Test Results

WarrenG said:

Like many generic programs they estimate your ranges based on your threshold power (or something similar). Since you have done the lactate test and can do more of them you have a more accurate way of determining your targets.

This is utter nonsense. When setting up a training plan, it makes much more sense to base things on a direct measurement of performance ability (e.g., power) than on some indirect predictor (e.g., lactate).

"The best predictor of performance is performance itself." - A. Coggan, ca. 1980.

larrynipon said:

Since I need some structure, I went ahead and opted in to Training Peaks 12 week program with erg files for a rider with a 175 threshold. Am I on target, high or low?

Probably low. If you can average 225 W for 20 min, then your functional threshold power (see http://www.cyclingpeakssoftware.com/threshold.html/) is undoubtly over 200 W.

EDIT: If you plug in a value of 210 W here:

http://www.cyclingpeakssoftware.com/tools/CogganTrainingLevels.xls

you'll see that the intensity at which Warren recommends that you do the vast majority of your training falls into what I would call level 2. You may see some improvement in your performance as a result of training at this intensity, but only if you can devote sufficient time such that your overall training load is greater than it already is. IOW, don't expect to gain much benefit from training at this intensity for, say, just 1 h/d, since as you have already anticipated it isn't really hard enough to represent a major stimulus for adaptation (see Table 2 found here: http://www.cyclingpeakssoftware.com/levels.html).

acoggan said:

This is utter nonsense. When setting up a training plan, it makes much more sense to base things on a direct measurement of performance ability (e.g., power) than on some indirect predictor (e.g., lactate).

"The best predictor of performance is performance itself." - A. Coggan, ca. 1980.

Yes, then have him do a 3-hour TT to find that intensity/power level. And every week or so he should repeat that TT to re-establish the appropriate targets and to find out whether he still has significant potential for improvement that warrants more training focused on that area. Sure.

What you call "utter nonsense" has worked extremely well for many racers, and no, not just the ones my coach has worked with. It is more accurate to train the components that need the most improvement so the goal(s) can be achieved. This is more effective (for many people who know how to use the tools) than relying on your McDonald's approach to training, which is fine if simply "good enough" is good enough, and with results to match.

And lactate isn't a predictor, it is a measurement taken a certain intensities. As he gets fitter he will increase the power at that measurement range and he has the ability to re-measure this. This will enable him to maintain his focus on the best range of intensity to achieve his objective(s).

WarrenG said:

Yes, then have him do a 3-hour TT to find that intensity/power level. And every week or so he should repeat that TT to re-establish the appropriate targets and to find out whether he still has significant potential for improvement that warrants more training focused on that area. Sure.

His 3 h power will be closely correlated to his functional threshold power, which in turn can be estimated numerous ways, some of which don't even require any formal testing at all. Moreover, there's no need to retest every week, or even every 4 wk for that matter...fitness simply doesn't change that rapidly, at least when you consider how unimportant the precise intensity at which you train really matters in the big scheme of things.

WarrenG said:

What you call "utter nonsense" has worked extremely well for many racers, and no, not just the ones my coach has worked with.

I didn't say it wouldn't work, I just said that it was ridiculous to claim that measuring blood lactate was a more accurate way of determining someone's performance ability than just directly measuring their performance ability.

WarrenG said:

It is more accurate to train the components that need the most improvement so the goal(s) can be achieved.

But lactate threshold is just one of several factors that are integral to endurance performance ability. IOW, while you're obsessing about flattening somebody's lactate-power relationship, you're missing the whole point, which is simply to be able to produce more power.

WarrenG said:

This is more effective (for many people who know how to use the tools) than relying on your McDonald's approach to training, which is fine if simply "good enough" is good enough, and with results to match.

Unlike you, I haven't attempted to write a training program for Larry, and thus you really have no idea what I would prescribe for him. To call it a "McDonald's approach to training" is therefore just blowing smoke.

WarrenG said:

And lactate isn't a predictor

Not only is a predictor of performance ability (and generally a very good one at that, at least if you know what you're doing), it is entirely because it is a predictor of performance ability that those interested in sports ever bother to measure it. If it weren't predictive of performance ability, nobody would give a [censored] about lactate. The point, however, is why rely on an indirect predictor rather than just measure what you're interested in directly?

