LA's High Cadence Style and Avoidance of Leg Fatigue



Status
Not open for further replies.
antoineg said:
Hmm...you're right. How about this one:

http://www.time-to-run.com/theabc/lactic.htm

or this one:

http://www.runningplanet.com/articles/article_detail.asp?article_id=739

Interesting snippet from the second one:

Thanks for the articles. They were very helpful. Indeed, the theory has refined greatly in the last 30 years as regards training and lactate. I guess I had too much old school hammered into me.

I know one thing, and this just happened yesterday. If I don't hydrate properly, my legs get sore, and I'll miss a day. This happens when I run out of green tea, which is easy for me to drink. I don't like to drink water except when I ride. In the article, it says leg soreness is from muscle damage, not lactic acid buildup. It just doesn't seem to be as believable as lactic acid buildup causing the soreness. I always figured that the hydration helped clear out the harmful acids. Maybe it is more a matter of facilitating glycogen entry into the muscles and the other nutrients as well when damage has been done. It doesn't seem like it would heal so quickly though if it's actually muscle damage. If I hydrate and eat immediately after the ride, I don't get sore at all. If I don't eat right away and don't hydrate properly, I'm sore the next day and feel the need to take a day off. I wonder if it's just mostly muscle glycogen depletion in this case.
 
ric_stern/RST said:
I don't think you've understood what i've previously written. You can't compare one person's lactate with another it's immaterial. the rider or athlete can produce a sustainable power and that is what's important. for e.g., i can ride maximally for an hour at ~ 300 W at an average of e.g., ~ 4 mmol/L. Conversely, i know people that can ride maximally at > 300 W at more than 4 mmol/L and others at less than 4 mmol/L.

On the other hand, and this maybe where your confusion lies, and this maybe due to poor journalism or reporting by his coaches, as i've previously stated as you ride at high powers you produce more lactate than at low power, however, as you get fitter you produce less lactate at a given workload. however, as can be seen above you can't compare that lactate with other people (the same as you can't compare HRs).


ric

Let me again open up this lactate can of worms. I have come across a very interesting coincidence which perhaps might be considered in forming a new paradigm as regards lactate. It appears that Michael Phelps produces about the same lactate level as Lance Armstrong at peak power output. Are you really sure that low level lactate procuction for the best athletes is not an advantage? It seems a rather striking coincidence.

This is a quote from today's New York Times article on Michael Phelps and his bid to break Mark Spitz 7 gold medal record.

Built to Swim

Published: August 8, 2004


(Page 5 of 11)



In testing conducted by physiologists from USA Swimming, Phelps scored as one of the weakest elite swimmers they had ever measured, but that was on such traditional tests as the bench press and how much weight he can lift with his legs. ''He's fine on land,'' Heinlein says. ''He can walk. He can do all the things you want him to do. But he's not extraordinary in any way. What Michael excels at takes place in water, so what does it tell you to test him on land?''

Advertisement


At practice one day this spring, I heard Bowman instruct Phelps to ''get his hips higher'' as he lunged for the wall on the finish of his butterfly. The fly is the most difficult and physically taxing of the four competitive strokes, combining a dolphin kick, a constant undulation of the body and a motion in which the arms simultaneously are thrown forward before pulling back through the water. It demands tremendous strength in the abdominal muscles along with exquisite timing. Done well, it is a thing of beauty -- a swimmer seems almost to be skipping over the water like a stone skimmed across the surface. To access the muscles that would bring the hips higher at the finish of this complex set of movements is not easy, but Phelps got it right the very next time. ''What Michael knows how to do, everybody else had to learn,'' says Kevin Clements, a teammate on the North Baltimore team. ''And most of it, he knew the first time he got in the water.''

Swimming is an endurance contest not just within the race, but over a meet. And Phelps has one other gift, a freakish ability to recover quickly, without which he could not even contemplate a schedule in Athens that will require him to swim multiple races on short rests. At a meet in Santa Clara, Calif., in May, I watched as Phelps got out of the pool after a 100-meter butterfly. He was certainly winded, but not like one of those runners you sometimes see staggering around after the finish line. Physiologists from USA Swimming took a pinprick of his ear, routine at such meets for top swimmers, to measure his blood lactate level. Lactic acid is what causes ''muscle burn,'' a sign of the oxygen deficit that causes muscles to shut down. The race had been a long-anticipated rematch against Ian Crocker, the swimmer who beat him a year ago and at the same time took away his world record. On this day, Phelps touched him out at the wall. His lactate level taken immediately afterward was an exceedingly low 5.0 (5 millimoles per liter of blood). Other swimmers after such races typically produce levels of 10 or 15, or sometimes higher. (Crocker's was not measured.)

Like nearly all his gifts, Phelps's aerobic capacity is genetic in some measure but also greatly enhanced by the high-level training that began at an early age -- averaging seven miles a day in practice, 365 days a year. ''His recovery is exceptional when compared to his opponents,'' Jonty Skinner told me. ''He doesn't produce a lot of lactate, and he recovers to pre-race levels in 20 to 25 minutes, sometimes less.''

End of Quote

The last sentence suggests what I suspected and earlier mentioned--that low level lactate production at peak power production may enable the athlete to recover quicker. Instead of the 90 minutes recovery you mentioned for supranormal exertion, Mr. Phelps only takes about 25 minutes.

Does this give you at least a small double take?
 
gntlmn said:
Let me again open up this lactate can of worms. I have come across a very interesting coincidence which perhaps might be considered in forming a new paradigm as regards lactate. It appears that Michael Phelps produces about the same lactate level as Lance Armstrong at peak power output. Are you really sure that low level lactate procuction for the best athletes is not an advantage? It seems a rather striking coincidence.

