how much (if any) diff between LT and AT?

ccrnnr9 said:

Now that I am home for xmas break, I do not have access to a computrainer like I do when I am at school. For this reason, I was forced to find another way to estimate LT by doing a test on an indoor trainer. I used the testing protocol listed at the bottom of this page under "outdoor test" on my 1up trainer today. My average HR over the last 20minutes of the test was 183. Then I referred to the chart and found that according to it, my LT should be somewhere around 176bpm (estimate I know...that is according to the bottom of zone 4). Am I correct if I refer to that chart?

My real question is whether there is a large difference between LT and AT (anaerobic threshold)? In the protocols listed on that page, the indoor test is done on a computrainer and should give an individual very close to their LT. Do you think the protocol that I performed should do so for me if I follow that zone chart? They refer to AT as my AHR over the last 20minutes of the test (which was 183bpm). On the other hand, regardless of the test performed (indoor LT test or outdoor AT test) you are supposed to enter that value in the left most column in the chart to find training zones. Anyone else find this sketchy? I am new to a lot of this so if someone wouldn't mind explaining it would be greatly appreciated!
~Nick

Your lactate threshold, has nothing to do with heart rate. It's to do with (unsurpringly) the level of lactate in your blood, which requires invasive testing (i.e., blood being drawn; either a finger or ear [censored]).

LT is generally defined as the work rate that elicits a 1 mmol/L increase over exercise baseline levels (giving a lactate of ~ 2.X mmol/L) or the workrate that elicits a fixed lactate of 2.5 mmol/L). These are about 10 - 15% less power than, that which can be sustained maximally for ~one-hour.

If you ain't measuring work rate (watts in cycling, velocity in running) and aren't having blood drawn, then you ain't measuring LT.

On the other hand AT (anaerobic threshold) is a complete misnomer, as that means that everything above AT would be anaerobic (yet people often define AT as the work rate that can be sustained for one-hour) - you are however, aerobic upto VO2max (which is above the work rate that can be sustained for one-hour).

Anyway, not sure what you *actually* want to find out the but the stuff you quote is just plain nasty (which of course isn't your fault).

ric

ccrnnr9 said:

Now that I am home for xmas break, I do not have access to a computrainer like I do when I am at school. For this reason, I was forced to find another way to estimate LT by doing a test on an indoor trainer. I used the testing protocol listed at the bottom of this page under "outdoor test" on my 1up trainer today. My average HR over the last 20minutes of the test was 183. Then I referred to the chart and found that according to it, my LT should be somewhere around 176bpm (estimate I know...that is according to the bottom of zone 4). Am I correct if I refer to that chart?

My real question is whether there is a large difference between LT and AT (anaerobic threshold)? In the protocols listed on that page, the indoor test is done on a computrainer and should give an individual very close to their LT. Do you think the protocol that I performed should do so for me if I follow that zone chart? They refer to AT as my AHR over the last 20minutes of the test (which was 183bpm). On the other hand, regardless of the test performed (indoor LT test or outdoor AT test) you are supposed to enter that value in the left most column in the chart to find training zones. Anyone else find this sketchy? I am new to a lot of this so if someone wouldn't mind explaining it would be greatly appreciated!
~Nick

While I do understand what Ric is saying, I think that there is a "layman's" answer to your question.

Semantics aside, if you're not using power to measure output, the next best thing that seems to be the normal recommendation is Lactate Threshold Heart Rate. I think I've seen sites and books that have used the terms AT and LT pretty much synonomously. Granted, the physiology may not exactly support the "term," but they use the terms generally to mean the same training intensity. For Friel's world, it's the bottom number of Zone 5a.

I think the best way I found to measure my LTHR is to take a 1 hour time trial, measure the middle 20 minute average heart rate, and use it exactly. I forget what Friel uses in the CTB for LTHR testing, but there is still certainly plenty of room for training with HR for those without the desire or dinero to purchase a powermeter/powertrainer.