WarrenG said:

, it is a measurement taken a certain intensities. As he gets fitter he will increase the power at that measurement range and he has the ability to re-measure this. This will enable him to maintain his focus on the best range of intensity to achieve his objective(s).

But the "best range of intensity" is far, far broader than you seem to realize. IOW, there is no special magic to training at a particular intensity, at least in the range of what I'd call from mid-level 2 to functional threshold power. The physiological adaptations resulting from training anywhere in this range will be precisely the same, the only difference will be how much total volume you must (and can) do at a particular intensity to achieve maximal adaptation.

As long as someone stays under their LT, will the body produce a certain level of lactic acid and hold at that level, or will the levels go up with duration, even if the wattage doesn't change?
Also, I would think a good test for me to run (since I can) would be to take a measurement at 10 watt intervals over 5 minute durations. Starting at 100w, 10 samples will take me to 200, but I probably wouldn't need to go that high to determine the different mmol levels at different wattages.
I'm actually looking forward to getting on the trainer and actually being able to enjoy a movie while I'm riding! (gotta find the solver lining ) 😄

WarrenG said:

Yes, then have him do a 3-hour TT to find that intensity/power level. And every week or so he should repeat that TT to re-establish the appropriate targets and to find out whether he still has significant potential for improvement that warrants more training focused on that area. Sure.

What you call "utter nonsense" has worked extremely well for many racers, and no, not just the ones my coach has worked with. It is more accurate to train the components that need the most improvement so the goal(s) can be achieved. This is more effective (for many people who know how to use the tools) than relying on your McDonald's approach to training, which is fine if simply "good enough" is good enough, and with results to match.

And lactate isn't a predictor, it is a measurement taken a certain intensities. As he gets fitter he will increase the power at that measurement range and he has the ability to re-measure this. This will enable him to maintain his focus on the best range of intensity to achieve his objective(s).

HEY! What's up with you two? Is this friendly banter or should we stick you both in the same room and sell tickets?
The fact is, as a layperson who is just learning about how to apply all this information, you both appear to be approaching a desired outcome with what would end up being similar activities determined by different metrics, but measuring the same thing.
Bottom line is, I'm getting a tremendous amount from the back-and-forth, so please don't stop on my account!
So far, the most important thing driven home is an absolute need for a LOT MORE volume at much lower average power output.
I know this will be quite different from person to person, but what kind of timeline can someone look forward to in terms of realizing the gains from high volume, low intensity training, combined with power workouts?
Ideally, I'd love to get to 4w/Kg, (I'm currently 73kg, but heading to 71) and do it without chopping things off my body to lose the weight... 😄
Am I chasing an impossible dream, given what you can assume from my current data?

acoggan said:

His 3 h power will be closely correlated to his functional threshold power, which in turn can be estimated numerous ways, some of which don't even require any formal testing at all. Moreover, there's no need to retest every week, or even every 4 wk for that matter...fitness simply doesn't change that rapidly, at least when you consider how unimportant the precise intensity at which you train really matters in the big scheme of things.

I didn't say it wouldn't work, I just said that it was ridiculous to claim that measuring blood lactate was a more accurate way of determining someone's performance ability than just directly measuring their performance ability.

But lactate threshold is just one of several factors that are integral to endurance performance ability. IOW, while you're obsessing about flattening somebody's lactate-power relationship, you're missing the whole point, which is simply to be able to produce more power.

Unlike you, I haven't attempted to write a training program for Larry, and thus you really have no idea what I would prescribe for him. To call it a "McDonald's approach to training" is therefore just blowing smoke.

Not only is a predictor of performance ability (and generally a very good one at that, at least if you know what you're doing), it is entirely because it is a predictor of performance ability that those interested in sports ever bother to measure it. If it weren't predictive of performance ability, nobody would give a [censored] about lactate. The point, however, is why rely on an indirect predictor rather than just measure what you're interested in directly?

