Trying to work out my Lactate Threshold

Discussion in 'Cycling Training' started by jjjtttggg, Jun 14, 2005.

  1. acoggan

    acoggan Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2003
    Messages:
    3,047
    Likes Received:
    9
    My hour power is 93% of my 10 min power. My wife's hour power is 87% of her 10 min power. As Ric alluded to, this difference is due to the fact that my anaerobic capacity* is a little lower than average, whereas hers is far greater than average (especially for a woman). Not suprisingly, then, I'm better in longer road TTs, whereas she's a former national champion in the pursuit.

    *Although the absolute contribution of anaerobic metabolism to a 10 min effort is quite small, it isn't zero - furthermore, from a functional perspective one definition of "anaerobic capacity" would simply be "resistance to muscle fatigue during exercise at an intensity greater than critical power/maximal lactate steady state."
     


  2. Tom Schwartz

    Tom Schwartz New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2004
    Messages:
    17
    Likes Received:
    0

    Read more about testing for maximum aerobic power by Dr. Guy Thibault, scientific consultant for the Canadian Cycling Association, and you will find that he and Dr. Perronet, mavericks in the field, use a 7 minute maximum aerobic test for cycling, speed skating, running, and swimming.
    Dr. Billat of France uses 6:00. Dr. J. Daniels uses 8 or 9 minutes. I suggest that around 7 minutes is ideal, and I have found it to be so in the human performance lab. In the above posts, I gave the 10 minute figures because it is a nice even number, and it works well for cyclist who aren't accustom to getting up to top speed in a hurry. It will, therefore, serve as a solid predictor variable to use when extrapolating performance out to the 60 minute mark.

    By the way, the average percentage used for a 60 minute run or spin on the bike is 87-88% of maxium aerobic power for elite athletes; not 77% or less, as you state. I can site the science literature sources, if you want me too. I can also ask my friend, Dr. J.T. Daniels, who say 88% is the right number, to be my source for you, too. We all need to be open to new ideas, isn't that right? Class is in session for all of us, no doubt.
     
  3. Tom Schwartz

    Tom Schwartz New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2004
    Messages:
    17
    Likes Received:
    0
    Response:

    Actually, the percentages that you state for you and your wife do not mean that you have a higher anaerobic power than she does; relative to maximum aerobic power. You have it switched. The fact is you ride along at a higher percentage of your maximum aeorbic power because you have excellent aerobic efficiency. Your wife has less aerobic efficiency than you. Sprinters normally have superior anaerobic capacity, especially relative to their total metabolic max, and therefore are unable to ride at high percentages of their maximum aerobic power/capacity.

    Take a sprinter/middle distance cyclist who is stallling out in their performance improvements and you will find that they are not cycling at a high enough percentage of their MAP. Two ways to solve the problem. 1) Do more aerobic volume to elevate lactate removal. 2) Deliberately do less anaerobic capacity training to reduce the overwhelming anaerobic engine supressing aerobic capacity. Consult Dr. Jan Olbrect of Belgium for further details or email to researchers at the Cologne Institute of Sport. They are the gents who created the Soviet Bloc (including East German) sports engine.

    According to the figures you shared with us, it is no wonder than you are an excellent distance cyclist and she is better suited for the short events.

    Regards, Tom
     
  4. Tom Schwartz

    Tom Schwartz New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2004
    Messages:
    17
    Likes Received:
    0
     
  5. Tom Schwartz

    Tom Schwartz New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2004
    Messages:
    17
    Likes Received:
    0
    too general

    and earlier, cite, not sight

    I type fast sometimes. Hope this is more clear!
     
  6. ric_stern/RST

    ric_stern/RST New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2002
    Messages:
    3,866
    Likes Received:
    1
    Perhaps you should read the link i provided previously. It is clear that MAP is protocol sensitive. In other words the ~ 72 - 77% is for the protocol i use, which is the same/similar as British Cycling. Again, you cannot state with any certainty that 60 min TTpower is a specific (to one % point) % of 10-min (or whatever power). There are always differences between individuals.

    I don't believe that any self-respecting sports scientist would suggest a specific point either. See Dr A Coggan's responses previous to this reply.