Like nearly all his gifts, Phelps's aerobic capacity is genetic in some measure but also greatly enhanced by the high-level training that began at an early age -- averaging seven miles a day in practice, 365 days a year. ''His recovery is exceptional when compared to his opponents,'' Jonty Skinner told me. ''He doesn't produce a lot of lactate, and he recovers to pre-race levels in 20 to 25 minutes, sometimes less.''

End of Quote

The last sentence suggests what I suspected and earlier mentioned--that low level lactate production at peak power production may enable the athlete to recover quicker. Instead of the 90 minutes recovery you mentioned for supranormal exertion, Mr. Phelps only takes about 25 minutes.

Does this give you at least a small double take?

no, and again i don't feel that you or the person writing the article really understands what's happening.

As i have repeatedly said, lactate will depend on many factors, for e.g., at a given workload it will be lower the fitter you are, e.g., if prior to training you can ride at 200 W for an hour and your lactate is X mmol/L, after (e.g.) several months of training (assuming you get fitter) riding at 200 W will result in a lactate of X-Y mmol/L. however, it would be lower still if you did the ride in a glycogen depleted state, and will be different if someone else attempts the session. in other words you can't compare from person to person, and you have to make sure that conditions are identical.

these remarks by the various people interviewed are either off the cuff remarks or remarks that are made that are supposed to sound good, but they lack clarity.

i believe i said that your lactate level would return to normal within 90-mins, but that these were from supramaximal efforts -- which are way beyond what LA can produce (i'm talking about world class 1-km TT riders).

ric
 
ric_stern/RST said:
no, and again i don't feel that you or the person writing the article really understands what's happening.

ric: you reply in the same manner every time -- "comparisons mean nothing." The question under consideration is:

All other things being equal, does the fact that Athlete A has less lactate in their system at a given workload than Athlete B imply a performance advantage over Athlete B?

I just finished reading Owen Anderson's "Lactate Liftoff" and I would answer the above statement in the affirmative.

Either Athlete A produces less lactate initially, due to a better "glycolitic engine", or they shuttle it out of the bloodstream faster, and use it for energy.
 
antoineg said:
ric: you reply in the same manner every time -- "comparisons mean nothing." The question under consideration is:

All other things being equal, does the fact that Athlete A has less lactate in their system at a given workload than Athlete B imply a performance advantage over Athlete B?

I just finished reading Owen Anderson's "Lactate Liftoff" and I would answer the above statement in the affirmative.

Either Athlete A produces less lactate initially, due to a better "glycolitic engine", or they shuttle it out of the bloodstream faster, and use it for energy.

the point is, as i've repeatedly said, at a given workload the fitter you are the less lactate you produce. however, having a low lactate doesn't in itself mean anything -- i can ride at TT power and have a lower lactate than normal simply by being not fully glycogen loaded. event though my lactate is lower, i'll be in a far worse condition.

on the other hand some people will produce more lactate at a given workload. and these people maybe able to tolerate higher lactate levels. or could be glycogen supercompensated.

trying to compare several peoples lactates isn't useful. what's important, and in fact the only thing of importance is the power that they produce, in other words if you go to a lab and they look at your lactate response, they look at the power that elicits a lactate level.

ric
 
ric_stern/RST said:
trying to compare several peoples lactates isn't useful. what's important, and in fact the only thing of importance is the power that they produce, in other words if you go to a lab and they look at your lactate response, they look at the power that elicits a lactate level.

ric

What I'm suggesting is that the physiology that is capable of producing low lactate levels in elite athletes may be a performance advantage when they are performing at their top levels and are not glycogen depleted. Phelps wouldn't be glycogen delpleted because the race is not long enough. Armstrong's low lactate production is not due to glycogen depletion either. Clearly, their power output is going to be extraordinary. That's a given due to their champion status. If they weren't producing way more power than most people, they wouldn't be champions. So it's not necessary that we know what their exact power output is in the lab.

Conversely, if I gather your drift, when an athlete is in better shape, his lactate levels at each given level of power production will be lower than the same athlete's were before his conditioning improved. But it seems like his lactate level when he is racing should still be high if he is winning the race. He will simply be putting out more power.

Don't you think it's more than a coincidence that two champions, each dominant in his sport, have low blood lactate levels at peak performance?
 
LA's physiology is particularly well-suited for the high cadence style because:
-- He lost a lot of upper body mass a result of the cancer, and also a lot of weight (20 pounds).
-- His heart is 1/3 larger than most people's, and beats at a regular rate of under 40.
-- He builds up less lactic acid and dissipates it more quickly.












































http://www.cyclingforums.com/t467644.html
 
musette said:
Chris Carmichael provided a fairly interesting piece on the LA fan site on how LA's high-cadence pedaling style in the mountains helps him avoid leg muscular fatigue, while imposing greater demands on his heart/lungs, which do not tire in the same way as skeletal muscles:

"Lance Armstrong’s high cadence climbing style allows him to spare his leg muscles by increasing the demand he places on his aerobic system. He is able to reduce the stress he applies to his leg muscles during the course of each pedal stroke, but he also has to turn his legs over more quickly. Increasing the frequency of muscle contractions places a high demand on his aerobic system and leads to a high heart beat and respiration rate. The benefit of relying more heavily on his heart and lungs rather than his leg muscles is that the cardiovascular system doesn’t fatigue in the same way skeletal muscles do. Once your leg muscles are pushed too far, there’s no way to maintain your power output and speed. In contrast, as long as you provide enough food and water, your aerobic engine can continue delivering power much longer. This also leaves more fuel in the tank for launching decisive attacks in the final kilometers of long climbs."

http://www.thepaceline.com/members/chrisc_item.aspx?cid=%20374
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
 
Status
Not open for further replies.