But the "best range of intensity" is far, far broader than you seem to realize. IOW, there is no special magic to training at a particular intensity, at least in the range of what I'd call from mid-level 2 to functional threshold power. The physiological adaptations resulting from training anywhere in this range will be precisely the same, the only difference will be how much total volume you must (and can) do at a particular intensity to achieve maximal adaptation.

larrynipon said:

As long as someone stays under their LT, will the body produce a certain level of lactic acid and hold at that level, or will the levels go up with duration, even if the wattage doesn't change?

The answer to that question depends on what you mean by LT. However, if you're relying on any of the criteria used in the scientific literature to define LT then the answer to your question would be that either lactate wouldn't increase at all, or might increase initially before falling partway, or even all the way, back towards the resting level. Between LT and your maximal lactate steady state (which is essentially your "threshold" power from a functional perspective, i.e., your functional threshold power), lactate would increase initially, but then would essentially plateau for a considerable period of time (i.e., many minutes, possibly even hours). Finally, at an intensity greater than your maximal lactate steady state, blood lactate will increase inexorably until fatigue, with the rate of increase roughly proportional to how far over your maximal lactate steady state you are.

larrynipon said:

Also, I would think a good test for me to run (since I can) would be to take a measurement at 10 watt intervals over 5 minute durations. Starting at 100w, 10 samples will take me to 200, but I probably wouldn't need to go that high to determine the different mmol levels at different wattages.

I think that all this will do is give you sore fingers and cost you extra $$ (to pay for those reagent strips). If you really want to play around more with your new toy, I'd suggest trying to determine your maximal lactate steady state instead. For example, ride at 200 W for 30 min while measuring lactate every 5 min, then (on another day, under similar conditions re. rest, nutrition, etc.) repeat the same test at a power that is 10 W higher (if your lactate levels were constant) or lower (if they were increasing). Keep this up until you can idenfity the highest power that results in <0.5 mmol/L change in lactate between 10 and 30 min. (Or you can skip the lactate measurements and use any of the seven possible ways of determining functional threshold power, and come up with basically the same answer with much less work.)

acoggan said:

If you really want to play around more with your new toy, I'd suggest trying to determine your maximal lactate steady state instead. For example, ride at 200 W for 30 min while measuring lactate every 5 min, then (on another day, under similar conditions re. rest, nutrition, etc.) repeat the same test at a power that is 10 W higher (if your lactate levels were constant) or lower (if they were increasing). Keep this up until you can idenfity the highest power that results in <0.5 mmol/L change in lactate between 10 and 30 min. (Or you can skip the lactate measurements and use any of the seven possible ways of determining functional threshold power, and come up with basically the same answer with much less work.)

That's it.

Now, given a constant power. How long (between 10 and 30min?) would it take before reaching that lactate level?

Would it be possible, still at a constant power, to reach this level after let's say, 40 minutes?

In time trialing using power, should we ride with a target constant power in mind, or a constant hr?

acoggan said:

I think that all this will do is give you sore fingers and cost you extra $$ (to pay for those reagent strips). If you really want to play around more with your new toy, I'd suggest trying to determine your maximal lactate steady state instead. For example, ride at 200 W for 30 min while measuring lactate every 5 min, then (on another day, under similar conditions re. rest, nutrition, etc.) repeat the same test at a power that is 10 W higher (if your lactate levels were constant) or lower (if they were increasing). Keep this up until you can idenfity the highest power that results in <0.5 mmol/L change in lactate between 10 and 30 min. (Or you can skip the lactate measurements and use any of the seven possible ways of determining functional threshold power, and come up with basically the same answer with much less work.)

To get the heart of the matter : is there any point to measuring lactate for performance evaluation?

SolarEnergy said:

That's it.

Now, given a constant power. How long (between 10 and 30min?) would it take before reaching that lactate level?

Would it be possible, still at a constant power, to reach this level after let's say, 40 minutes?

In time trialing using power, should we ride with a target constant power in mind, or a constant hr?