    Ric
     
  7. ric_stern/RST

    ric_stern/RST New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2002
    Messages:
    3,866
    Likes Received:
    1
    Tom, are you typing too fast, or is English not your first language? Andy stated the opposite of what you've written -- i.e., he has a lower anaerobic capacity compared to his wife



    relative to maximum aerobic power. You have it switched. The fact is you ride along at a higher percentage of your maximum aeorbic power because you have excellent aerobic efficiency. Your wife has less aerobic efficiency than you. Sprinters normally have superior anaerobic capacity, especially relative to their total metabolic max, and therefore are unable to ride at high percentages of their maximum aerobic power/capacity.
    surely a sprinter works at intensities that are supra-maximal, i.e., above MAP. Whereas as middle distance cyclist (i've no idea to what event you're referring here, maybe a pursuiter as that was what Andy was talking about with his wife?) will have to race at a higher percentage of their MAP compared to a cyclist who competes in longer distance events, as intensity is inversely related to duration.

    ric
     
  8. Tom Schwartz

    Tom Schwartz New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2004
    Messages:
    17
    Likes Received:
    0
    Oh, so sorry! I misread the quote while in a hurry at work. Indeed, Ric, we have the same opinion on this matter. Andy rides at a higher percentage because his anaerobic component is not overbearing. I will suggest that Andy needs to do more anaerobic work if he decides to race in events shorter than 60 minutes to reach his potential. However, maybe Andy wants to do long races, say 2 hours plus and the ability to suppress anaerobic contribution is important in such a case. If Andy elevates both his aerobic threshold and his lactate threshold then he will likely improve substantially in both shorter and longer events. Good luck, Andy!
     
  9. ric_stern/RST

    ric_stern/RST New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2002
    Messages:
    3,866
    Likes Received:
    1
    This would be the case for any cyclist or athlete involved in endurance events (whether the race was 4-minutes or 4-hours) - if you mean raising the absolute power of his aerobic threshold (whatever that is) and his LT. If on the other hand you mean he needs to raise the % of his LT to MAP (whichever definition of MAP you use) then you're so far off the mark that it's almost funny.

    ric
     
  10. rmur17

    rmur17 New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2004
    Messages:
    1,066
    Likes Received:
    0
    Tom,
    I'm afraid you're full of something here mate. You quote a four digit conversion factor for 10-minute to 60-minute power - which is impossible to fit all people as AWC is a large % of 10-min power, can vary widely amongst individuals and training status, and is a much smaller percentage of 60MP.

    Point #2 is even worse: power and speed do not scale linearly. A typical 10-min TT effort say at 45 kph: Speed is proportional to Power ^(1/2.7).

    So scaling power AND speed by the same factor is completely and utterly wrong (I did not hear you mention a 10-min hillclimb!).

    rmur
     
  11. Tom Schwartz

    Tom Schwartz New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2004
    Messages:
    17
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ric: If you don't want to read something negative about your posts, then don't read what is below. I debated about whether to get into a embroiled debate with you, but I realized that you wouldn't admit when you are wrong, nor would you see the light. I also debated about whether I should just let it go, let you continue to be admired by people who don't know any better. I went ahead and spoke my mind without getting too overheated. If you read what is below, realize I warned you. Hopefully you will go back to the drawing board and start anew. I doubt it will happen, though.


    It is obvious that you have fooled a lot of people into thinking you actually know what you are talking about. You are stuck confirming the rubbish you have presented to people who had little ex. phys. background but who were eager to learn more about the sport they love. They were blank slates, open for creation. You stroked a painting in your own image which now seeps its oils and lands upon the patron's feet.

    Folks, go ahead ahead train at 77% or less of max aerobic power if you think ric is right about LT training. When you don't improve in races the way you think you should, perhaps you will recognize that ric has silly ideas. All one has to do is ask Chris Carmichael or his coaches and you would find that Lance, the other Discovery riders, nor any of America's National team sure don't cycle at such a low percentage when working on LT. I knew this 25 years ago when I studied the journals from Europe where LT testing originated.

