Training Zones?

Get the "Cyclist's Training Bible" it's a great book, has all the training zones in it, but you're 16, just go out and ride a bunch, don't focus soley on cycling, but a lot of young kids burn out young because all they do is cycling. I was a swimmer when younger, and i swam 5-9 times a week from when i was 10 until i was 17, and then just lost the drive. So don't burn out. Get the training bible, there is actually a section on specialized training for juniors, great book.

thanks alot gregkeller I will look around for the book. I beleive your are right when u say just go out and ride a bunch, but i would like to get the maximum benifit for what i am doing. I am sure you understand.

FSR comp 100 said:

I am 16 years old, I am 5' 10" tall and weight 155lbs, I recently got a heart rate monitor and found out my lactate threshold which is 171. I wanted to know where i can find information online for training zones. If anyone knows where to find this information please let me know.

On top of 'The Bible', a couple of other good books are Performance Cycling by Dave Morris, Serious Cycling by Ed Burke, Smart Cycling by Arnie Baker, and The Ultimate Ride by Chris Charmichael.

The articles and resources on this site are there also.

get the bible first, but here are your training zones based on that book

Recovery : 112-139 Zone 1
Aerobic : 140-152 Zone 2
Tempo: 153-160 Zone 3
Sub Threshold : 161-170 Zone 4
Super Threshold: 171-174 Zone 5A
Aerobic Capacity : 175-180 Zone 5B
Anaerobic Capacity: 181-187 Zone 5C

Now go get the book and find out how to use those numbers.

Your lactate threshold value appears to be very low. If it is then you won't be training at the appropriate level and you may end up going into races undertrained. It might pay to get tested properly. Get in touch with your local club and find out if there is a coach who might be able to help you out.

I have to agree with the last post. I am 24 and have a LT of 176 bpm, which i felt was kind of low, but that is what i tested at with a laboratory test. There are a bunch of variables in the equation, so one data point isn't always something to rely on. That being said i don't think the actual number means all that much, what counts is how much power you can put out at that number, and how long you can ride at or above that number which will determine how good you can be. I just started training with power, and i've got to tell you it is much nicer knowing how much power i'm putting out as opposed to heart rate. 171 seems a little low, but not excessively low.

gregkeller said:

I have to agree with the last post. I am 24 and have a LT of 176 bpm, which i felt was kind of low, but that is what i tested at with a laboratory test. There are a bunch of variables in the equation, so one data point isn't always something to rely on. That being said i don't think the actual number means all that much, what counts is how much power you can put out at that number, and how long you can ride at or above that number which will determine how good you can be. I just started training with power, and i've got to tell you it is much nicer knowing how much power i'm putting out as opposed to heart rate. 171 seems a little low, but not excessively low.

Just to clarify, LT is NOT and has never been a HR number. I would go so far to say that if a lab tells you it's a HR number then you should leave pronto.

The definition of a LT is generally accepted within the peer reviewed literature as the workload that elicits a 1 mmol/L increase lactate over exercise baseline level (i.e., ~2.x mmol/L) or the workload that elicits a lactate of 2.5 mmol/L. Workload is measured in power (Watts - W) in cycling or velocity (m/s or km/hr) in running.

Additionally, such a definition of LT is ~ 10 - 15% less power than, that which can be generated in a ~1-hr TT.

Ric

Ric,
would you mind clearing this up for me, i guess i didn't go to a lab, it was a bike shop that hooked me up to a trainer, and we did a ramped test, where we increased the resistance every minute, and then there was a machine they hooked me up to, to get heart rate, as well as oxygen inspired and co2 expelled. They then told me what my VO2 max was, and they also told me my Lactate threshold heart rate. So did i get screwed. I didn't have a power tap at this time so i had no power values to corelate against the HR values.

gregkeller said:

Ric,
would you mind clearing this up for me, i guess i didn't go to a lab, it was a bike shop that hooked me up to a trainer, and we did a ramped test, where we increased the resistance every minute, and then there was a machine they hooked me up to, to get heart rate, as well as oxygen inspired and co2 expelled. They then told me what my VO2 max was, and they also told me my Lactate threshold heart rate. So did i get screwed. I didn't have a power tap at this time so i had no power values to corelate against the HR values.

did they take blood from you? for your blood lactate measure...?

