Trying to work out my Lactate Threshold - Page 4

i suggest you stop promulgating seriously erroneous information.

so far you've suggested a 7-min TT, a 10-min TT, a 10 - 15-min TT and also wanted to use the Padilla 40-min max test as starting points... Every time you change the baseline data starting point the percentages would need to change as intensity is inversely related to duration (try riding a 12hr TT at the same power as 200-metre sprint).

then you only suggest a specific point (e.g.) 10%. but have also said, 8.5% and 9.032%.

Then you you've suggested the same factor can be used whether discussing HR, power or velocity. These are three different metrics that can't be used in the same way. What happens if i do my 10-min TT uphill? i'll be doing intervals on the flat at 12 km/hr! what happens if my circuit that i test on has a net descent -- i may not be able to get to 90% speed on a different circuit. what happens when environmental conditions change?

My avg HR is higher in a longer rather than shorter TT.

Ric

__________________
http://www.cyclecoach.com

From what I've read, a 1 HR TT effort can be quite a bit higher than LT depending on the fitness levels of the individual. Would LT then be close to a tempo effort as defined between 78% - 83% max heart rate? That's about what I can sustain for 2 to 3 hours depending on fitness levels, weather, food in stomach, yadda yadda.


If I were to use, say a 1 hr TT effort to derrive an average HR for use as my LT heart rate, I would give it a few points on either side of that number for those reasons just to be safe. I just don't know how much of a standard deviation would be the right amount.


I have been using Max HR to set up training zones, which has been fine and dandy for base and aerobic conditioning. Here's the calculator I've used ...
http://www.machinehead-software.co.u..._abcc_bcf.html

It calculates heart rate values based upon the revised ABCC/BCF training guidelines which are based upon the riders maximum heart rate.

But I was curious as to a "best" way to set up some zones specifically for improving lactate tolerance, buffering and clearing. That's why I thought it might be better to set up training zones by LT exclusively for that purpose, rather than using zones derrived by max HR. LT can also change up or down with fitness levels much more rapidly in relation to max HR. Thus I would think LT would require more frequent testing to find it's value.

In other words, do base and aerobic conditioning based upon zones obtained by max HR. And do LT training using zones that are the results of a LT test. Would that be an optimum way to set up these zones using HR if one doesn't have use of a Power Meter or lab equipment where they can have the more precise tests done?

Thanks for your assistance.

...and yes, we mere mortals would probably gleen much information if you had some zones set up for us HRM types in addition to the zones you have set up by MAP on your web site.

Doctor M:

First, if you are having trouble getting your heart rate up in a 10-15 minute maximum effort time trial, it may be true that you need a much more thorough warm up. Without knowing your situation, I would suggest cycling easy for 15 minutes, the do 3 or 4 x 1 minute at a strong effort (85% effort is probably ok), spin for 1 minute between each 1 minute rep and then spin for 5 extra minutes (hydrating during this easy spin with easily consumable solution or pure water with a tad of salt in it). Then, pick out a pre-measured route that has a loop, if possible. Go as hard as possible for the distance you choose (a distance that will cover 10-15 minutes). Note the heart rate in the last minute and in the minute afteward. You may need to use this heart rate later for training purposes (eg. doing MVO2 reps - 3-5 minute reps at this effort, heart rate, power output, velocity, or speed; whatever you choose).

Four days later, thoroughly warm up, then do 4 x 6 minutes at 10-8.5% slower than the speed you averaged in the 10-15 minute time trial. Do those reps on a loop course so that any wind, for or against you, won't effect your speed or heart rate as you try to achieve the target speed. *Note the heart rate in reps 2-4. The heart rate in the last part of the first rep will probably be about 4 beats below what it will be in subsequent reps. The LT (60 minute race pace) heart rate is likey to be valuable in other situations where speed may not be as easily controlled due to terrain (downhills) or wind (at your back) or road conditions (a road surface that is slower or faster).

Additionally, if you happen to use the same loop route for the 90% or 91.5% effort reps (60 minute race pace), and your heart rate and perceived exertion go down at the normal speed, then you are probably improving in fitness. Therefore, in the shorter term, feel confident that it is ok to increase the speed to reach the target heart rate and perceived exertion.

I would recommend re-testing every six weeks for a change in your 10-15 minute full-effort performance. Re-set speeds after that test for subsequent training.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now, in reference to what I just read in ric's post, I see that he is using LT as a different term (meaning, I presume, the aerobic threshold lactate value which is lower than what traditionally used LT by physiologist). So, what we have is ric calling LT one thing and me another. LT by my definition is the world standard (an equivalent 4 mmol lactate value associated with the maximum lactate steady steady...the pace or intensity one can hold for a 60 minute race or very close there abouts). So, first, I must appologize to ric for not understanding that he was using a different version of LT than the one I have known and used. LT training, in the German Sports Schools and Soviet Sports Schools was 4 mmols and AT, aerobic threshold, was 2 mmols. They were the standards that I assumed ric was using. I was wrong. I am sorry.

Ric, I hope we can get past my error in understanding what you were defining. I agree that aerobic threshold (what you call LT) is in the 70 some percent range. By my definition, my aerobic threshold (based on the German model of Doctors Holman, Heck, Mader, and Madsen) puts a endurance trained cyclist at 77.5% of MAP on average.

