Lactate testing / training

[email hidden] wrote in message ...

Quoted message said:

I've read a lot about using lactate testing in addition to (instead of?)
heart rate monitoring to make training more precise.

How widespread is lactate testing today?

How do you use it to improve VO2?

Measuring blood lactate levels can be done at intervals during a controlled
sport-specific exercise session to plot an individual's blood lactate curve,
and to determine that individual's lactate threshold (LT) pace, heart rate
and precise lactate level (at LT). LT is also known as anaerobic threshold,
and is the region of effort at which blood lactate starts to accumulate too
fast to be neutralized.

VO2max training is different from LT training, and is done at a level above
LT; so once LT is known, you can use either a percentage above LT or a
percent of maxHR to train at VO2max effort. LT training will improve the
ability to ride at all speeds, particularly at tempo pace.

The LT effort level area (pace and HR) can also be determined during
sport-specific testing using a heart rate monitor and a carefully controlled
progression of effort. There are many ways to do this but conconi's test is
probably the best known. One book specifically about this and measuring
lactate levels is "Lactate Threshold Training" by Peter Janssen, 2001.

- Tony

<[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

I've read a lot about using lactate testing in addition to (instead of?)
heart rate monitoring to make training more precise.

How widespread is lactate testing today?

How do you use it to improve VO2?

I don't know but I saw Lance using a little handheld lactate guaging device
in one of his Lance Chronicles episodes. It was called something like The
Lactate Pro or something catchy like that. I wonder if they will one-day be
as cheap as these $20 HRM's that we find everywhere.

Dave

Quoted message said:

I've read a lot about using lactate testing in addition to (instead
of?) heart rate monitoring to make training more precise.

How widespread is lactate testing today?

How do you use it to improve VO2?

Training with a Powermeter is probably the most practical way to go about
it. It will give you a very precise knowledge of your LT ( lactate
threshold). Some that train with Power don't even wear their HR cheststraps
anymore.
www.topica.com/lists/wattage/read

Before I started trainiing with Power I used to think my LT HR was 170 bpm.
Today I know it varies between 165 and 175 bpm due to cardiac drift ,
temperature and other factors that are difficult to measure. I also know
exactly how many Watts I can average for a given time period. The Power is
much more consistent than my HR and in the end Power is what it's all about.
I did not need to do any blood tests or visit a lab at any time. All I
needed to do was to analyze my Wattage over a period of time using a good
analyzing tool.
www.cyclingpeakssoftware.com

An example.
My One hour LT is 270 Watts. If I want to do VO2 training I can look into
the tables of the CyclingPeals Software and see that I should do intervals
of 3-8 minutes at a Wattage of 286-326. Lower Wattage for 8 minutes and
higher Wattage for three minute intervals. Updating and progress feedback is
instantaneous.

--
Perre

"Power is the future"

In article <[email hidden]>, Pistof

Quoted message said:

<[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

I've read a lot about using lactate testing in addition to (instead of?)
heart rate monitoring to make training more precise.

How widespread is lactate testing today?

How do you use it to improve VO2?

I don't know but I saw Lance using a little handheld lactate guaging device
in one of his Lance Chronicles episodes. It was called something like The
Lactate Pro or something catchy like that. I wonder if they will one-day be
as cheap as these $20 HRM's that we find everywhere.

The device he was using is good and only costs about $400, plus a small
cost for the disposable blood extractor parts. Simple to use the
device. Not as easy to use the information properly.

-WG

In article <[email hidden]>, Per Elmsäter

Quoted message said:

An example.
My One hour LT is 270 Watts. If I want to do VO2 training I can look into
the tables of the CyclingPeals Software and see that I should do intervals
of 3-8 minutes at a Wattage of 286-326. Lower Wattage for 8 minutes and
higher Wattage for three minute intervals.

My LT (4mMol) power is currently near 320-330 watts but I do VO2max
intervals 30 seconds on/off for 5 to 10 minutes each set in the range
of 480-550 watts during the "on" portion. Depending on your objectives
you may want to add something like this to your training.

-WG

warren said:

In article <[email hidden]>, Per Elmsäter

Quoted message said:

An example.
My One hour LT is 270 Watts. If I want to do VO2 training I can look
into the tables of the CyclingPeals Software and see that I should
do intervals of 3-8 minutes at a Wattage of 286-326. Lower Wattage
for 8 minutes and higher Wattage for three minute intervals.

My LT (4mMol) power is currently near 320-330 watts but I do VO2max
intervals 30 seconds on/off for 5 to 10 minutes each set in the range
of 480-550 watts during the "on" portion. Depending on your objectives
you may want to add something like this to your training.