No blood taken, i guess i kinda got the wool pulled over my eyes.

gregkeller said:

No blood taken, i guess i kinda got the wool pulled over my eyes.

assuming the gas analysers were well calibrated prior to testing then that's some useful info (your VO2max). really, though the most important info is what they didn't tell you (your maximal aerobic power - MAP, which would have been achieved at the end of the test).

i'm not sure what they were refering to as for your "LT", as it does require blood to be taken (fingertip or ear lobe, pretty painless).

Greg, i'm not sure where you're located but we (RST) do testing in the US and the UK.

sorry to have been the bearer of bad news, i just hope it wasn't expensive.

ric

gregkeller said:

No blood taken, i guess i kinda got the wool pulled over my eyes.

Ric is correct in everything he says, but I wouldn't necessarily say you had the wool pulled over your eyes, although they either should have, or were unable to, explain(ed) things better. The individuals who tested you may have just been giving you the info you wanted in lay terms as opposed to the more correct Ex Phys terms. Most people are familiar with the concept of a lactate threshold, although they may not be exactly sure what it means or how it is obtained. So, in actuality, someone with a met cart actually measures what some might call your "anaerobic" threshold, that can be determined by expired gases, and which also *sometimes* corresponds to blood lactate thresholds, but not necesarily *the* LT. There are a number of physiological thresholds that are observed during incremental exercise, and to demonstrate the point, specifically regarding circulating lactate, there is LT, OBLA, OPLA, IAT and probably one or two others I can't think of right now. Using expired gases, one can determine the AT, VT or RCT, but not the LT, since lactate is never actually measured. So, they may have determined your AT, attached a HR to it, and told you it was your LTHR. As you can see, it would take a while to explain what was actually being tested, they may have just used a terminology you were familiar with. It would be nice if they had asked if you wanted to have things explained to you though.

On that note, a full interpretation of the test should be a component of any VO2max/lactate threshold test. Further, if it were me, I'd like to know the qualifications of the individuals administering a VO2max test in a bike shop. Determination of any threshold is tricky, but in particular, the expired gas threshold are especially difficult to determine unless you have a fair bit of experience, or an instrument with automated interpretation, and you just leave it up the instrument. Either way, this type of test is beyond the expertise of most shop rats.

Steve McGregor said:

Ric is correct in everything he says, but I wouldn't necessarily say you had the wool pulled over your eyes, although they either should have, or were unable to, explain(ed) things better. The individuals who tested you may have just been giving you the info you wanted in lay terms as opposed to the more correct Ex Phys terms. Most people are familiar with the concept of a lactate threshold, although they may not be exactly sure what it means or how it is obtained. So, in actuality, someone with a met cart actually measures what some might call your "anaerobic" threshold, that can be determined by expired gases, and which also *sometimes* corresponds to blood lactate thresholds, but not necesarily *the* LT. There are a number of physiological thresholds that are observed during incremental exercise, and to demonstrate the point, specifically regarding circulating lactate, there is LT, OBLA, OPLA, IAT and probably one or two others I can't think of right now. Using expired gases, one can determine the AT, VT or RCT, but not the LT, since lactate is never actually measured. So, they may have determined your AT, attached a HR to it, and told you it was your LTHR. As you can see, it would take a while to explain what was actually being tested, they may have just used a terminology you were familiar with. It would be nice if they had asked if you wanted to have things explained to you though.

On that note, a full interpretation of the test should be a component of any VO2max/lactate threshold test. Further, if it were me, I'd like to know the qualifications of the individuals administering a VO2max test in a bike shop. Determination of any threshold is tricky, but in particular, the expired gas threshold are especially difficult to determine unless you have a fair bit of experience, or an instrument with automated interpretation, and you just leave it up the instrument. Either way, this type of test is beyond the expertise of most shop rats.

Doesn't your last sentence tie in with what Greg was thinking...? I agree that such testing should be conducted by qualified personnel.

On a different note, assuming by AT you mean "anaerobic threshold", how can it be determined - as the term is a misnomer?

Ric

ric_stern/RST said:

Doesn't your last sentence tie in with what Greg was thinking...? I agree that such testing should be conducted by qualified personnel.

