Any ideas for an Aomalously BAD LT?

[WarrenG]

With the emphasis on the "or more" part. HR can by off by like 20bpm day to day.

If my HR during something like a "tempo" interval is ~6-8bpm lower than normal it's because I'm tired and I should probably be doing something else. My HR in a number of lab tests during 3 years has not varied more than +/- 2bpm at 4.0mmol/l. YMMV.

BTW, my interval efforts are prescribed by one or more of HR, power, PE.

 

[acoggan]

Our club had a sports medicine MD talk at a meeting earlier this year and perform a live LT test on a willing subject. He discussed the confusion around the definition of LT. The formal definition he used for "LT" was the power level which causes the first rise in blood lactate levels, or 2.0-2.5 mmol/ml. The resulting HR "at LT" was around 68% of max HR on subject he tested that evening.

He explained that the "LT" used by most of us should be referred to as the OBLA, or MLSS. This level is generally at or near 4.0 mmol/ml, and corresponds roughly to a HR of 85-88% in many riders. Unlike the lower 2.0 value, time at 4.0 mmol and above is considered limited, so that power output at this level of blood lactate is important.

All of the above is correct, except the statement that "Unlike the lower 2.0 value, time at 4.0 mmol and above is considered limited...". In fact, time to fatigue is closely related to LT regardless of whether the intensity is below, at, or well above LT. It will just take you longer to run out of gas when the intensity is below LT.

 

[acoggan]

Since there was no blood sample it would be virtually impossible to pinpoint your LTHR closer than +/- 5 bpm (or more), especially since the LT was being defined down at 2-2.5mmol/l. If it was defined as something near 4mmol/l then there are some changes in your respiration that could help indicate your LTHR (Google on "Conconi test

What you are describing is not a Conconi test, which relies strictly on changes in heart rate to attempt (almost always unsuccessfully) to identify OBLA/MLSS/critical power. Rather, changes in ventilation are used to determine ventilatory threshold, an approach popularized by Karlman Wasserman (and so if anything best termed a "Wasserman test", although I've never heard it called that). Moreover, you can estimate LT just as accurately (or inaccurately) as OBLA/MLSS from changes in ventilation.

 

[acoggan]

I've been riding for about 2 years....... this is my first year racing. I've gotten tested for LT and VO2Max 3 times (through respiratory machine, O2 mask, and HRM, facilitated by my coach). My Max HR is 210 bpm............ here's where it gets REALLY weird:

Here are my results:
1st test done back in 7/05, LTHR was 136bpm (64% MHR!!!!) and VO2Max was 59.4 ml/kg.
2nd test done on 11/05, LTHR was 137bpm (65% MHR!!!) and VO2Max was 64.2 ml/kg (an increase of 1% on my LT but 10% on my VO2Max!)
3rd test done on 02/01/06 LT was 143bpm (68% MHR) and VO2Max was 69.1 ml/kg (an increase of 3% on my LT and 9% on my VO2Max).

It may help to know that (even though I work REAL hard at it) my recovery is REALLY bad (almost 2.5 - 3 minutes to come down from 186 to 120).

My coach tells me that I am an anomaly like he's never seen, because as everyone knows, the LT is supposed to be a highly malleable number, whereas the VO2Max is supposed to be minimally changeable....... yet I'm doing the complete opposite!

I'm usually riding about 150 - 200 miles per week, including a solid strength training 2 hour day and a solid interval day (2 hours as well).

Has anyone ever heard of something like this?? Got any fresh ideas I could put into play?

Assuming that the changes in heart rate are reflective of changes in power and/or VO2 at ventilatory threshold, and thus also in LT, then I'd say that there's absolutely nothing at all anamolous about your results. That is, after just a year or two of training your VO2max has risen by 16%, whereas your LT has apparently risen by 24% (and thus now lies closer to your VO2max). As you continue to train, the improvements in VO2max will tend to level off before the improvements in LT, such that the latter will probably creep even closer to your VO2max. W/o knowing more about you, how the tests were conducted, etc., it is difficult to say how soon this might occur/how much more potential for improvement that you have. The important point, however, is that you are improving, which after all is the purpose of training.

 

[beerco]

Moreover, you can estimate LT just as accurately (or inaccurately) as OBLA/MLSS from changes in ventilation.