Flat or non flat time trial?
Um, why are you bringing up heart rate? I would target lowest possible time 🙂 and use the powermeter to pace myself on longer continuous sections and to make sure I don't blowup out of the gates.

Woofer said:

To get the heart of the matter : is there any point to measuring lactate for performance evaluation?

Yes, there are times when measuring lactate may be preferable to just directly measuring someone's actual performance ability. For example, you might not wish to subject an athlete to a maximal effort performance test in the off-season, when they have been injured, or when they are tapering for an important competition. Similarly, determining someone's maximal lactate steady state power can be helpful in confidently setting appropriate pacing goals, e.g., as Dean Golich did when assisting Norm Alvis in his assault on the U.S. hour record. However, at least nine times out of ten (if not 99 out of 100) you're better off simply measuring someone's actual performance, i.e., their power output over whatever duration is of interest.

larrynipon said:

So far, the most important thing driven home is an absolute need for a LOT MORE volume at much lower average power output.

Or so says Warren. Before accepting his advice, however, you might ask him what his credentials are as a coach. For example, is he certified by USA Cycling, what is his educational background, how many athletes has he personally and successfully coached, etc.?

acoggan said:

Or so says Warren. Before accepting his advice, however, you might ask him what his credentials are as a coach. For example, is he certified by USA Cycling, what is his educational background, how many athletes has he personally and successfully coached, etc.?

I'm passing along the advice given to me by my coach to address similar objectives and he has far more experience and success in the area of training cyclists than you. Looking through some online articles this evening by Joe Friel shows that his suggestions are very similar to mine. Google on "Joe Friel critical power training".

acoggan said:

Yes, there are times when measuring lactate may be preferable to just directly measuring someone's actual performance ability. For example, you might not wish to subject an athlete to a maximal effort performance test in the off-season, when they have been injured, or when they are tapering for an important competition. Similarly, determining someone's maximal lactate steady state power can be helpful in confidently setting appropriate pacing goals, e.g., as Dean Golich did when assisting Norm Alvis in his assault on the U.S. hour record. However, at least nine times out of ten (if not 99 out of 100) you're better off simply measuring someone's actual performance, i.e., their power output over whatever duration is of interest.

I've watched quite a few carpenters in the last year while they worked on our new house. One of the things I noticed is that some are better with their tools than others. Andy knows how to take a blood lactate sample-he just doesn't know all the things he could be doing with it. There are many coaches around who have many, many more years training athletes as individuals than Andy ever will, and they understand how to use the lactate tests and their results for far more than what Andy mentions here.

acoggan said:

His 3 h power will be closely correlated to his functional threshold power, which in turn can be estimated numerous ways, some of which don't even require any formal testing at all.

Yes, if estimates are good enough. Me, I'd rather not waste time with estimated training. One can see clearly in my test results that one can make significant improvement in one range of the ability below threshold without a "closely correlated" improvement in threshold power. One of your colleagues emailed me once with a similar comment during a previous discussion with you about this.

And for Larry, he doesn't even need to care what his threshold power is or will be for an event that will take him about 6 hours. He cares more about his ability over that period, one which should rely heavily on his slow fibers. He does not need to train his fast fibers very much at all-especially given their relatively good ability right now. Tthe emphasis should be on his slow fibers. The test shows the ability of his slow fibers isn't good, and ultimately they are also limiting his threshold power because they are so weak that his fast fibers have to do too much work at relatively low power levels and then he runs into trouble because of this.

acoggan said:

I just said that it was ridiculous to claim that measuring blood lactate was a more accurate way of determining someone's performance ability than just directly measuring their performance ability.

I wasn't trying to determine his "performance". I'm trying to discern the best way to improve his performance for his goal event. As my coach once said to me, there is a "hole" in the ability. So we see where that hole is, fix it with appropriate training and then the performance improves.

acoggan said:

But lactate threshold is just one of several factors that are integral to endurance performance ability. IOW, while you're obsessing about flattening somebody's lactate-power relationship, you're missing the whole point, which is simply to be able to produce more power.

