lactate-based versus performance-based training prescription



WarrenG said:
I thought of the error too and maybe it is. I just assumed the people doing the testing knew what they were doing-maybe not.

I'm not saying that they didn't know what they were doing, just that there are many potential sources of error when measuring blood lactate, including both technological and biological ones. Thus, when faced with anomalous results such as the odd "bump" in lactate levels between 170 and 200 W, the first question to ask is, are these results correct? As I said, I predict that if the test were repeated Fergie's lactate levels would be lower at 200 W, such that they fell more in line with the points above and below.
 
acoggan said:
Precise communication of precise ideas requires precise use of precise terminology.

The floor is level. That is precise. Training at "Level 4". That is not precise. It's not even descriptive. I don't mind this, just pointing out the reasons why "zones" or ranges" can be just as appropriate.
 
WarrenG said:
The floor is level. That is precise. Training at "Level 4". That is not precise. It's not even descriptive. I don't mind this, just pointing out the reasons why "zones" or ranges" can be just as appropriate.

Except that zone or range implies that one should constrain their power to remain between those particular upper and lower limits, which is not only quite difficult, but often counterproductive. Of course, that's not to mention the fact that the BCF also specifies training "levels"*, not zones or ranges ("domains" would be another term that could be used). In any case, however, what is clear that no one uses the term "CP zone", not even Friel. Such mixing and matching of terminology is just evidence of sloppy thinking/writing.

*http://www.machinehead-software.co.uk/bcfguide.html
 
acoggan said:
I'm not saying that they didn't know what they were doing, just that there are many potential sources of error when measuring blood lactate, including both technological and biological ones. Thus, when faced with anomalous results such as the odd "bump" in lactate levels between 170 and 200 W, ....

His lactate at 170w had already risen to 1.7mmol/l so unless they measured at least two points wrong then the fact that he went up to 4'ish 30 watts later is suspect, but somewhat in line with the 5.x at the next step, and also in line with the comments he made about his estimated FT for the CP "zones" vs. his performance during the 20' TT. Sounds like he's making too much lactate at low levels without being able to absorb/resynthesize, it, but he can still perform okay at relatively high levels of lactate.

What I don't understand is why he's not great at 218w for 20' but still thinks his Cycling Peaks "zones" above FT should be based on an FT of 220-230w. Well actually I might understand why, but if I say it could be an indication that he needs plenty of training below 2 mmol/l some people will pretend that this kind of insight can not come from a lactate test.
 
acoggan said:
Except that zone or range implies that one should constrain their power to remain between those particular upper and lower limits, ]

YOU do not get to define all the terms for everyone else nor how they are employed.

acoggan said:
In any case, however, what is clear that no one uses the term "CP zone", not even Friel. Such mixing and matching of terminology is just evidence of sloppy thinking/writing.
Pathetic desperation. Perhaps you should try to hold yourself to the same standard. Go back and read Fergie's original post and note the part where he refers to "Cycling Peaks ... _ZONES_".

How about you try to contribute something useful instead of obsessing and nitpicking my terminology? This would make this forum more useful and efficient.
 
WarrenG said:
YOU do not get to define all the terms for everyone else nor how they are employed.

I'm not attempting to - just pointing out that you're not adhering to ANY convention when you speak of "CP zones".

WarrenG said:
Perhaps you should try to hold yourself to the same standard. Go back and read Fergie's original post and note the part where he refers to "Cycling Peaks ... _ZONES_".

How does what Fergie wrote have anything to do with my standards??

WarrenG said:
How about you try to contribute something useful instead of obsessing and nitpicking my terminology?

Good idea - maybe I'll write a book or something. ;)
 
acoggan said:
How does what Fergie wrote have anything to do with my standards??

Sorry was meant to write ranges or whatever.

Any chance you could give me your assessment of Dmax from the data supplied Andy.

I do get lots of ups and downs in the lactate fo some tests (me and my riders). How do I best take this into account if using Dmax?

Hamish Ferguson
Cycling Coach
 
fergie said:
Sorry was meant to write ranges or whatever.
I don't think it has anything to do with you. One of them seems to be writing CP as CyclingPeaks, and the other reading it as Critical Power.
 
fergie said:
Any chance you could give me your assessment of Dmax from the data supplied Andy.

Just eyeballing things, I'd put it at 200-210 W.

fergie said:
I do get lots of ups and downs in the lactate fo some tests (me and my riders). How do I best take this into account if using Dmax?

The usual approach is to smooth the data using a 3rd order polynomial regression before determining the greatest perpendicular distance, e.g.,:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/..._uids=16331128&query_hl=4&itool=pubmed_docsum