-WG

I do of course do different intervals than the ones prescribed above. It was
as I stated an example of how my current fitnes will dictate at what level
to train for different goals, with the help of a Powermeter and good
training software.

As for your 30 seconds on/off. If you look at what you average for 5 or 10
minutes, including the off portion, you'll notice that it is proabably in
the range of 350-400 W which is percentagewise the same levels I work at
when doing VO2max work at 3-8 minute intervals.

I am in no way an expert on this. Just trying to follow the advice I've
received, as I've understood it, from the Wattage group and Andy Coggan.
Andy in particular has put down a lot of work in making Power based training
effective and easily attainable by everyone.
www.topica.com/lists/wattage/read

Your Coggan levels would look like this at an LT of 330

L6 Anaerobic capacity 399 W and up Interrvals of 30 sec to 3 min on.
app. 2 1/2 minute off
L5 VO2 max 350-398 W 3-8 min on 2 1/2 - 5 min off. Preferably 2 1/2
min off
L4 Lactate treshold 300-349 W 10-60 min on. 2 1/2 - 5 min off. Preferably
2 1/2 min off. 2*20 min very popular.
L3 Tempo 259-299 W. Up to 2 hour hard riding.
L2 Endurance 185-260W. Long Slow Distance
L1 Active recovery 0-184W

As your fitness increase or decrease, the software will adjust your levels.

But Andy Coggan and co-developers of course explain it the best.
http://www.cyclingpeakssoftware.com/power411.html
Just hope maybe I've caught somebodys cattention and curiosity. I'm in no
way affiliated with the CyclingPeaks group, but as a very satisfied customer
I'd like to see them sell a lot of their products so they can continue to
provide me with good training tools 😉

--
Perre

You have to be smarter than a robot to reply.

In article <[email hidden]>, Per Elmsäter

Quoted message said:

warren said:

In article <[email hidden]>, Per Elmsäter

Quoted message said:

An example.
My One hour LT is 270 Watts. If I want to do VO2 training I can look
into the tables of the CyclingPeals Software and see that I should
do intervals of 3-8 minutes at a Wattage of 286-326. Lower Wattage
for 8 minutes and higher Wattage for three minute intervals.

My LT (4mMol) power is currently near 320-330 watts but I do VO2max
intervals 30 seconds on/off for 5 to 10 minutes each set in the range
of 480-550 watts during the "on" portion. Depending on your objectives
you may want to add something like this to your training.

-WG

I do of course do different intervals than the ones prescribed above. It was
as I stated an example of how my current fitnes will dictate at what level
to train for different goals, with the help of a Powermeter and good
training software.

As for your 30 seconds on/off. If you look at what you average for 5 or 10
minutes, including the off portion, you'll notice that it is proabably in
the range of 350-400 W which is percentagewise the same levels I work at
when doing VO2max work at 3-8 minute intervals.

Steady state intervals can serve different objectives than 30 seconds
on/off. Think of the many accelerations during the shorter intervals.
Each type of interval has its uses. This is why I suggested that you
consider adding them to your training-not replacing your current
method.

Quoted message said:

I am in no way an expert on this. Just trying to follow the advice I've
received, as I've understood it, from the Wattage group and Andy Coggan.
Andy in particular has put down a lot of work in making Power based training
effective and easily attainable by everyone.
www.topica.com/lists/wattage/read

Your Coggan levels would look like this at an LT of 330

L6 Anaerobic capacity 399 W and up Interrvals of 30 sec to 3 min on.
app. 2 1/2 minute off
L5 VO2 max 350-398 W 3-8 min on 2 1/2 - 5 min off. Preferably 2 1/2
min off
L4 Lactate treshold 300-349 W 10-60 min on. 2 1/2 - 5 min off. Preferably
2 1/2 min off. 2*20 min very popular.
L3 Tempo 259-299 W. Up to 2 hour hard riding.
L2 Endurance 185-260W. Long Slow Distance
L1 Active recovery 0-184W

As your fitness increase or decrease, the software will adjust your levels.

Yes, but unfortunately power levels don't fall along a smooth, straight
line when plotted against things like lactate and HR and the
appropriate training levels are not necessarily a certain percentage of
your LT power. It's good that you're happy with the numbers the
software provides you. This information is far better than most of what
is widely available, but the guidelines from the software are not
necessarily the best choice for some people.

-WG

warren said:

Steady state intervals can serve different objectives than 30 seconds
on/off. Think of the many accelerations during the shorter intervals.
Each type of interval has its uses. This is why I suggested that you
consider adding them to your training-not replacing your current
method.