I've said almost nothing about his LT and I don't think it's integral to his performance over his 6-hour ride. The point is to produce more power over a duration of 6 hours, not for a period appropriate for higher threshold power. For this, his lactate/power curve should be flatter, i.e. he wants to be able ride through more steps in power (reach higher power outputs) before lactate starts to climb significantly.

acoggan said:

Unlike you, I haven't attempted to write a training program for Larry, and thus you really have no idea what I would prescribe for him. To call it a "McDonald's approach to training" is therefore just blowing smoke.

You have provided several examples of your McDonald's approach to training right in this one post. _Estimates_ of his 6-hour power based on his 30 minute power, your notion that his TP will correlate highly with his 6- hour power or optimal training intensity for 3-hour rides, wide training ranges, ignoring his individual needs that we (I) can see from his test results, etc.. This is part of what happens when you spend your life looking at statistical summaries of groups of people and how they responded as a group to a training stimulus, rather than having worked with individual athletes who don't just want _a_ way to improve their performance, but want _the best_ way to improve their performance as much as possible.

acoggan said:

Not only is a predictor of performance ability (and generally a very good one at that, at least if you know what you're doing), it is entirely because it is a predictor of performance ability that those interested in sports ever bother to measure it. If it weren't predictive of performance ability, nobody would give a [censored] about lactate. The point, however, is why rely on an indirect predictor rather than just measure what you're interested in directly?

The test is measuring it rather directly. We do know that the amount of power he can produce with his lactate below about 2.0 is a strong indicator of what he can do during long, steady-state rides. His test shows his ability in this area pretty clearly. I think this is better than trying to measure his performance (first) via a 3-6 hour test ride and then trying to guess why he struggled after 3 hours.

acoggan said:

But the "best range of intensity" is far, far broader than you seem to realize. IOW, there is no special magic to training at a particular intensity, at least in the range of what I'd call from mid-level 2 to functional threshold power. The physiological adaptations resulting from training anywhere in this range will be precisely the same, the only difference will be how much total volume you must (and can) do at a particular intensity to achieve maximal adaptation.

Heh. Says you. Not so say some coaches with far more experience and success training athletes than you have. My own experience agrees with them.

Larry, sorry to drag you through this. You'll do fine.

larrynipon said:

My event focus is the Mt. Greylock Century in early August. It's exactly 100 miles with 10,000 feet of climbing, one of which is a 9 mile climb. It brutalized me last year. Seizure-like leg cramps from mile 55 until the end. It was over an 8 hour day. My goal is to complete it in under 6.5 hours this year. I can hang with the pack on the 3 hour rides, but want to get to a much higher level. Not going to be racing, just want to see how high is high. Any suggestions?

If you want to find out how high is high and dramatically improve power/weight, irrespective of how the training firestorm settles out, you need to trim every ounce of cycling useless weight you have, whether fat or muscle. At 5'8" and 159 lbs you are basically gi-normous compared to a typical climber.

Losing 20 pounds would get you close to a Valverde style climbing weight and 30 to the Pantani zone. No matter what your morphology dropping 10 pounds should be achievable. Compared to getting watts/kg gains from training losing weight is a piece of cake 😄.

WarrenG said:

There are several components that make up the total ability needed for decent LT or threshold power. It's useful to devote one's time and energy to the component(s) that show the most potential for improvement.

[font=Arial]Could you please be a bit more specific about these components required for achieving a good LT or threshold power level?[/font]

[font=Arial]So far I have understood that the basic components of cycling performance are like good capability for utilisation of fats as fuel (and this component can be developed by those long, 2-4 hour rides on moderate level). Then is the LT, which could be trained by those 30-60 minute or, Forum Classic 2*20 min intervals close the LT level. And finally, the VOmax level efforts, and training for those would be the 5-10 min intervals with powers above the LT level.[/font]

[font=Arial]But maybe you can more clarify what components of LT training you were after?[/font]

WarrenG said:

I'm passing along the advice given to me by my coach

Ah. Otherwise referred to as "belief based coaching":

http://www-rohan.sdsu.edu/dept/coachsci/csa/thermo/thermo.htm

WarrenG said:

Andy knows how to take a blood lactate sample-he just doesn't know all the things he could be doing with it.

