Trying to work out my Lactate Threshold - Page 3

Ric: If you don't want to read something negative about your posts, then don't read what is below. I debated about whether to get into a embroiled debate with you, but I realized that you wouldn't admit when you are wrong, nor would you see the light. I also debated about whether I should just let it go, let you continue to be admired by people who don't know any better. I went ahead and spoke my mind without getting too overheated. If you read what is below, realize I warned you. Hopefully you will go back to the drawing board and start anew. I doubt it will happen, though.


It is obvious that you have fooled a lot of people into thinking you actually know what you are talking about. You are stuck confirming the rubbish you have presented to people who had little ex. phys. background but who were eager to learn more about the sport they love. They were blank slates, open for creation. You stroked a painting in your own image which now seeps its oils and lands upon the patron's feet.

Folks, go ahead ahead train at 77% or less of max aerobic power if you think ric is right about LT training. When you don't improve in races the way you think you should, perhaps you will recognize that ric has silly ideas. All one has to do is ask Chris Carmichael or his coaches and you would find that Lance, the other Discovery riders, nor any of America's National team sure don't cycle at such a low percentage when working on LT. I knew this 25 years ago when I studied the journals from Europe where LT testing originated.

If you are ever in Italy, ask Dr. Conconi about the training of Francesco Moser (former world 1-hour record holder) about how Moser trained or Indurain's coach, for that matter is you seem him at the Giro, and you will see that they worked at or near 88% of MAP for years to improve LT. In a prallel scenario, I asked Dr. J. Daniels (a renowned running coach, former two time medalist in the Olympics in the modern pentathlon) what LT was as a percentage of max. He said, "88% of VDOT, which is my expression of maximum aerobic speed."

Next time you see Greg Lemond, ask him to tell you about LT training. He sure as heck didn't work at 77% or lower, either, nor Chris Boardman, Hinault, Riis, any famous cyclist, for that matter.

that's actually funny.

Are you a troll?

Perhaps you haven't actually read the article i pointed you to. Please read this next sentence carefully: *MAP is protocol dependent*. I'll make this simple for you: if you define MAP differently to me then the percentages will be different to the ones that i use (this is the same protocol as British Cycling, e.g., 15 W/min incremental rate for females and 20 W/min incremental rate for elite males)


You're obviously a moron. NOT EVERYONES LT IS A SPECIFIC PERCENTAGE OF VO2MAX. IT IS NOT THE SAME FOR EVERY PERSON. IT THEREFORE ISNT 88% OF VDOT (hahaha!)


having been in the lab when CB tested just prior to the Hour Record i can confirm his LT most certainly was not 77% of MAP (as defined the way that British Cycling does). It was considerably less. In fact his 1-hr TT power is/was less than 77% MAP.

I suggest you carefully read the protocol for how i define MAP (which is the same as BC). Then take your head out of your ass before replying.

Ric

__________________
http://www.cyclecoach.com

actually numb nuts, i suggest you do a MAP test the way that BC define it and then see how many seconds you last at 88% of it. clue, that's about the relative intensity that Boardman rode at to break the World Pursuit record

ric

__________________
http://www.cyclecoach.com

Ric:

You are used to getting your way, no doubt. The problem is: you are wrong.

For anyone who doubts my statement, go online to the Journal of Applied Physiology 89; 1522-1527, 2000. That is issue number 4. The authors are Sabino Padilla, Inigo Mujika, Franciso Angelo, and Juan Jose Goiriena. They are the exercise scientists who measured Miguel Indurain just prior to his world record ride. Miguel cycled at 509.5 watts during his 1-hour cycling record. His MAP was determined as 572 watts. Therefore, he rode at 89% of max aerobic power. His OBLA (their definition of LT) was 505 watts, which is 88.29% of his MAP. It is all there in black and white to read. Clear as day!

The point is this, LT occurs at an intensity equal to roughly 88% of MAP. Now, if the protocol you are using is shorter in time frame than nearly any reptuable lab, perhaps the figure you derived is lower. However, If the wattage achieved at MAP is the same as the other labs, then the LT values you are using to too low.