Agreed. Nor did I expect you to replace yours 😉

Quoted message said:

This information is far better than most of
what is widely available, but the guidelines from the software are not
necessarily the best choice for some people.

Hey. This ain't no religion. Just adding my small thesis to all the others
in the rbr testament.

--
Perre

You have to be smarter than a robot to reply.

In article <[email hidden]>, Per Elmsäter

Quoted message said:

warren said:

Steady state intervals can serve different objectives than 30 seconds
on/off. Think of the many accelerations during the shorter intervals.
Each type of interval has its uses. This is why I suggested that you
consider adding them to your training-not replacing your current
method.

Agreed. Nor did I expect you to replace yours 😉

I also do ones like you mentioned. Usually on a 2-4% hill. Sometimes
with a 10 second sprint at the very end.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

This information is far better than most of
what is widely available, but the guidelines from the software are not
necessarily the best choice for some people.

Hey. This ain't no religion. Just adding my small thesis to all the others
in the rbr testament.

It's a better thesis than most.

-WG

Scroll down for a couple of points of clarification.

In article <[email hidden]>, Per Elmsäter

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

warren said:

In article <[email hidden]>, Per Elmsäter
<[email hidden]> wrote:

> An example.
> My One hour LT is 270 Watts. If I want to do VO2 training I can look
> into the tables of the CyclingPeals Software and see that I should
> do intervals of 3-8 minutes at a Wattage of 286-326. Lower Wattage
> for 8 minutes and higher Wattage for three minute intervals.

My LT (4mMol) power is currently near 320-330 watts but I do VO2max
intervals 30 seconds on/off for 5 to 10 minutes each set in the range
of 480-550 watts during the "on" portion. Depending on your objectives
you may want to add something like this to your training.

-WG

I do of course do different intervals than the ones prescribed above. It

was

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

as I stated an example of how my current fitnes will dictate at what

level

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

to train for different goals, with the help of a Powermeter and good
training software.

As for your 30 seconds on/off. If you look at what you average for 5 or

10

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

minutes, including the off portion, you'll notice that it is proabably in
the range of 350-400 W which is percentagewise the same levels I work at
when doing VO2max work at 3-8 minute intervals.

Quoted message said:

Steady state intervals can serve different objectives than 30 seconds
on/off. Think of the many accelerations during the shorter intervals.
Each type of interval has its uses. This is why I suggested that you
consider adding them to your training-not replacing your current
method.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I am in no way an expert on this. Just trying to follow the advice I've
received, as I've understood it, from the Wattage group and Andy Coggan.
Andy in particular has put down a lot of work in making Power based

training

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

effective and easily attainable by everyone.
www.topica.com/lists/wattage/read

Your Coggan levels would look like this at an LT of 330

L6 Anaerobic capacity 399 W and up Interrvals of 30 sec to 3 min

on.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

app. 2 1/2 minute off
L5 VO2 max 350-398 W 3-8 min on 2 1/2 - 5 min off. Preferably 2 1/2
min off
L4 Lactate treshold 300-349 W 10-60 min on. 2 1/2 - 5 min off.

Preferably

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

2 1/2 min off. 2*20 min very popular.
L3 Tempo 259-299 W. Up to 2 hour hard riding.
L2 Endurance 185-260W. Long Slow Distance
L1 Active recovery 0-184W

The only "preferably" to any of the above interval prescriptions is that
they are the way I personally prefer to usually structure my workouts. That
is, I've never really made any specific recommendations for how people do
intervals, merely shared what I've found to be effective. Along the the same
lines, the guidelines/examples given for the types of intervals that would
fall into levels 4, 5, and 6 should be viewed as simply examples, i.e.,
there are a million different ways of structuring interval training
sessions, all with particular advantages and disadvantages.

Quoted message said:

Yes, but unfortunately power levels don't fall along a smooth, straight
line when plotted against things like lactate and HR and the
appropriate training levels are not necessarily a certain percentage of
your LT power.

I'm not sure what you mean by "a smooth, straight line", but you can in fact
predict how much power somebody can sustain for a few minutes to many hours
based on just one metric, i.e., their LT. That in turn makes it quite
possible to put forth training levels based on that power, and have what is
practically a "one size fits all" system. The only trick is 1) understanding
the science that makes this possible, and 2) having the the experience
necessary to place the divisions appropriately.

Quoted message said:

It's good that you're happy with the numbers the
software provides you. This information is far better than most of what
is widely available, but the guidelines from the software are not
necessarily the best choice for some people.

First, the only "guideline" built into the software is a simple calculator
that will figure your training levels for you. You're not forced to use it,
though - in fact, there are also HR-based calculators using different
systems (e.g., Friel's, USAC's, the BCF's) for those who prefer that option.