More correctly, I know what NOT to do with such data, which is to overinterpret it, as you do. For example, you repeatedly claim that a "flattening" of the lactate-exercise intensity relationship is due to an increase in the respiratory capacity of type I fibers. In doing so, however, you completely ignore the considerable evidence that has accumulated showing that training also increases lactate clearance during exercise. This is but one of many reasons that you can't use lactate data to conclude the things that you wish to conclude.

WarrenG said:

Yes, if estimates are good enough. Me, I'd rather not waste time with estimated training.

What do you think you're doing with lactate data? Your estimating (predicting) somebody's actual performance, not measuring it directly. While lactate can be an excellent predictor of performance ability, performance ability will always be a perfect predictor of performance ability.

WarrenG said:

One can see clearly in my test results that one can make significant improvement in one range of the ability below threshold without a "closely correlated" improvement in threshold power.

If you define a significant improvement as a reduction in blood lactate, then yes, the result clearly show that. However, blood lactate is merely a predictor of performance ability, not a direct measurement thereof. Hence, the conclusions that that you wish to draw aren't really supported by the data.

As for the changes in threshold, or apparent (emphasis on apparent) lack thereof, you're attempting to refute numerous studies published in the scientific literature based on n=1 data...good luck with that!

WarrenG said:

One of your colleagues emailed me once with a similar comment during a previous discussion with you about this.

Once more, Warren attempts to bolster his argument with a vague appeal to authority...do you really think people lack the intelligence to see the fallacy of this approach?

WarrenG said:

And for Larry, he doesn't even need to care what his threshold power is or will be for an event that will take him about 6 hours.

Except for the fact that lactate threshold is the single best physiological predictor of performance ability in ALL endurance events...which includes 6 h century rides.

WarrenG said:

He cares more about his ability over that period

Oh, wait, now you're agreeing with me that the best predictor of performance is performance itself? Make up your mind!

WarrenG said:

one which should rely heavily on his slow fibers. He does not need to train his fast fibers very much at all-especially given their relatively good ability right now. Tthe emphasis should be on his slow fibers. The test shows the ability of his slow fibers isn't good, and ultimately they are also limiting his threshold power because they are so weak that his fast fibers have to do too much work at relatively low power levels and then he runs into trouble because of this.

It is comments like this that made me previously state that I don't think you'd be a very good coach. In fact, I don't think you could pass the level II coaching exam, at least the exercise physiology portion, because your knowledge in this area is woefully inadequate. First, if you ride hard for 6 h ALL of your muscle fibers will be heavily utilized, as evidenced by the fact that even the fastest of the fast twitch will become significantly depleted of glycogen, Second, you can't say anything at all about the relative "ability" (respiratory capacity/mitochondrial content) of someone's type I and type II motor units based on the shape of their lactate-power curve. This is because blood lactate concentration is a function of both the rate of production and the rate of removal, and is not something that is really regulated by the body. Thus, while the "spillover" of lactate from exercising muscle into the circulation provides an indirect measure of the ability to match aerobic ATP provision to ATP utilization, there are simply too many other factors at play (e.g., glycogen availability) to say anything more than that. To think that you can optimize someone's training program based on measurement of blood lactate levels and in particular the shape of the curve is simply wishful thinking on the part of those who pursue this approach (what Rohan calls "psuedo-science"😉.

WarrenG said:

I wasn't trying to determine his "performance". I'm trying to discern the best way to improve his performance for his goal event. As my coach once said to me, there is a "hole" in the ability. So we see where that hole is, fix it with appropriate training and then the performance improves.

See my comments above.

WarrenG said:

I've said almost nothing about his LT and I don't think it's integral to his performance over his 6-hour ride.

Which just shows how little you really understand about the physiology of exercise.

WarrenG said:

The point is to produce more power over a duration of 6 hours

I.e., the best predictor of performance is performance itself. Don't want to do a 6 h TT, you say? Fine, you can predict 6 h power from 1 h power just as, if not more, accurately than you can from lactate measurements (and you don't need to buy a lactate analyzer or give up some blood to get the data).