Again, my appologies for not understanding your LT definiton and my appologies for causing you stress. Cheers, Tom

Based on what you have posted here, I do not believe that you do. First, you seem to think that LT and OBLA are the same thing, when clearly they are not. Second, you seem to believe that "threshold", however it happens to be defined, occurs at a fixed fraction of VO2max in every individual (out to four decimal places, yet!!), when obviously it does not. Third, you apparently expect that everyone is capable of exercising at 100% of their VO2max for 10 min, when in fact very, very few individuals would be capable of doing so, especially in a test to determine training levels or zones (vs. in competition).

My belief is that you are indeed simply trolling - in fact, based on your sometimes flowery writing style, I wouldn't be suprised if you and 'bozy' are the same individual.

ric,

I tried to be nice, but you are attacking me anyway. I think I will find another forum and leave you be. Have a good day. Tom

the only time i'm likely to attack anyone is in a road race. on the other hand i've discussed the stupidity of your posts and tried to clarify them.

I feel sorry for the other forums, and anyone that listens to your junk.

ric

__________________
http://www.cyclecoach.com

these aren't the "world standard". no exercise scientist would be daft enough to think they're the same thing.

__________________
http://www.cyclecoach.com

I concur w/ Ric: I don't know any exercise scientist who would call OBLA (or maximal lactate steady state, the lactate minimum, the individual anaerobic threshold, or critical power, all of which approximate the same intensity) lactate threshold. However, athletes and coaches (e.g., Friel) often confuse the two.

Fascinating argument guys (really), but any thoughts on my earlier question:

"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

Looks like we're not going to get a response so I'll chime in. I'm in the non-power meter crowd myself so an HRM HAS to do the job. I also try to use the Borg scale/perceived effort when doing shorter hard intervals because heart rate can be slow to follow hard efforts. I can be finished with my interval before my HR gets into the targeted zone.

I'd say if you averaged 173 BPM for 2 hours in a race, and you've only averaged between 165 - 170 in solo efforts for an hour, then by all means go ahead and use the race effort. Giving yourself a few BPM on either side is probably a good idea too. Most people DON'T work as hard solo as they do in a race or group ride, which often becomes a mini-race.

I just did a 30 minute TT effort today (after 30 minutes of warmup) and hit the lap counter 10 minutes into the mark. During the last 20 minutes my average HR was 172 BPM. This kind of shocked me because it represents 90% of my known cycling max heart rate. Looks like it's time to set up some new zones.

I'm also in the HR crowd for financial reasons. That said:

I've seen Ric mention many times the variability of HR based on conditional factors unrelated to effort. It's possible that the 173 you averaged during the race was affected by adrenaline, temperature, hydration or some other factor. Motivation during your training could also be a factor - it's difficult to tell. I'd suggest you try the 30 min TT test and try to really push yourself to the level of pain of a race. That's really the best you have at this point. I'd also echo Dr. M's advice that you use the threshold HR value you obtain from your tests as the *middle* of your threshold training zone, with a 5 or so beats on either side.

It is probably best to do the 30 min TT test perhaps 3 or 4 times (not in the same day, of course ) and average the averages so to speak so that any outliers or freakish variances can be tossed out or averaged into the final LT value.

Thanks for the advice F & Dr. M. I'll try the 30 minute test a couple of times, adjust my zones if necessary, and keep training away. I have friend who is a good bit faster than me. Maybe I'll get him to ride with me to provide the psychological boost.

Thanks again!

There's a couple of points (maybe more as i start writing!)
1) if you're under motivated (i.e., you don't ride as intensely by yourself as you do in a group) then a power meter still won't be any good, because likewise with HR the data it would represent would still be less than your true best effort

2) it's quite possible that your HR at a given power output will increase or decrease due to various factors. as i mentioned earlier in this thread (i think, but certainly other threads) if i ride two consecutive 40-km TTs on two consecutive days my power is the same, yet my HR will be significantly depressed on the second day, by as much as 10 - 15 b/min. Depending on where you are in your current training cycle the same may be happening to you. Additionally, if you are anxious about your race or have had e.g., extra coffee then your HR will most likely be higher. (point 2 is where a power meter will solve the riddle)

3) with the people i coach who use HR we set training zones based on HRmax (as British Cycling do), rather than avg HR during a 1-hr TT (etc). Again HRmax, has the same issue as point 2 above

4) If you use HR it definitely needs to be used in conjunction with percieved effort. This is linked into point 1. in other words does it feel like your effort is your maximum you can sustain?

i don't understand your main point here, that is setting high sustainable HR that you've never managed to achieve in training. How will you you get 15 to 20mins in, if you can't reach that level? You can either reach it in training or not, if you can't then don't set such a goal.

personally, i would look to see what you can average over an hour and note the sensation of the effort, and then try to replicate that sensation (and HR), or a little less in training.

ric

__________________
http://www.cyclecoach.com

Thanks for the feedback. I really appreciate. I actually can get into the range of the race (170 to 175) in training, but I haven't been able to hold it over a 1 hr TT effort. Your point seems spot on, though, because to be honest, since I posted this plan, I've found I can't manage my 15 to 20 minutes target as I did when my target range was 165-170. Intervals of about 4 to 5 minutes are all I can handle with recovery to about 150-155 between (about 2 to 3 minutes). I feel like the range is right, though, and the length of time I can sustain has increased a little. I'm hoping that as I continue with intervals at this level of effort a couple of times a week, I will continue to improve. If not, I'll have to re-evaluate.

Thanks again for the advice and best regards. Love reading your posts.

Jeff