I am not a troll. I just so happen to know what I am talking about and it offends you because you have built a reputation and a following. I challenge anyone to searcch on google.com and look at the scientific article I mentioned above. It confirms what has been written about elsewhere in science articles and in summary papers from human performance labs around the world.

The question I have for you is this:

Is the protocol you are using accurate at predicting MAP? If it is, then the 77% or less you are saying LT is wrong. If the 77% predicts LT accurately, then the MAP you are determining is wrong. So, which one of your methods is wrong?

Ok, go ahead and bash away. It will make you feel better, but it won't change the facts.

Ric Stern wrote:

actually numb nuts, ...

Now now, Rick that's not very nice. I expect better of you.

That said, Tom you're way off base. Where did Rick say that LT training should exclusively be done at below 77% of MAP?

Oh, (Tom) and why do (eg, T-mobile) professional cycling teams do long 6 hr rides at around 34 km/hr riding in a pack? Obviously the power they ride at 34 km/hr in a pack is much less than 77% of MAP, no matter what widely accepted MAP protocol is used.

Miguel Indurain had a calculated LT threshold of 83% of his Wmax (MAP). The protocol used to arrive at his MAP used 4 minute 35 watt increments with a 1 minute break inbetween and was performed at a constant 75 rpm, and the test took over 40 minutes to complete. Obviously, such a long test would produce lower MAP values than a puny 7 minute ramp (Indurain at 573 watts, nothing to sneeze at!!) , and Indurains LT power (and 1 hr TT power) are the highest ever recorded (478 watts and about 510-520 watts) and I think his percentage of MAP he was able to sustain at LT is also the highest recorded.

So if anybody says they can hold over 83% of MAP (even with the MAP protocol being a 25 w/2 minute ramp) then I'd say that they've been training harder than Miguel Indurain.

P.S- I think my LT threshold is about 63-65% of my MAP, fortunately I have a
pretty good MAP so it's not all bad.

Good evening, gentlemen.

-Bikeguy

You're right.

apologies for that bikeguy.

ric

__________________
http://www.cyclecoach.com

Tom, let me make this simple for you; there is no standardised way of stating what MAP is. In other words there is more than one way of measuring MAP (i.e., it has multiple definitions). This is due to many different protocols being used, as e.g., as pointed out by BikeGuy above where "Mig" used a discontinuous protocol (according to Bikeguy. I don't have the paper to hand).

The protocol that i use, along with others, e.g., British Cycling, uses a continuous fast moving increment of (e.g.) 20 W/min for the test. This is often how e.g., a VO2max test is done in the UK, as it is standard for a 'max' test to finish in around 15-mins or less.

This (the one i use) is obviously a much quicker test, resulting in a higher final power output compared with the test that was used by e.g., Indurain in the Padilla paper, i.e., ~ 15-mins compared to ~ 40-mins. The discontinuous test produces a lower final power output.

Bearing the above in mind, and having *stacks* of data on a wide range of subjects (i.e., recreational to world champions) i developed my training zones paradigm based on 'that' test (i.e., one that is completed within about 15-mins). These tests for VO2max/MAP are pretty standard within the UK (and some other locations). However, some UK institutes use faster increments than i do (e.g., a 30 W/min increment or 35 W/min increment) and again this would mean that my zones would not work with such a protocol.

ric

__________________
http://www.cyclecoach.com

Thanks. I think we can be civil and work this out.


I refer you to two additional literature articles I j ust found. E.F. Coyle, A.R. Coggan, M.K. Hopper and T. J. Walters. Journal of Applied Physiology 64; 2622-2630, 1980 (issue 6). Time to fatigue at 88% of Vo2 max was 60.8+/- 3.1 minutes.

Next, go to Med Science Sports & Exercise 1991, Jan; 23 (1): 93-101. Physiological and biomechanical factors associated with elite endurance cycling performance. In that study, group 1 did a 1-hour power test at 90+/-1% of VO2 max vs group 1 which did it at 86+/-2% of VO2 max.

I understand that the British protocols are quite aggressive, but this may be overestimating VO2 max power (not necessarily overestimating VO2 max itself). I will suggest suggest an aggressive protocol overestimates the wattage (power) at VO2 max by roughly 15%.