Second, I'm not sure what you mean by "not being the best choice", but as I
indicated above, it is indeed quite possible to describe practically any
training session based on the power levels I've defined.

Andy Coggan

In article <[email hidden]>, Andy

Coggan said:

Scroll down for a couple of points of clarification.

In article <[email hidden]>, Per Elmsäter

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

warren wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Yes, but unfortunately power levels don't fall along a smooth, straight
line when plotted against things like lactate and HR and the
appropriate training levels are not necessarily a certain percentage of
your LT power.

I'm not sure what you mean by "a smooth, straight line", but you can in fact
predict how much power somebody can sustain for a few minutes to many hours
based on just one metric, i.e., their LT. That in turn makes it quite
possible to put forth training levels based on that power, and have what is
practically a "one size fits all" system. The only trick is 1) understanding
the science that makes this possible, and 2) having the the experience
necessary to place the divisions appropriately.

Actually it's the experience and knowledge that shows that "one size
fits all" is often not the best one can do with the information and
training plans built around "one-size-fits-all" are not optimal.

For example, one can see increases in the watts at the 1mMol level that
indicate the need for more or less training at certain low intensities,
and this can happen (has for me) even though the watts at 4mMol has
only increased slightly. I've had tests where the % increase in watts
at 1 or 2mMol was nearly twice what it was at 4mMol. This is the kind
of change you would probably want to see during periods with lots of
training well below LT.

The amount of change will also indicate if there is more room for
improvement in this range (e.g. 1mMol, or 4mMol, etc.) or if the rider
should just be doing maintenance training for this power range.

The shape of the line plotted between 1, 2, 3, and 4mMol with watts can
also change shape (e.g. from a steep curve in a certain lactate range
to a more gradual slope upwards) and this is useful information too.

Or the curve can just remain the same basic shape but shift to the
right (higher power at all levels), which is what you are relying on
with your method of calculating the "one-size-fits-all power training
zones, but as I've mentioned here it's not the best for everyone
because the shift to the right of the same shaped curve is not what
always happens. However, for nearly anyone who wants to learn about
their power-based zones from public information your method isn't
perfect but I think it is the best available, which will help a lot of
riders...if they'd only read it and use it.

-WG

"warren" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>, Pistof

Quoted message said:

<[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

I've read a lot about using lactate testing in addition to (instead

of?)

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

heart rate monitoring to make training more precise.

How widespread is lactate testing today?

How do you use it to improve VO2?

I don't know but I saw Lance using a little handheld lactate guaging

device

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

in one of his Lance Chronicles episodes. It was called something like

The

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Lactate Pro or something catchy like that. I wonder if they will

one-day be

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

as cheap as these $20 HRM's that we find everywhere.

The device he was using is good and only costs about $400, plus a small

Hey, that's really not bad at all. It's probably a better investment than a
pair of cranks. Do you have a source..., or better yet, the name of a good
unit that I can search the Internet for?

Quoted message said:

cost for the disposable blood extractor parts. Simple to use the
device. Not as easy to use the information properly.

I wouldn't know. There probably are books on the subject, though.

Dave

"warren" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>, Andy

Coggan said:

Scroll down for a couple of points of clarification.

In article <[email hidden]>, Per Elmsäter

Quoted message said:

> warren wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Yes, but unfortunately power levels don't fall along a smooth, straight
line when plotted against things like lactate and HR and the
appropriate training levels are not necessarily a certain percentage of
your LT power.

I'm not sure what you mean by "a smooth, straight line", but you can in

fact

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

predict how much power somebody can sustain for a few minutes to many

hours

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

based on just one metric, i.e., their LT. That in turn makes it quite
possible to put forth training levels based on that power, and have what

is

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

practically a "one size fits all" system. The only trick is 1)

understanding

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

the science that makes this possible, and 2) having the the experience
necessary to place the divisions appropriately.

Actually it's the experience and knowledge that shows that "one size
fits all" is often not the best one can do with the information and
training plans built around "one-size-fits-all" are not optimal.

You're confusing a scheme for classifying training intensities/workouts with
a training plan. I would never advocate a 'one-size-fits-all' approach for
the latter, which is why I try my best to avoid giving training advice over
the web. That doesn't mean, though, that you can't provide an accurate
descriptive framework for power outputs for different training levels based
on a single number.

Quoted message said:

For example, one can see increases in the watts at the 1mMol level that
indicate the need for more or less training at certain low intensities,
and this can happen (has for me) even though the watts at 4mMol has
only increased slightly. I've had tests where the % increase in watts
at 1 or 2mMol was nearly twice what it was at 4mMol. This is the kind
of change you would probably want to see during periods with lots of
training well below LT.

