Lactate Threshold - Page 2

YOu are likely misinformed about the amount of anaerobic contribution for a 10 minute event. Still looking at those outdated tables one can find in textbooks by Katch and McKardle?

Let's not go any further. I tried to help. Time to call it a day. Take care.

Not at all. I'm merely saying that anaerobic capacity, which will play a part in such an event (10-mins) there wil be inter-individual differences. That therefore precludes a specific ratio for every cyclist (as does other differences). There is always going to be a range of percentages that will suit a majority of cyclists rather than a specific point.

While i use different values, the idea is similar. From a MAP test i use a range that will predict the powers or set training zones at lower intensities -- for e.g., i suggest that ~1-hr TTpower is ~ 72 - 77% of MAP, i.e., it isn't a specific point (e.g., as in the case of 0.9032).

Ric

__________________
http://www.cyclecoach.com

On average, if one has equal power to endurance, it is going to be at or quite close to 90.32% of 10 minute time trial power for a one hour performance, i.e.

A 72-77% is underestimating 60 minute time trial power, I will suggest, by quite a bit. It is more like 87.5%, on average, of MAP (assuming you are using a 7:00 time trial test for MAP).

this makes no sense

not in the slightest -- the 72 - 77 % covers a wide range of abilities include world hour record holders to more modest riders. However, MAP is not a 7-min T, see http://www.cyclingnews.com/fitness/?id=powerstern

ric

__________________
http://www.cyclecoach.com

Thanks for all the info guys!!!

The difficulty I have with the 10minute thing is the same as I have for 60minute TT, regardless of whether it gives the same result. I'm never confident I'm REALLY at 100%. The race this past weekend convinced me of this. I had previously tried 1hr TT tests and fairly consistently averaged 165 -170, and yet in the race I averaged 173 for almost 2 and half hours. Maybe I just lack sufficient motivation during my individual training. On the other hand, Ric, you make a good point about HR being variable with factors other than workrate. Do you think the adrenaline/excitement of the race setting (I'm pretty new to racing) could raise my heart rate independant of workload? (I also take your point that training based on power output rather than HR would be the cat's pajamas, but I can't shell out the dough to get a power meter on my bike right now.)

For now what I've done is to set my "Threshold" training zone at 170-175, even though this exceeds any previous 1 hour TT number. For training I'm trying twice per week to get in 2 or 3 fifteen to twenty minute pulls in this range. In the between days I'm trying to stay in my "Aerobic" training zone which I'm calling 150-170, although it's hilly where I live, so I wind up spending a teeny bit of time above 170 no matter what I do. I try to take no more than 1 day a week off and get in one longer ride of 30-40 miles (Yeah I know . . . not really so long. It is for me though, all I have time for most days is 12 to 15.) I'm not (deliberately) doing anything right now above what I'm calling my threshold (170-175), as I feel like I need to get a better base first.

Does this sound somewhat reasonable if my goal is to increase my "Flats" cruising speed and "Long steady, not horribly steep" hill climbing pace?

Thanks again and Best regards,
Jeff

PS - Nick, I actually live in Cambridge, so the Balloon Fest race is a hometown event for me. See you there next year if not some other event sooner!

My hour power is 93% of my 10 min power. My wife's hour power is 87% of her 10 min power. As Ric alluded to, this difference is due to the fact that my anaerobic capacity* is a little lower than average, whereas hers is far greater than average (especially for a woman). Not suprisingly, then, I'm better in longer road TTs, whereas she's a former national champion in the pursuit.

*Although the absolute contribution of anaerobic metabolism to a 10 min effort is quite small, it isn't zero - furthermore, from a functional perspective one definition of "anaerobic capacity" would simply be "resistance to muscle fatigue during exercise at an intensity greater than critical power/maximal lactate steady state."

Read more about testing for maximum aerobic power by Dr. Guy Thibault, scientific consultant for the Canadian Cycling Association, and you will find that he and Dr. Perronet, mavericks in the field, use a 7 minute maximum aerobic test for cycling, speed skating, running, and swimming.
Dr. Billat of France uses 6:00. Dr. J. Daniels uses 8 or 9 minutes. I suggest that around 7 minutes is ideal, and I have found it to be so in the human performance lab. In the above posts, I gave the 10 minute figures because it is a nice even number, and it works well for cyclist who aren't accustom to getting up to top speed in a hurry. It will, therefore, serve as a solid predictor variable to use when extrapolating performance out to the 60 minute mark.