NomadVW said:

Semantics aside, if you're not using power to measure output, the next best thing that seems to be the normal recommendation is Lactate Threshold Heart Rate.

there's no such thing. However, even if there was it would be the effort you could sustain for around 3 hours, not the stuff some coaches suggest

Quoted post said:

I think the best way I found to measure my LTHR is to take a 1 hour time trial, measure the middle 20 minute average heart rate, and use it exactly.

that's probably even worse.

As an aside, at ~1-hr TT power my HR can vary by up to 15 b/min when my power stays the same

Quoted post said:

I forget what Friel uses in the CTB for LTHR testing, but there is still certainly plenty of room for training with HR for those without the desire or dinero to purchase a powermeter/powertrainer.

note, i am not saying you can't use HR to guide training for those that don't have a power meter, but that's different to the discussion in hand.

ric

ric_stern/RST said:

Your lactate threshold, has nothing to do with heart rate. It's to do with (unsurpringly) the level of lactate in your blood, which requires invasive testing (i.e., blood being drawn; either a finger or ear [censored]).

I know what LT is, I just was under the impression that there can be an LTHR (which is what I was referring to). Apparently I am wrong. In that case, for those of us who are unable to train with power, what is the best option? Joe Friel defines his zones based on LTHR. Is he wrong or am I misunderstanding something?

ric_stern/RST said:

Anyway, not sure what you *actually* want to find out the but the stuff you quote is just plain nasty (which of course isn't your fault).

I am wanting to find the best way to define zones if I do not have ANY access to training with power. I am currently using the Garmin Edge 305 with cad and HR and I cannot afford a power meter of any sort. I was under the impression that I could find an approximate LTHR by doing a test and then use that to base my zones off of. If not, should I use my MHR instead?
~Nick

P.S. I apologize for all the confusion. I am still learning some of the details of developing a training plan.

ccrnnr9 said:

I know what LT is, I just was under the impression that there can be an LTHR (which is what I was referring to). Apparently I am wrong. In that case, for those of us who are unable to train with power, what is the best option? Joe Friel defines his zones based on LTHR. Is he wrong or am I misunderstanding something?

I am wanting to find the best way to define zones if I do not have ANY access to training with power. I am currently using the Garmin Edge 305 with cad and HR and I cannot afford a power meter of any sort. I was under the impression that I could find an approximate LTHR by doing a test and then use that to base my zones off of. If not, should I use my MHR instead?
~Nick

P.S. I apologize for all the confusion. I am still learning some of the details of developing a training plan.

You could base your zones on "FTHR" as described here:

midweekclub.cacoggan levels.htmOpen ↗

ccrnnr9 said:

I am wanting to find the best way to define zones if I do not have ANY access to training with power.

Does your Garmin Edge have a wireless pickup for speed? Anyway, even if it doesn't you can get a simple speedometer with wireless speed pickup for <$100. Mount the magnet pickup on the rear wheel. Then you can ride by speed. Personally I ride my high-intensity efforts at ~92% of my max speed for a given duration.

RapDaddyo said:

Does your Garmin Edge have a wireless pickup for speed? Anyway, even if it doesn't you can get a simple speedometer with wireless speed pickup for <$100. Mount the magnet pickup on the rear wheel. Then you can ride by speed. Personally I ride my high-intensity efforts at ~92% of my max speed for a given duration.

Yes it does have a wireless pickup for speed. As good of an idea as this would be for training on a trainer, wouldn't it be subject to too many varibales to make it useful outdoors (wind, %grade, terrain, etc) which is where I do most of my training. Correct me if I am wrong...
~Nick

RapDaddyo said:

Does your Garmin Edge have a wireless pickup for speed? Anyway, even if it doesn't you can get a simple speedometer with wireless speed pickup for <$100. Mount the magnet pickup on the rear wheel. Then you can ride by speed. Personally I ride my high-intensity efforts at ~92% of my max speed for a given duration.

This is excellent advice. My first year of cycling training i did all my training based on HR zones. Looking back on it I don't regret that I did that because it takes time to produce the changes in your body necessary to compete at a high level. But, now that I have some years on my legs, i'm ready to move into a more precise method.