Hang on now, assuming he was doing a ramp test with typical American style 1 min steps with 1 to 5mph incremets without power measurement (no power figures in the OPs Post), wouldn't HR be laging VT by an amount to make the HR@VT as a proxy for HR@LT figure basically meaningless? Or does VT lag power by a similar amount?

Perhaps it's just due to my inexperience with multiple athletes, but I simply can't see a guy with a max HR of 210 and a VO2max of 69 ml/kg being in L4 at an HR of 143.

 

[acoggan]

Hang on now, assuming he was doing a ramp test with typical American style 1 min steps with 1 to 5mph incremets without power measurement (no power figures in the OPs Post), wouldn't HR be laging VT by an amount to make the HR@VT as a proxy for HR@LT figure basically meaningless? Or does VT lag power by a similar amount?

I'm not sure what heart rate has to do with it...I was referring to the fact that ventilatory threshold is equally well correlated with LT as it is with OBLA/MLSS/critical power.

Perhaps it's just due to my inexperience with multiple athletes, but I simply can't see a guy with a max HR of 210 and a VO2max of 69 ml/kg being in L4 at an HR of 143.

143/210 x 100% = 68% of maximal heart rate, which would be ~60% of VO2max. That is on the low side of normal*, but not so low as to be out-and-out impossible, especially since we don't know how LT was determined.

*2 out of 14 subjects in this study had an LT of ~60% of VO2max, with LT being defined as a 1 mmol/L increase in blood lactate over exercise baseline:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/...t_uids=3403447&query_hl=1&itool=pubmed_docsum

 

[beerco]

I'm not sure what heart rate has to do with it...I was referring to the fact that ventilatory threshold is equally well correlated with LT as it is with OBLA/MLSS/critical power.

Well, the reason I brought up HR is because that was the metric with which the OP reported LT. I know assuming is risky , but if the coach used big steps and called "LT" the HR at which the athlete hit VT, it seems like there's a strong possibility to underestimate HR@VT ergo HR@LT (which even still seems rather nebulous to me anyway as the only time I've maintained a steady HR at a threshold effort was during competitions, normally my HR climbs steadily during constant power efforts - just like everyone else's I assume)

143/210 x 100% = 68% of maximal heart rate, which would be ~60% of VO2max. That is on the low side of normal*, but not so low as to be out-and-out impossible, especially since we don't know how LT was determined.

Which is why I brought up what I did (which I learned from you BTW): Don't worry about LT, VT etc, just worry about the effort you can do for a particular trial - i.e. go ride a long interval and measure power or rpe or speed or whatever rather than worrying about some sort of clinical LT measurement. As a very famous man once said, "you can only do what you can do"

 

[WarrenG]

As a very famous man once said, "you can only do what you can do"

http://www.google.com/search?q="you..."&hl=en&lr=&client=safari&rls=en&start=0&sa=N

 

[acoggan]

http://www.google.com/search?q="you..."&hl=en&lr=&client=safari&rls=en&start=0&sa=N

The reason you couldn't find the quote is because it is "alls you can do is alls you can do":

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&...ls+you+can+do+is+alls+you+can+do"&btnG=Search

 

[beerco]

The reason you couldn't find the quote is because it is "alls you can do is alls you can do":

A thousand pardons. Next time I'll be sure to get it right .

 

[PistachioAddict]

Here are my results:
1st test done back in 7/05, LTHR was 136bpm (64% MHR!!!!) and VO2Max was 59.4 ml/kg.
2nd test done on 11/05, LTHR was 137bpm (65% MHR!!!) and VO2Max was 64.2 ml/kg (an increase of 1% on my LT but 10% on my VO2Max!)
3rd test done on 02/01/06 LT was 143bpm (68% MHR) and VO2Max was 69.1 ml/kg (an increase of 3% on my LT and 9% on my VO2Max

Hi
I notice you posted relative V02 scores - did your weight decrease? As this will also contribute to changes in vo2 relative to bodyweight.
What was your absolute oxygen uptake per minute in litres for the 3 tests?

You might have a high percentage of fast twitch muscles fibres, they are specialised fibres for sprint speed, and high strength/contractile speed and force but are not as efficient in terms of aerobic respiration as slow twich fibres and lead to a lower LT relative to vo2. They say years of training can convert them.

Try a 60 meter dash (running), if you're under 7.5 seconds without start blocks and without training there's a fair chance mother nature meant for you to be a sprinter.

Warm and stretch your hamstrings properly if you try this.