Cheers,
Tom

However, the UK protocol may be quite reliable for predicting which athletes are going to perform at the highest levels in competition because it is aggressive. So, though I suggest it may not be good for predicting sustaniable VO2 max power for training purposes (unless mathematically corrected, which is a definiti possibility), it may predict who should represent a naitonal team in the big events and who should go home and keep training.

I thinks it is all down to using different protocol. I did a test at the university of Birmingham for Asker Jeukendrup. My percentage of Wmax at LT was 67%, i could ride at this pace for a 2hr stint maybe.

__________________
www.njktraining.co.uk

it's funny you cited this paper as you were trying to explain to A.R, Coggan that he was wrong before!

i'm not sure what you don't understand but you seem to be mixing your metrics. It's well known and well understood that athletes can exercise for ~ 1-hr at ~ 90% VO2max, i've never disagreed with this. I understand and state this all the time.

However, the 72 - 77% that you were talking about (my work) before is 72 - 77% of power output of a MAP test conducted the way that the BC do their testing. NOT 72 - 77% of VO2max.

Of course, the incremental rate that is used by the myself and the BC goes beyond the minimum power required to elicit VO2max.

ric

__________________
http://www.cyclecoach.com

Ric, please don't misunderstand me ... I think this lab testing information is very interesting. However, for the rest of us poor slobs who don't have the means to have our Lactate Thresholds tested in a lab via a ramp test with a Power Tap, which is the vast majority of us, what methods do you recommend to estimate Lactate Threshold?

1) 2 x 20 minute intervals & take the higher avg HR from the 2 intervals (almost always the second one)?

2) Friel method - do a 30 minute TT and start the lap counter 10 minutes into it?

3) Do a 1 hour TT and use the average HR?

4) Something else? Something better?

Obviously I'm not convinced about using Carmichael's method when using HR for reasons I've stated in an earlier post. It may be alright when calculating LT by power, I can't say.

And once an average HR is derrived from some test, then what standard deviation is suitable, since HR tends to vary due to food in stomach, heat, yadda yadda?

The information that is on your web site all seems to be related to power/wattage. If I've missed something I appoligize. The only thing I found was on the Interval page where you referred to 10 MI (~20 - 30 minute) TT effort here ... http://www.cyclecoach.com/articles/?...rvals&ext=.htm

Thanks in advance.

Doctor:

I suggest that you do a 10-15 minute time trial and subtract 10% or 8.5% from the result to get your estimated LT. This is the speed, velocity, or power that you likely can do for 60 minutes. A few days later, do reps of 10 minutes at the predicted intensity, noting your perceived exertion (and heart rate if that is what you like to use). If it feels like you are struggling a little, that is ok, but a lot is not ok. Adjust as needed. Regards, Tom

Thank you for responding.

So you are suggesting I use the average speed on my cyclocomputer instead of HR?

The reason I ask is because I know through experience that my HR will not get too high doing only 10 - 15 mintues no matter how hard I push. My average HR has been the highest doing 2 x 20 minute intervals and using the avg from the second interval. The first interval is always faster but my HR is lower. On the second interval my HR is higher but my speed is slower.

I agree with this entirely -- however, as i noted earlier LT is a lowish/moderate intensity (that can be sustained for several hours). I'm assuming that you actually want to know what your avg HR is for a 1-hr TT?

1-hr TT HR would be my option to establish ~1-hr TT HR... however, there are two points to add

1) this avg HR figure can and does vary due to different physical and environmental conditions. for e.g., if i TT on two consecutive days (~40-km) i can produce the same average power. However, on the 2nd day my average HR is ~ 10 b/min less. Other factors will also affect this

2) if you are trying to establish this numberfor e.g., pacing in competition it's worth noting that due to stress the figure is likely to change and go up

3) an extra one! if you're using this figure (~1-hr TT HR) to set training zones it's worth (perhaps) me pointing out that in common with British Cycling i set HR training zones based on HRmax and not TTHR -- which appears to be a common trait in e.g., the USA

I *may* have an article that uses the older HR training zones that i previously used to use, however, i now use a slightly modified set (still based on HRmax) but definitely don't have an article on that on my web site -- but that's food for thought to write one!

ric

__________________
http://www.cyclecoach.com