On a different note, assuming by AT you mean "anaerobic threshold", how can it be determined - as the term is a misnomer?

Ric

Agreed on the qualified personnel note. But... when I was in grad school, I would perform VO2max tests for buddies in the lab on weekends, or in the evening (i'm sure everybody does). At the time, I also worked at a bikeshop. There are relatively inexpensive portable, or even used standalone units nowadays, so, it is conceivable a relatively qualified person could be affiliated with the shop that has their own unit. Not entirely out of the realm of possibility in my mind, but I'd be skeptical. I have had no experience with some of the less expensive systems though, so, I cannot comment on the quality of data generated by them. Of course, as I implied by my statement, I personally would go to a formal Ex Phys lab to have a VO2max done.

On the AT, I agree, personally, that it is a misnomer, but it is accepted in the literature and the field of clinical cardiovascular ex phys. I'm not going to defend it, if you want, you could try e-mailing Wasserman to argue with him.😉

Steve McGregor said:

Agreed on the qualified personnel note. But... when I was in grad school, I would perform VO2max tests for buddies in the lab on weekends, or in the evening (i'm sure everybody does). At the time, I also worked at a bikeshop. There are relatively inexpensive portable, or even used standalone units nowadays, so, it is conceivable a relatively qualified person could be affiliated with the shop that has their own unit. Not entirely out of the realm of possibility in my mind, but I'd be skeptical. I have had no experience with some of the less expensive systems though, so, I cannot comment on the quality of data generated by them. Of course, as I implied by my statement, I personally would go to a formal Ex Phys lab to have a VO2max done.

i agree with you (that was my point before, i think!). Can't say i've ever performed a VO2max test for a friend in the lab or weekend (but have done MAP tests -- almost the same but not quite). The portable units *i've* seen haven't been any good, but i've not looked at portables for a good while now. Personally, i've only been happy to use Douglass Bags. Yes, i'd either go to an ex phys/sports science dept or make sure someone had good quality, well calibrated kit.

Quoted post said:

On the AT, I agree, personally, that it is a misnomer, but it is accepted in the literature and the field of clinical cardiovascular ex phys. I'm not going to defend it, if you want, you could try e-mailing Wasserman to argue with him.😉

ahh! i thought you were defending it! my bad!

ric

ric_stern/RST said:

i agree with you (that was my point before, i think!). Can't say i've ever performed a VO2max test for a friend in the lab or weekend (but have done MAP tests -- almost the same but not quite). The portable units *i've* seen haven't been any good, but i've not looked at portables for a good while now. Personally, i've only been happy to use Douglass Bags. Yes, i'd either go to an ex phys/sports science dept or make sure someone had good quality, well calibrated kit.

As far as the portables go, I haven't been impressed until lately. We just purchased two new Jaeger units, and they are tip top. Accurate, precise, 12 lead, redundant backups, very nice interface, and stable. Haven't tried them in the field yet, but have been validating in the lab for the past few weeks, and I'm very happy we got them.

ric_stern/RST said:

ahh! i thought you were defending it! my bad!

ric

Always itchin for a fight, eh 😉 ?

Steve McGregor said:

As far as the portables go, I haven't been impressed until lately. We just purchased two new Jaeger units, and they are tip top. Accurate, precise, 12 lead, redundant backups, very nice interface, and stable. Haven't tried them in the field yet, but have been validating in the lab for the past few weeks, and I'm very happy we got them.

do you have a url for them?

Quoted post said:

Always itchin for a fight, eh 😉 ?

Lol! no, i just think people should endeavour to use the correct terms

ric

ric_stern/RST said:

do you have a url for them?

The link for Oxycon mobile

jaeger-toennies.comenglish.htmlOpen ↗

ric_stern/RST said:

Lol! no, i just think people should endeavour to use the correct terms

ric

Agreed, but as I'm sure the proponents of EPOC nomenclature can attest, momentum of generally accepted terminology is difficult to overcome.

Steve

After looking for the data they gave to me after the test, and not being able to find it, i think that the value they gave me was Anaerobic Threshold. I guess it was my mistake, and lack of human phys. knowledge that i assumed that and LT were the same. The unit they used was called "New Leaf" or something along those lines. I feel like it was a self contained unit, where the operator had very little deciphering of data to do. I really just did it to see what it was about.