    If you are ever in Italy, ask Dr. Conconi about the training of Francesco Moser (former world 1-hour record holder) about how Moser trained or Indurain's coach, for that matter is you seem him at the Giro, and you will see that they worked at or near 88% of MAP for years to improve LT. In a prallel scenario, I asked Dr. J. Daniels (a renowned running coach, former two time medalist in the Olympics in the modern pentathlon) what LT was as a percentage of max. He said, "88% of VDOT, which is my expression of maximum aerobic speed."

    Next time you see Greg Lemond, ask him to tell you about LT training. He sure as heck didn't work at 77% or lower, either, nor Chris Boardman, Hinault, Riis, any famous cyclist, for that matter.
     
  12. ric_stern/RST

    ric_stern/RST New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2002
    Messages:
    3,866
    Likes Received:
    1
    that's actually funny.

    Are you a troll?

    Perhaps you haven't actually read the article i pointed you to. Please read this next sentence carefully: *MAP is protocol dependent*. I'll make this simple for you: if you define MAP differently to me then the percentages will be different to the ones that i use (this is the same protocol as British Cycling, e.g., 15 W/min incremental rate for females and 20 W/min incremental rate for elite males)


    You're obviously a moron. NOT EVERYONES LT IS A SPECIFIC PERCENTAGE OF VO2MAX. IT IS NOT THE SAME FOR EVERY PERSON. IT THEREFORE ISNT 88% OF VDOT (hahaha!)


    having been in the lab when CB tested just prior to the Hour Record i can confirm his LT most certainly was not 77% of MAP (as defined the way that British Cycling does). It was considerably less. In fact his 1-hr TT power is/was less than 77% MAP.

    I suggest you carefully read the protocol for how i define MAP (which is the same as BC). Then take your head out of your ass before replying.

    Ric
     
  13. ric_stern/RST

    ric_stern/RST New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2002
    Messages:
    3,866
    Likes Received:
    1
    actually numb nuts, i suggest you do a MAP test the way that BC define it and then see how many seconds you last at 88% of it. clue, that's about the relative intensity that Boardman rode at to break the World Pursuit record

    ric
     
  14. Tom Schwartz

    Tom Schwartz New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2004
    Messages:
    17
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ric:

    You are used to getting your way, no doubt. The problem is: you are wrong.

    For anyone who doubts my statement, go online to the Journal of Applied Physiology 89; 1522-1527, 2000. That is issue number 4. The authors are Sabino Padilla, Inigo Mujika, Franciso Angelo, and Juan Jose Goiriena. They are the exercise scientists who measured Miguel Indurain just prior to his world record ride. Miguel cycled at 509.5 watts during his 1-hour cycling record. His MAP was determined as 572 watts. Therefore, he rode at 89% of max aerobic power. His OBLA (their definition of LT) was 505 watts, which is 88.29% of his MAP. It is all there in black and white to read. Clear as day!

    The point is this, LT occurs at an intensity equal to roughly 88% of MAP. Now, if the protocol you are using is shorter in time frame than nearly any reptuable lab, perhaps the figure you derived is lower. However, If the wattage achieved at MAP is the same as the other labs, then the LT values you are using to too low.

    I am not a troll. I just so happen to know what I am talking about and it offends you because you have built a reputation and a following. I challenge anyone to searcch on google.com and look at the scientific article I mentioned above. It confirms what has been written about elsewhere in science articles and in summary papers from human performance labs around the world.

    The question I have for you is this:

    Is the protocol you are using accurate at predicting MAP? If it is, then the 77% or less you are saying LT is wrong. If the 77% predicts LT accurately, then the MAP you are determining is wrong. So, which one of your methods is wrong?

    Ok, go ahead and bash away. It will make you feel better, but it won't change the facts.
     
  15. bikeguy

    bikeguy New Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2004
    Messages:
    655
    Likes Received:
    1
    Ric Stern wrote:

    actually numb nuts, ...

    Now now, Rick that's not very nice. I expect better of you.

    That said, Tom you're way off base. Where did Rick say that LT training should exclusively be done at below 77% of MAP?

    Oh, (Tom) and why do (eg, T-mobile) professional cycling teams do long 6 hr rides at around 34 km/hr riding in a pack? Obviously the power they ride at 34 km/hr in a pack is much less than 77% of MAP, no matter what widely accepted MAP protocol is used.