The amount of change will also indicate if there is more room for
improvement in this range (e.g. 1mMol, or 4mMol, etc.) or if the rider
should just be doing maintenance training for this power range.

The shape of the line plotted between 1, 2, 3, and 4mMol with watts can
also change shape (e.g. from a steep curve in a certain lactate range
to a more gradual slope upwards) and this is useful information too.

As I've said before, IMO you (and/or your coach) are reading FAR too much
into the shape of the blood lactate-exercise intensity relationship. There
are many, many things other than fitness that influence the absolute blood
lactate concentration at a particular exercise intensity, e.g., blood
sampling site/method, glycogen stores, nutritional state, etc. Consequently,
you can't interpret the results as literally as you are trying to do.
Morever, even if you could the only way you could execute a training plan
based on such information with the requisite precision would be if you did
all of your training on an ergometer (which would be sub-optimal for other
reasons).

Quoted message said:

Or the curve can just remain the same basic shape but shift to the
right (higher power at all levels), which is what you are relying on
with your method of calculating the "one-size-fits-all power training
zones, but as I've mentioned here it's not the best for everyone
because the shift to the right of the same shaped curve is not what
always happens.

The training levels I've proposed do not rely upon making ANY assumptions
with regards to training-induced changes in blood lactate concentration - in
fact, what happens to blood lactate is totally irrelevant.

Andy Coggan

In article <[email hidden]>, Pistof

Quoted message said:

"warren" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>, Pistof

Quoted message said:

<[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
> I've read a lot about using lactate testing in addition to (instead

of?)

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> heart rate monitoring to make training more precise.
>
> How widespread is lactate testing today?
>
> How do you use it to improve VO2?

I don't know but I saw Lance using a little handheld lactate guaging

device

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

in one of his Lance Chronicles episodes. It was called something like

The

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Lactate Pro or something catchy like that. I wonder if they will

one-day be

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

as cheap as these $20 HRM's that we find everywhere.

The device he was using is good and only costs about $400, plus a small

Hey, that's really not bad at all. It's probably a better investment than a
pair of cranks. Do you have a source..., or better yet, the name of a good
unit that I can search the Internet for?

I think this is the one I've seen...
http://www.hdosport.com/hdosport/lactatepro/index.shtml

This one is similar or the same. http://www.lactate.com/

-WG

In article <[email hidden]>, Andy

Coggan said:

"warren" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>, Andy

Coggan said:

Scroll down for a couple of points of clarification.

In article <[email hidden]>, Per Elmsäter
<[email hidden]> wrote:

>> warren wrote:

Quoted message said:

>Yes, but unfortunately power levels don't fall along a smooth, straight
>line when plotted against things like lactate and HR and the
>appropriate training levels are not necessarily a certain percentage of
>your LT power.

I'm not sure what you mean by "a smooth, straight line", but you can in

fact

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

predict how much power somebody can sustain for a few minutes to many

hours

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

based on just one metric, i.e., their LT. That in turn makes it quite
possible to put forth training levels based on that power, and have what

is

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

practically a "one size fits all" system. The only trick is 1)

understanding

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

the science that makes this possible, and 2) having the the experience
necessary to place the divisions appropriately.

Actually it's the experience and knowledge that shows that "one size
fits all" is often not the best one can do with the information and
training plans built around "one-size-fits-all" are not optimal.

You're confusing a scheme for classifying training intensities/workouts with
a training plan.

No, I'm not. You are using one size fits all approach to setting the
zones based on information that is more limited than can otherwise be
obtained. How those zones are used is the training plan. Less than
optimal zones leads to less than optimal training plans.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

For example, one can see increases in the watts at the 1mMol level that
indicate the need for more or less training at certain low intensities,
and this can happen (has for me) even though the watts at 4mMol has
only increased slightly. I've had tests where the % increase in watts
at 1 or 2mMol was nearly twice what it was at 4mMol. This is the kind
of change you would probably want to see during periods with lots of
training well below LT.

The amount of change will also indicate if there is more room for
improvement in this range (e.g. 1mMol, or 4mMol, etc.) or if the rider
should just be doing maintenance training for this power range.

The shape of the line plotted between 1, 2, 3, and 4mMol with watts can
also change shape (e.g. from a steep curve in a certain lactate range
to a more gradual slope upwards) and this is useful information too.

As I've said before, IMO you (and/or your coach) are reading FAR too much
into the shape of the blood lactate-exercise intensity relationship.