I was a lurker on this forum for quite a while, just reading threads and learning. I didn't own a power meter, but i had a fluid trainer. After reading a thread where the precision and accuracy of certain powermeters were discussed, I had a revelation. Precision is the key.. what i mean is, if a certain speed on my trainer takes the same amount of effort each time, who cares if i know the actual wattage that it transfers to, it can be used to track changes progress.

The way I did this was actually to use gearing combinations and RPMs
For example when doing 3 x 5 minute intervals, i first was only able to do the 39x19 combination at 95 rpms. As my training progressed I would move the rpms up, and then jump to the next gear, 39x17. When changing between gears the important part is the speed that is produced, because that is really what matters when looked at from an absolute scale.

I'm not sure what your goals are, but my advice to you is to attempt a 2 x 20 workout. Pick a gear that allows you to do comfortable rpm and hold that speed on your speedo for the whole 20 minutes. Rest for 5 min then do the same speed for the second 20 minutes. If you can finish it easily, then shoot for a slightly higher speed the next time you do the workout. Here's where rpms come in handy IMO. A difference of 1 MPH on a trainer is usually a big difference in terms of power, but holding 90 rpm vs 85 is usually pretty do able.

My guess is that if you get hooked on doing precise workouts like the one I described it will only be a matter of time before you get a PM of your own.
Enjoy!

ccrnnr9 said:

I know what LT is, I just was under the impression that there can be an LTHR (which is what I was referring to). Apparently I am wrong. In that case, for those of us who are unable to train with power, what is the best option? Joe Friel defines his zones based on LTHR. Is he wrong or am I misunderstanding something?

He can define his training zones however he likes. However, it may be better to call them 20-min TTHR (or whatever his protocol is) rather than LTHR. And, if people tell me it's semantics or i'm being 'fussy' well think about it like this: if a non-english speaking person was learning english and kept calling a "table" a "chair" you'd continue correcting them.

Quoted post said:

I am wanting to find the best way to define zones if I do not have ANY access to training with power. I am currently using the Garmin Edge 305 with cad and HR and I cannot afford a power meter of any sort. I was under the impression that I could find an approximate LTHR by doing a test and then use that to base my zones off of. If not, should I use my MHR instead?
~Nick

P.S. I apologize for all the confusion. I am still learning some of the details of developing a training plan.

There are many ways to define zones based on HR. Off the top of my head, prior to my morning espresso kicking in, i can think of at least 7 methods

1) based on 20-min TT HR (Friel)
2) based on 60-min TT HR (Coggan)
3) based on HR max using adapted Peter Keen zones (which is what i use for people who don't have a power meter)
4) HR max and Peter Keen zones
5) HR max and British Cycling zones
6) 3-mile TT HR (Carmichael)
7) HR reserve

Take your pick, and see how your preferred methodology and sports scientist/coach works.

Then be very aware that HR (at TT effort) or max can vary with acute and chronic changes in fitness, and so they need to be combined with percieved exertion and not to be used rigidly

ric

NomadVW said:

I think I've seen sites and books that have used the terms AT and LT pretty much synonomously. Granted, the physiology may not exactly support the "term," but they use the terms generally to mean the same training intensity. For Friel's world, it's the bottom number of Zone 5a.

I think the best way I found to measure my LTHR is to take a 1 hour time trial, measure the middle 20 minute average heart rate, and use it exactly. I forget what Friel uses in the CTB for LTHR testing, but there is still certainly plenty of room for training with HR for those without the desire or dinero to purchase a powermeter/powertrainer.

Sports scientists define LT as an intensity where lactate first begins a measurable rise above the baseline blood concentration, which represents an intensity that can be sustained for ~3hrs, as Ric says.