By the way, the average percentage used for a 60 minute run or spin on the bike is 87-88% of maxium aerobic power for elite athletes; not 77% or less, as you state. I can site the science literature sources, if you want me too. I can also ask my friend, Dr. J.T. Daniels, who say 88% is the right number, to be my source for you, too. We all need to be open to new ideas, isn't that right? Class is in session for all of us, no doubt.

Response:

Actually, the percentages that you state for you and your wife do not mean that you have a higher anaerobic power than she does; relative to maximum aerobic power. You have it switched. The fact is you ride along at a higher percentage of your maximum aeorbic power because you have excellent aerobic efficiency. Your wife has less aerobic efficiency than you. Sprinters normally have superior anaerobic capacity, especially relative to their total metabolic max, and therefore are unable to ride at high percentages of their maximum aerobic power/capacity.

Take a sprinter/middle distance cyclist who is stallling out in their performance improvements and you will find that they are not cycling at a high enough percentage of their MAP. Two ways to solve the problem. 1) Do more aerobic volume to elevate lactate removal. 2) Deliberately do less anaerobic capacity training to reduce the overwhelming anaerobic engine supressing aerobic capacity. Consult Dr. Jan Olbrect of Belgium for further details or email to researchers at the Cologne Institute of Sport. They are the gents who created the Soviet Bloc (including East German) sports engine.

According to the figures you shared with us, it is no wonder than you are an excellent distance cyclist and she is better suited for the short events.

Regards, Tom

[QUOTE=ric_stern/RST]this makes no sense, you state, regarding my comment that on average, if one has equal power and endurance.

Think about it globally. I am stating that if one has equally put time, energy, and sweat into maximizing their power and endurance capacities, then the term average applies to the basic concept related to the overall percentage of maxium aerobic power that can be maintained for a 60 minute ride at full effort. If I was to general, appologize.

too general

and earlier, cite, not sight

I type fast sometimes. Hope this is more clear!

Perhaps you should read the link i provided previously. It is clear that MAP is protocol sensitive. In other words the ~ 72 - 77% is for the protocol i use, which is the same/similar as British Cycling. Again, you cannot state with any certainty that 60 min TTpower is a specific (to one % point) % of 10-min (or whatever power). There are always differences between individuals.

I don't believe that any self-respecting sports scientist would suggest a specific point either. See Dr A Coggan's responses previous to this reply.

Ric

__________________
http://www.cyclecoach.com

Tom, are you typing too fast, or is English not your first language? Andy stated the opposite of what you've written -- i.e., he has a lower anaerobic capacity compared to his wife



relative to maximum aerobic power. You have it switched. The fact is you ride along at a higher percentage of your maximum aeorbic power because you have excellent aerobic efficiency. Your wife has less aerobic efficiency than you. Sprinters normally have superior anaerobic capacity, especially relative to their total metabolic max, and therefore are unable to ride at high percentages of their maximum aerobic power/capacity.
surely a sprinter works at intensities that are supra-maximal, i.e., above MAP. Whereas as middle distance cyclist (i've no idea to what event you're referring here, maybe a pursuiter as that was what Andy was talking about with his wife?) will have to race at a higher percentage of their MAP compared to a cyclist who competes in longer distance events, as intensity is inversely related to duration.

ric

__________________
http://www.cyclecoach.com

Oh, so sorry! I misread the quote while in a hurry at work. Indeed, Ric, we have the same opinion on this matter. Andy rides at a higher percentage because his anaerobic component is not overbearing. I will suggest that Andy needs to do more anaerobic work if he decides to race in events shorter than 60 minutes to reach his potential. However, maybe Andy wants to do long races, say 2 hours plus and the ability to suppress anaerobic contribution is important in such a case. If Andy elevates both his aerobic threshold and his lactate threshold then he will likely improve substantially in both shorter and longer events. Good luck, Andy!

This would be the case for any cyclist or athlete involved in endurance events (whether the race was 4-minutes or 4-hours) - if you mean raising the absolute power of his aerobic threshold (whatever that is) and his LT. If on the other hand you mean he needs to raise the % of his LT to MAP (whichever definition of MAP you use) then you're so far off the mark that it's almost funny.

ric

__________________
http://www.cyclecoach.com

Tom,
I'm afraid you're full of something here mate. You quote a four digit conversion factor for 10-minute to 60-minute power - which is impossible to fit all people as AWC is a large % of 10-min power, can vary widely amongst individuals and training status, and is a much smaller percentage of 60MP.

Point #2 is even worse: power and speed do not scale linearly. A typical 10-min TT effort say at 45 kph: Speed is proportional to Power ^(1/2.7).

So scaling power AND speed by the same factor is completely and utterly wrong (I did not hear you mention a 10-min hillclimb!).

rmur