His results show that his opinion about this is more accurate than your
opinion. Even I can see the relationships and changes over time. Power
numbers I see during training give hints about what is changing and the
test results never bring surprises, just additional information and/or
confirmation. The shape of the curves provides some more insight.

For example, a curve that suddenly slopes upward (sudden increase in
blood lactate at a given range of watts) indicates that type 2b fibers
are now being utilized without an appropriate amount of type 2a fibers
being used first (or how ever you choose to define the transition from
slow twitch to fast twitch fibers). As the ability of the 2a fibers is
improved the shape of the curve between near 1 mMol and near 3mMol will
become more gradual. Without even knowing the lactate or watts numbers
you could look at the shape of the curve and know this.

Quoted message said:

There
are many, many things other than fitness that influence the absolute blood
lactate concentration at a particular exercise intensity, e.g., blood
sampling site/method, glycogen stores, nutritional state, etc.

None of these factors has entered into the results I've been seeing in
my tests. It's quite easy to account for these things anyway. Always
the earlobe, always rested, several days after a long ride, normal
meals before training or racing, etc.

Quoted message said:

Morever, even if you could the only way you could execute a training plan
based on such information with the requisite precision would be if you did
all of your training on an ergometer (which would be sub-optimal for other
reasons).

It's really not that difficult. Knowing what is going on with the
ability of type 1 fibers, type 2a, and type 2b fibers indivdually and
together allows for training that can be implemented to address
specific needs. Less wasted effort.

-WG

"warren" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>, Andy

Coggan said:

"warren" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>, Andy
Coggan <[email hidden]> wrote:

> Scroll down for a couple of points of clarification.
>
> In article <[email hidden]>, Per Elmsäter
> <[email hidden]> wrote:
>
> >> warren wrote:

> >Yes, but unfortunately power levels don't fall along a smooth,

straight

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> >line when plotted against things like lactate and HR and the
> >appropriate training levels are not necessarily a certain

percentage of

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> >your LT power.
>
> I'm not sure what you mean by "a smooth, straight line", but you can

in

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

fact

Quoted message said:

> predict how much power somebody can sustain for a few minutes to

many

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

hours

Quoted message said:

> based on just one metric, i.e., their LT. That in turn makes it

quite

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> possible to put forth training levels based on that power, and have

what

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

is

Quoted message said:

> practically a "one size fits all" system. The only trick is 1)

understanding

Quoted message said:

> the science that makes this possible, and 2) having the the

experience

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> necessary to place the divisions appropriately.

Actually it's the experience and knowledge that shows that "one size
fits all" is often not the best one can do with the information and
training plans built around "one-size-fits-all" are not optimal.

You're confusing a scheme for classifying training intensities/workouts

with

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

a training plan.

No, I'm not. You are using one size fits all approach to setting the
zones based on information that is more limited than can otherwise be
obtained.

Right.........

Quoted message said:

How those zones are used is the training plan.

Nonsense. That's like claiming that explaining to a non-English speaker the
difference between "left" and "right" is equivalent to giving them
directions to their intended destination.

Quoted message said:

Less than
optimal zones leads to less than optimal training plans.

I'm afraid you've been hoodwinked, Warren: there is no difference between
training at, say, a few percent below your LT (or OBLA or whatever other
metric you care to use) and a few percent above. Those that claim that
"there's magic in them zones!" are just making it up.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

For example, one can see increases in the watts at the 1mMol level

that

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

indicate the need for more or less training at certain low

intensities,

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

and this can happen (has for me) even though the watts at 4mMol has
only increased slightly. I've had tests where the % increase in watts
at 1 or 2mMol was nearly twice what it was at 4mMol. This is the kind
of change you would probably want to see during periods with lots of
training well below LT.

The amount of change will also indicate if there is more room for
improvement in this range (e.g. 1mMol, or 4mMol, etc.) or if the rider
should just be doing maintenance training for this power range.

The shape of the line plotted between 1, 2, 3, and 4mMol with watts

can

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

also change shape (e.g. from a steep curve in a certain lactate range
to a more gradual slope upwards) and this is useful information too.

As I've said before, IMO you (and/or your coach) are reading FAR too

much

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

into the shape of the blood lactate-exercise intensity relationship.

His results show that his opinion about this is more accurate than your
opinion.

"His results"? So Max was the one pedaling the bike, was he? ;-)

Quoted message said:

Even I can see the relationships and changes over time. Power
numbers I see during training give hints about what is changing and the
test results never bring surprises, just additional information and/or
confirmation. The shape of the curves provides some more insight.