    Miguel Indurain had a calculated LT threshold of 83% of his Wmax (MAP). The protocol used to arrive at his MAP used 4 minute 35 watt increments with a 1 minute break inbetween and was performed at a constant 75 rpm, and the test took over 40 minutes to complete. Obviously, such a long test would produce lower MAP values than a puny 7 minute ramp (Indurain at 573 watts, nothing to sneeze at!!) , and Indurains LT power (and 1 hr TT power) are the highest ever recorded (478 watts and about 510-520 watts) and I think his percentage of MAP he was able to sustain at LT is also the highest recorded.

    So if anybody says they can hold over 83% of MAP (even with the MAP protocol being a 25 w/2 minute ramp) then I'd say that they've been training harder than Miguel Indurain.

    P.S- I think my LT threshold is about 63-65% of my MAP, fortunately I have a
    pretty good MAP so it's not all bad.

    Good evening, gentlemen.

    -Bikeguy
     
  16. ric_stern/RST

    ric_stern/RST New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2002
    Messages:
    3,866
    Likes Received:
    1
    You're right.

    apologies for that bikeguy.

    ric
     
  17. ric_stern/RST

    ric_stern/RST New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2002
    Messages:
    3,866
    Likes Received:
    1
    Tom, let me make this simple for you; there is no standardised way of stating what MAP is. In other words there is more than one way of measuring MAP (i.e., it has multiple definitions). This is due to many different protocols being used, as e.g., as pointed out by BikeGuy above where "Mig" used a discontinuous protocol (according to Bikeguy. I don't have the paper to hand).

    The protocol that i use, along with others, e.g., British Cycling, uses a continuous fast moving increment of (e.g.) 20 W/min for the test. This is often how e.g., a VO2max test is done in the UK, as it is standard for a 'max' test to finish in around 15-mins or less.

    This (the one i use) is obviously a much quicker test, resulting in a higher final power output compared with the test that was used by e.g., Indurain in the Padilla paper, i.e., ~ 15-mins compared to ~ 40-mins. The discontinuous test produces a lower final power output.

    Bearing the above in mind, and having *stacks* of data on a wide range of subjects (i.e., recreational to world champions) i developed my training zones paradigm based on 'that' test (i.e., one that is completed within about 15-mins). These tests for VO2max/MAP are pretty standard within the UK (and some other locations). However, some UK institutes use faster increments than i do (e.g., a 30 W/min increment or 35 W/min increment) and again this would mean that my zones would not work with such a protocol.

    ric
     
  18. Tom Schwartz

    Tom Schwartz New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2004
    Messages:
    17
    Likes Received:
    0
    Thanks. I think we can be civil and work this out.


    I refer you to two additional literature articles I j ust found. E.F. Coyle, A.R. Coggan, M.K. Hopper and T. J. Walters. Journal of Applied Physiology 64; 2622-2630, 1980 (issue 6). Time to fatigue at 88% of Vo2 max was 60.8+/- 3.1 minutes.

    Next, go to Med Science Sports & Exercise 1991, Jan; 23 (1): 93-101. Physiological and biomechanical factors associated with elite endurance cycling performance. In that study, group 1 did a 1-hour power test at 90+/-1% of VO2 max vs group 1 which did it at 86+/-2% of VO2 max.

    I understand that the British protocols are quite aggressive, but this may be overestimating VO2 max power (not necessarily overestimating VO2 max itself). I will suggest suggest an aggressive protocol overestimates the wattage (power) at VO2 max by roughly 15%.

    Cheers,
    Tom
     
  19. Tom Schwartz

    Tom Schwartz New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2004
    Messages:
    17
    Likes Received:
    0
    However, the UK protocol may be quite reliable for predicting which athletes are going to perform at the highest levels in competition because it is aggressive. So, though I suggest it may not be good for predicting sustaniable VO2 max power for training purposes (unless mathematically corrected, which is a definiti possibility), it may predict who should represent a naitonal team in the big events and who should go home and keep training.
     
  20. NJK

    NJK New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2004
    Messages:
    219
    Likes Received:
    0
    I thinks it is all down to using different protocol. I did a test at the university of Birmingham for Asker Jeukendrup. My percentage of Wmax at LT was 67%, i could ride at this pace for a 2hr stint maybe.
     
Loading...
Loading...