Raising LA threshold

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by the brother
There are 2 cyclists with the same MAP.
Cyclist A has spent more time training at threshold and so has raised his threshold power to a higher percentage of MAP than Cyclist B.

If training zones are based purely on MAP-how does this system take into account the differences in Lactate threshold power?
Would LT power, and percentages thereof, not be a better value to base zones on for endurance athletes at least?

in trained cyclists the ratio between TT power and MAP falls within a small range. Based on VO2, the upper limit for a 1-hr TT is 90% of VO2max. This differs *little* whether you're a cat 3 or TdF pro. For e.g., i know from lab work that i can TT at 88% of VO2max. In endurance exercise, VO2max is the rate limiting mechanism. In other words, even if you could exercise maximally for 1-hr at 100% VO2max, but only had a max of 3 L/min (and a mass of say 70 kg) you'd be pants.

The % that i have seen of TT power to MAP in a whole host of riders is 72 to 77% for ~1 hr TTpower. these riders are cat 4 to senior elite male world champions (and also male and female riders).

I don't measure LT outside of a lab (as you can't), and as the people i coach reside around the world, getting them to a lab could be very tricky. hence i talk about TTpower rather than LT. i assume you mean TTpower as opposed to LT?

i base training zones on MAP, which i retest every so often, and small changes in fitness and power i update as training files are sent to me. for example a key training session i use with endurance athletes is 1 to four intervals of 15 to 30-mins at ~ TT power. every so often (weekly/bi-weekly/etc) i may ask the rider to up the power 5/10/whatever watts.

Thus, i set the broad range of training zones with MAP, and set specifics (e.g., intervals) on what the rider is capable of.

Additionally, by knowing what the % of TTpower to MAP is will enable you to know what type of training to focus on. If say it's 72% then focus on lots of the above session, if it's at the upper limit, you focus on intervals to increase VO2max/MAP.

ric

AH HAAAAAAAAAA! I think I get it! 🙂

Everything apart from the :

"I don't measure LT outside of a lab (as you can't)"quote

If you use LT Power as the power that produces 1mmol/L increase over base level then all you need is a lactate pro or other similar device to measure lactate levels.
Would that not be the next step, after purchasing the a power meter, if you were looking for the best possible information on your 'level of fitness'?

Thanks for your help Ric.

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by the brother
AH HAAAAAAAAAA! I think I get it! 🙂

Everything apart from the :

"I don't measure LT outside of a lab (as you can't)"quote

If you use LT Power as the power that produces 1mmol/L increase over base level then all you need is a lactate pro or other similar device to measure lactate levels.
Would that not be the next step, after purchasing the a power meter, if you were looking for the best possible information on your 'level of fitness'?

Thanks for your help Ric.

As previously mentioned, TTpower is highly correlated to LT. All measures of LT/VT/MLSS/OBLA/etc are all highly correlated to each other. i'm unsure what knowing my blood lactate would tell me for training and coaching purposes. it won't tell me anything i don't already know from the power.

all you need to know are the performance measures of power over the durations that you race over or are important to those races.

why would knowing what my power at 1mmol/L over exercise baseline level be important? This is a level that can be sustained for up to 3+ hours

ric

Yeah OK.
I can understand if you don't feel it is necessary to measure LT/OBLA etc. for your training/coaching.
I just thought that you were implying your athletes didn't get their LT measured because it was awkward for them to get to a lab, when they don't need to!

If you don't feel it unecessary then that is another matter and I can see that point of view.
Cheers

ricstern said:

Lol! ok!

i'm sure some of it is pose value too :-)

i'll try!

the three main limiting factors are VO2max (the rate limiting mechanism), LT (the % of VO2max), efficiency (also don't forget aerodynamics!)

for TTing, efforts of ~ 1-hr are ~ 10 - 15% higher power than LT. During a ~1-hr TT, it's highly likely that lactate won't be stable and will continually rise even if you rode at a monotonic power.