For example, a curve that suddenly slopes upward (sudden increase in
blood lactate at a given range of watts) indicates that type 2b fibers
are now being utilized without an appropriate amount of type 2a fibers
being used first

First, recruitment of motor units occurs in an orderly fashion based on the
size of the alpha motor neuron, something that is known as the Henneman size
principle. Thus, it is essentially impossible to recruit type IIb (IIx, in
the modern vernacular) muscle fibers without also recruiting type IIa (as
well as type I).

Second, anybody who is doing more than a modicum of training won't have any
type IIb (IIx) fibers to speak of, since all but a few percent will have
been transformed into IIa.

Quoted message said:

(or how ever you choose to define the transition from
slow twitch to fast twitch fibers). As the ability of the 2a fibers is
improved the shape of the curve between near 1 mMol and near 3mMol will
become more gradual. Without even knowing the lactate or watts numbers
you could look at the shape of the curve and know this.

Drawing such a conclusion is going WAY beyond what can be reasonably
inferred from such data . But then again, that's not surprising given the
difference between coaches/athletes and scientists: the former are often
casting wildly about for ANYTHING that they THINK might provide an edge, and
their standard of proof for what works and what doesn't is
all-too-frequently abysmally low. Scientists, OTOH, are raised in a culture
that discourages excessive speculation and the drawing of unsupportable
conclusions, such as the one you make above.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

There
are many, many things other than fitness that influence the absolute

blood

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

lactate concentration at a particular exercise intensity, e.g., blood
sampling site/method, glycogen stores, nutritional state, etc.

None of these factors has entered into the results I've been seeing in
my tests. It's quite easy to account for these things anyway.

Dream on: even if you have somebody do their last couple of workouts on an
ergometer at controlled intensities and feed them precisely measured amounts
of carbohydrate, you'd be lucky to keep glycogen stores in a +/- 10% range.
To think that you can control them adequately outside of laboratory so as to
be able to draw the sorts of conclusions you wish to draw is preposterous.

Quoted message said:

Always
the earlobe,

Is SaO2 measured to be certain that the degree of hyperemia isn't
influencing the results? (Doubtful.)

Quoted message said:

always rested, several days after a long ride, normal
meals before training or racing, etc.

Quoted message said:

Morever, even if you could the only way you could execute a training

plan

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

based on such information with the requisite precision would be if you

did

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

all of your training on an ergometer (which would be sub-optimal for

other

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

reasons).

It's really not that difficult. Knowing what is going on with the
ability of type 1 fibers, type 2a, and type 2b fibers indivdually and
together allows for training that can be implemented to address
specific needs. Less wasted effort.

First, see above: neither you nor I nor anybody else riding more than 100
miles/week really has any IIb (IIx) fibers to worry about. Second, as I
indicated previously, there are many more factors influencing blood lactate
levels than just fiber type/fiber type recruitment.

Andy Coggan

In article <[email hidden]>, Andy

Coggan said:

"warren" <[email hidden]> wrote in message

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> Actually it's the experience and knowledge that shows that "one size
> fits all" is often not the best one can do with the information and
> training plans built around "one-size-fits-all" are not optimal.

You're confusing a scheme for classifying training intensities/workouts

with

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

a training plan.

No, I'm not. You are using one size fits all approach to setting the
zones based on information that is more limited than can otherwise be
obtained.

Right.........

Of course you respond in this way. You have your own little agenda to
protect. If your "one-size-fits-all" approach is truly the best YOU can
come up with then it's another indication of your lack of ability in
this area.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

How those zones are used is the training plan.

Nonsense. That's like claiming that explaining to a non-English speaker the
difference between "left" and "right" is equivalent to giving them
directions to their intended destination.

Your version of the semantics, nothing more.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Less than
optimal zones leads to less than optimal training plans.

I'm afraid you've been hoodwinked, Warren: there is no difference between
training at, say, a few percent below your LT (or OBLA or whatever other
metric you care to use) and a few percent above. Those that claim that
"there's magic in them zones!" are just making it up.

Right.... The results, lactate levels, and perceived exertion each show
that you're wrong. Of course, your opinion stated above is just another
attempt to support your one-size-fits-all approach, with its wide
training zones to encompass every possible user-just like CTS tries to
do with it's lower-level training plans.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

His results show that his opinion about this is more accurate than your
opinion.

"His results"? So Max was the one pedaling the bike, was he? ;-)

Results of his guidance. From Hampsten, Armstrong, and Julich, to some
Motorola, Mapei and US pros, to most recently Dario Cioni, Christine
Thorburn, and myself on a lower scale, these are all examples of riders
who improved significantly while receiving Max's guidance.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Even I can see the relationships and changes over time. Power
numbers I see during training give hints about what is changing and the
test results never bring surprises, just additional information and/or
confirmation. The shape of the curves provides some more insight.