Many coaches, authors, and athletes (ie, laymen 😉 ) have borrowed (or misused) that term to describe the highest intensity which can be held without eventually being shut down by rising lactate levels, or the maximal blood lactate that can be tolerated for a significant period of time without limiting performance. Unfortunately, there were already better terms for that intensity -- Maximal Lactate Steady-State (MLSS) or Onset of Blood Lactate Accumulation (OBLA). MLSS and OBLA are ~ 4mmol/L and represent the intensity above which blood lactate will continue to rise until the athlete is forced to stop, and are closer to 1hr TT intensity than LT.

ccrnnr9 said:

Yes it does have a wireless pickup for speed. As good of an idea as this would be for training on a trainer, wouldn't it be subject to too many varibales to make it useful outdoors (wind, %grade, terrain, etc) which is where I do most of my training. Correct me if I am wrong...
~Nick

It's not intended for use outside for the reasons you mention. But, that's not what you asked. With a speedometer and a good trainer such as the 1UP, you have what I think is a very good system for targeting specific adaptations. But, the protocol I suggested assumes that resistance remains constant as a function of speed and that there is a predictable relationship between speed and power (not linear, but predictable). Those assumptions are of course out the window when you go outside other than climbs >5% of a known and consistent grade and with light winds. But, the fact that the protocol doesn't work outside doesn't disqualify it for use on your trainer. If you want a protocol that works inside and outside, you're going to probably go to a HR-based system with all its inherent faults. Before you do that, try this test. First, figure out what your max sustainable constant speed is for 20mins. Now, do 2x20 @ 92% of that speed, with a 5min recovery between the two 20min efforts. Wear your HR monitor and take note of the HR at the beginning and end of each 20min effort. I predict that your HR will drift a minimum of 5bpm during each 20min effort. If you were to ride the 20min efforts based on HR, you would be riding at a continuously decreasing intensity.

RapDaddyo said:

If you were to ride the 20min efforts based on HR, you would be riding at a continuously decreasing intensity.

Is this because of cardiac drift?

Secondly, thanks to all the contributors in this forum/thread. It has been very helpful. I will make sure to incorporate the idea you mentioned with the trainer I have for indoor training. The more I think about it, as long as the workout is good, there is no reason trainer workouts should not be done year round. This forum is great! It is great to come here and have so many people who are so knowledgeable on the subject...maybe some day I will be one of those people! 😄
~Nick

ccrnnr9 said:

Is this because of cardiac drift?

Yes. This is one of the reasons HR is a relatively poor choice to manage intensity of effort. The other reason is that HR is inconsistent from day to day and week to week at the same intensity of effort. You will see this yourself on the trainer. You might want to record the beginning and ending HR for your 20min L4 efforts and then look at the pattern over time. I think you will find significant differences both from day to day and from beginning to end of an effort.

RapDaddyo said:

Yes. This is one of the reasons HR is a relatively poor choice to manage intensity of effort. The other reason is that HR is inconsistent from day to day and week to week at the same intensity of effort. You will see this yourself on the trainer. You might want to record the beginning and ending HR for your 20min L4 efforts and then look at the pattern over time. I think you will find significant differences both from day to day and from beginning to end of an effort.

So, just for the sake of argument (and since I find myself training with heart rate while the powertap is on one of its perrenial warrantee vision quests): so what? If I know my heart rate "drifts" significantly over the course of an interval, why not have such "drifting" be part of the workout goal? E.g., if I know a 20-minute interval at constant-ish effort will quickly ramp over the first couple minutes to 168, and then slowly ramp over the remaining interval to 174, why can't I the interval with that target in mind? You're the one always advocating riders executing complicated little scripts while they stare at their artificially intelligent power meters; this seems a lot simpler than the "go 108% FT around this bend, then 92% over the false flat around the corner," etc., that you're constnantly claiming is a no-brainer.

As for day to day variation, well, sure, but isn't that kind of why RPE exists? Why not key the beginning and ending bpm's to your day's RPE-calibrated "crusing" heart rate; after all, you get to see that heart rate while warming up, and it automagically takes into account your starting hydration, rest, caffeine intake, diet, etc...