Power for TTing (and other endurance events) is highly correlated to power at LT. Thus if you have high power during a TT, you'll have high power at LT. If you have low power during a TT, you'll have a low LT. It doesn't matter per se what your LT is, if you know your power at TT effort (or hill climb, or whatever) because they're all linked.

no and yes!

the most direct way of measuring is to ascertain the power -- that's what you're checking when you do an LT test. not what your lactate measurement is. For e.g., one (main) definition of LT is a 1 mmol/L increase over exercise baseline levels. Let's say that's 2.2 mmol/L. No one would be interested in that figure, but everyone would be interested in the power that elicited it (e.g., 230 W).

so, for e.g., we know that elite pros like Ullrich, Armstrong, etc., race at ~ 440 W for an hours TT. most people could generate 440 W. I can probably do this for several mins. However, i'd TT at a much lower power, because the 440 W isn't sustainable for me (e.g., 300 W). this hour power is above your LT.

it doesn't matter what your lactate reading is. you just exercise at some % of some measured power, because power is the independent variable, whereas lactate is the dependent variable (like HR). what the % is that you exercise of and what the % that you take from initially will be dependent upon your goals etc

who can measure lactate when training? who would want to? what would be the point? you either produce the power required or not!

preferably as a % of some power duration

i do, but most people i coach use power, as it's way more effective (imo).

ric

Ric,
I've enjoyed reading this thread and I'm interested in the guidlines you use to train people using HR. I've purchased a Polar 725, I'm 36 and I've determined my MHR to be 196. Any suggestions you could give me would be great. Also I've read alot of info about 85% of MHR being your LT. What is your opinion on this.

Thanks,

snafu said:

Ric,
I've enjoyed reading this thread and I'm interested in the guidlines you use to train people using HR. I've purchased a Polar 725, I'm 36 and I've determined my MHR to be 196. Any suggestions you could give me would be great. Also I've read alot of info about 85% of MHR being your LT. What is your opinion on this.

Thanks,

My name isn't ric but hopefully that doesn't stop me from adding to the discussion.
Ric has stated many times in the past that he would prefer to work from power rather than HR.
HR can vary from day to day, and there is also a time delay between power output and HR-you need to use your imagination a bit when doing intervals as your HR may not get up to the correct level before the end of the interval, even though you were working at the correct effort level(especially a problem with shorter intervals and the first couple of intervals in a set).
As for 85% of MHR, this varies a great deal depending on how well you have trained your LT. Can vary anything from 80ish to 90ish. The lower end would indicate a large amount of room for improvement whereas a LT at the upper end would indicate that you need to concentrate more effort on VO2 max training LT is highly trained

All the best with the training.

The more information you gather from your training, the more you increase your likelyhood of improving.

snafu said:

Ric,
I've enjoyed reading this thread and I'm interested in the guidlines you use to train people using HR. I've purchased a Polar 725, I'm 36 and I've determined my MHR to be 196. Any suggestions you could give me would be great. Also I've read alot of info about 85% of MHR being your LT. What is your opinion on this.

Thanks,

the approximate HR guidelines i use are in this article (as a vague comparison to the power levels i use) http://www.cyclingnews.com/fitness/?id=powerstern

LT is a *low* intensity, that can be sustained for up to 3+ hrs... TT HR varies... mines about 90% but depends on fatigue and training, altitude and allsorts.

ric

ricstern said:

the approximate HR guidelines i use are in this article (as a vague comparison to the power levels i use) http://www.cyclingnews.com/fitness/?id=powerstern

LT is a *low* intensity, that can be sustained for up to 3+ hrs... TT HR varies... mines about 90% but depends on fatigue and training, altitude and allsorts.

ric

Thanks, If HR lags behind effort and is not a good indicator then why do so many people swear by it? There are many books published on the subject. Or is it that training by power is new concept?

snafu said:

Thanks, If HR lags behind effort and is not a good indicator then why do so many people swear by it? There are many books published on the subject. Or is it that training by power is new concept?

essentially, your last sentence is correct.

ric