For example, a curve that suddenly slopes upward (sudden increase in
blood lactate at a given range of watts) indicates that type 2b fibers
are now being utilized without an appropriate amount of type 2a fibers
being used first

First, recruitment of motor units occurs in an orderly fashion based on the
size of the alpha motor neuron, something that is known as the Henneman size
principle. Thus, it is essentially impossible to recruit type IIb (IIx, in
the modern vernacular) muscle fibers without also recruiting type IIa (as
well as type I).

We agree. I didn't say that 2b or 2a fibers were being recruited
without any type 1 fibers. I said the contribution of 2a was not
appropriate, or not enough before 2b was recruited. Certain training
would improve the abilities of 2a fibers so that the use of 2b could be
delayed or essentially not needed until the power was at a higher
level.

Quoted message said:

Second, anybody who is doing more than a modicum of training won't have any
type IIb (IIx) fibers to speak of, since all but a few percent will have
been transformed into IIa.

So your opinion is that I'm not using 2b fibers to put out 1300+ watts,
nor is Petacchi at 1600+ watts?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

(or how ever you choose to define the transition from
slow twitch to fast twitch fibers). As the ability of the 2a fibers is
improved the shape of the curve between near 1 mMol and near 3mMol will
become more gradual. Without even knowing the lactate or watts numbers
you could look at the shape of the curve and know this.

Drawing such a conclusion is going WAY beyond what can be reasonably
inferred from such data .

This is funny to me. It's so easy to see on the graphs. I've seen other
people's tests too and often see the same graph shapes and reasons for
those shapes.

Quoted message said:

But then again, that's not surprising given the
difference between coaches/athletes and scientists: the former are often
casting wildly about for ANYTHING that they THINK might provide an edge, and
their standard of proof for what works and what doesn't is
all-too-frequently abysmally low. Scientists, OTOH, are raised in a culture
that discourages excessive speculation and the drawing of unsupportable
conclusions, such as the one you make above.

Amazing arrogance on your part. Something that is so easy for even me
to see during a test, and then confirmed by looking briefly at the
graphs and accurately predicting the subject's ability and history, and
you say this is not reasonable...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

There
are many, many things other than fitness that influence the absolute

blood

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

lactate concentration at a particular exercise intensity, e.g., blood
sampling site/method, glycogen stores, nutritional state, etc.

None of these factors has entered into the results I've been seeing in
my tests. It's quite easy to account for these things anyway.

Dream on: even if you have somebody do their last couple of workouts on an
ergometer at controlled intensities and feed them precisely measured amounts
of carbohydrate, you'd be lucky to keep glycogen stores in a +/- 10% range.
To think that you can control them adequately outside of laboratory so as to
be able to draw the sorts of conclusions you wish to draw is preposterous.

Again, so easy to see and account for, even for me. The results of the
tests I've seen don't show the kind of abnormalities you suggest. You
must be letting all those red herrings get in your way of seeing what's
easily seen by others. Perhaps you're reading too much (for this
application) into small increments or small differences in measured
lactate.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Always
the earlobe,

Is SaO2 measured to be certain that the degree of hyperemia isn't
influencing the results? (Doubtful.)

No influence, or so small as not to matter.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

always rested, several days after a long ride, normal
meals before training or racing, etc.

Quoted message said:

Morever, even if you could the only way you could execute a training

plan

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

based on such information with the requisite precision would be if you

did

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

all of your training on an ergometer (which would be sub-optimal for

other

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

reasons).

It's really not that difficult. Knowing what is going on with the
ability of type 1 fibers, type 2a, and type 2b fibers indivdually and
together allows for training that can be implemented to address
specific needs. Less wasted effort.

First, see above: neither you nor I nor anybody else riding more than 100
miles/week really has any IIb (IIx) fibers to worry about.

So my 1300+ watts is done with 2a fibers only? Oh well, you can call
those fibers what ever you want. The training is affecting some fibers
in ways that allow for the very high power. It seems to me that those
fibers, whatever you want to call them, produce a lot of lactate and a
lot of power during short periods.

Quoted message said:

Second, as I
indicated previously, there are many more factors influencing blood lactate
levels than just fiber type/fiber type recruitment.

Yes, and these other factors, at least in my own tests and the ones
I've observed, were either accounted for or not important enough to
affect the results. It's important to consider not just the measured
amounts of lactate but the shape of the lactate curve graphed with HR
and power. This will help lessen the distractions resulting from
insignificant increments in blood lactate being caused by the small
factors you've mentioned previously.

-WG