In response to the previous post, why is it that as soon as power training became popular, everyone has begun to blow HR training off as some stone age technology? I know it is not perfect but most of the downsides to HR training have been known for far longer than power tap and other somewhat economically priced power meters are available on the market.

Furthermore, with regards to cardiac drift, will it affect HR so much as to make basing training off of these intervals ineffective? For example, if I were to be using Ric's HR intervals and wanted to do a 60minute ride at the middle to top of zone 4 (for me around 171-174bpm), would cardiac drift affect my HR so much that my intentions of performing a ride in this zone for obvious gains would be minimized (in a significantly greater amount than if I were to be training with power?)? I have a hard time believing that it will make and incredible difference. If it is going to make a difference, in what direction should I watch for my HR to move and how should I adjust accordingly in order to stay within the bounds I wanted to at the beginning of the workout (for my example, middle to top of zone4)?
~Nick

I think HR may be fairly good at predicting ATL, and power at predicting CTL.

kmavm said:

So, just for the sake of argument (and since I find myself training with heart rate while the powertap is on one of its perrenial warrantee vision quests): so what? If I know my heart rate "drifts" significantly over the course of an interval, why not have such "drifting" be part of the workout goal? E.g., if I know a 20-minute interval at constant-ish effort will quickly ramp over the first couple minutes to 168, and then slowly ramp over the remaining interval to 174, why can't I the interval with that target in mind? You're the one always advocating riders executing complicated little scripts while they stare at their artificially intelligent power meters; this seems a lot simpler than the "go 108% FT around this bend, then 92% over the false flat around the corner," etc., that you're constnantly claiming is a no-brainer.

As for day to day variation, well, sure, but isn't that kind of why RPE exists? Why not key the beginning and ending bpm's to your day's RPE-calibrated "crusing" heart rate; after all, you get to see that heart rate while warming up, and it automagically takes into account your starting hydration, rest, caffeine intake, diet, etc...

Why all the justification for using a method of managing intensity of effort (HRM) that is inferior to the method I recommended (speed on the trainer)? If you want to use a HRM, knock yourself out. I know that for me it is not well correlated with my intensity of effort, on a given ride or from day to day. I generally avoid instrumentation that is inconsistent or misleading. But, if you like training with such instrumentation, go for it. You'll get no argument from me.

RapDaddyo said:

Why all the justification for using a method of managing intensity of effort (HRM) that is inferior to the method I recommended (speed on the trainer)? If you want to use a HRM, knock yourself out. I know that for me it is not well correlated with my intensity of effort, on a given ride or from day to day. I generally avoid instrumentation that is inconsistent or misleading. But, if you like training with such instrumentation, go for it. You'll get no argument from me.

I did not mean to knock your speed on a trainer method. I wish I had come up with it myself! I am just saying that without a power meter, I am limited to a HRM when it comes to outdoor rides. I don't mind riding a trainer, but there will come a time when I do have to get some practical time out on the rode.
~Nick

ccrnnr9 said:

In response to the previous post, why is it that as soon as power training became popular, everyone has begun to blow HR training off as some stone age technology? I know it is not perfect but most of the downsides to HR training have been known for far longer than power tap and other somewhat economically priced power meters are available on the market.

Furthermore, with regards to cardiac drift, will it affect HR so much as to make basing training off of these intervals ineffective? For example, if I were to be using Ric's HR intervals and wanted to do a 60minute ride at the middle to top of zone 4 (for me around 171-174bpm), would cardiac drift affect my HR so much that my intentions of performing a ride in this zone for obvious gains would be minimized (in a significantly greater amount than if I were to be training with power?)? I have a hard time believing that it will make and incredible difference. If it is going to make a difference, in what direction should I watch for my HR to move and how should I adjust accordingly in order to stay within the bounds I wanted to at the beginning of the workout (for my example, middle to top of zone4)?
~Nick

Attached is from an actual ride file, NP and AvgHR by mile for a 17.5 mile hillclimb. See for yourself the consistency of the relationship between power and HR. Check out miles 1 and 8-12. Draw your own conclusions about training with a HRM vs. a PM.