WarrenG said:

not for a period appropriate for higher threshold power. For this, his lactate/power curve should be flatter, i.e. he wants to be able ride through more steps in power (reach higher power outputs) before lactate starts to climb significantly.

Again, your ignorance reveals itself. I can, and in fact have, generate(d) very "flat" lactate-power curves for sedentary 70+ y old women, just by designing the exercise protocol appropriately.

WarrenG said:

You have provided several examples of your McDonald's approach to training right in this one post.

Hardly. I've merely described a general classification scheme, not an actual training program (as Andrew Albright pointed out long ago on the wattage list). Morever, if you bothered to think a little bit about it, you'd see that the training "levels" that I would come up with for Larry agree almost exactly with the intensities you suggest based on his blood lactate data. The difference is that you're willing to go on record that he should spend X amount of time training at Y intensity, despite the fact that you know next-to-nothing about his current training, etc. I, on the other hand, recognize that you need to know a lot more about somebody than their functional threshold power or LT to design a training program, and therefore decline to provide such advice.

WarrenG said:

_Estimates_ of his 6-hour power based on his 30 minute power, your notion that his TP will correlate highly with his 6- hour power or optimal training intensity for 3-hour rides, wide training ranges, ignoring his individual needs that we (I) can see from his test results, etc..

See above: I haven't made any recommendations as to how Larry should train, just commented that he is unlikely to make great progress by training at what I call "level 2" unless he's able to put in enough time at that intensity for his overall training load to increase relative to what it is now. Indeed, on this point you seem to agree with me, since you repeatedly ask "can you get in X hours per day/per week?".

WarrenG said:

_This is part of what happens when you spend your life looking at statistical summaries of groups of people and how they responded as a group to a training stimulus, rather than having worked with individual athletes who don't just want _a_ way to improve their performance, but want _the best_ way to improve their performance as much as possible.

No, this is what happens when you ASS U ME that you know something about somebody's approach and experience based on just what they happen to post to the web. I'll bet you didn't know, for example, that I have lactate data for Miguel Indurain obtained during his training for the hour record. (As it turned out, at the time he couldn't ride at 53.5 km/h and still be at or below his maximal lactate steady state, so the attempt was postponed until the probability of a successful attempt was greater.) Likewise, you probably also don't know that in addition to testing Colby Pearce, I've also had the privilege of testing Anne Samplonious (silver medalist at worlds in the ITT, behind Karen Kurreck) and Phyllis Hines (US national ITT champ and former US record holder). In fact, you probably don't even know that I recently turned down a request from one of your Webcor teammates to come to California to give a talk about normalized power, etc.

WarrenG said:

The test is measuring it rather directly. We do know that the amount of power he can produce with his lactate below about 2.0 is a strong indicator of what he can do during long, steady-state rides. His test shows his ability in this area pretty clearly. I think this is better than trying to measure his performance (first) via a 3-6 hour test ride and then trying to guess why he struggled after 3 hours.

The only thing that a lactate test measures directly is lactate concentration - everything else must be inferred from that data. The correlation between LT and performance ability is generally quite high, but the correlation between performance ability and performance ability is, by definition, perfect. It therefore makes more logical sense to base training prescriptions on direct measurements of power than on indirect predictions of power from lactate levels. This is especially true given the fact that there is no magical training intensity that results in greater improvements than any other - this is simply a myth resulting from the widespread use of first heart rate monitors and more recently lactate testing. If this were not true, the somebody somewhere would have discovered the "one true way", and either their athletes would dominate everyone else, or the cat would get out of the bag and everybody would be following quite comparable programs. Instead, what you see is that the training programs of even elite athletes vary quite widely - this is because genetics and motivation are actually far more important in determining how well you perform than precisely how you train.

One last comment: I find it quite ironic that, despite your insistence that training zones based on lactate testing are more accurate and thus the only way to go, your actual suggestions to Larry as to how he should train are extremely broad in nature. So which is it, Warren: is it really necessary to micromanage somebody's training program, or isn't it? You seem to be of two minds about this...