MAP -> FTP Relationship?

11ring said:

Yes, i know that,my mistake.

I meant FTP/ VO2 max power from ramp test, ie min power to elicit vo2max during the ramp.

in L/min, LT is 67% of vo2max, or 3.2 l/m / 4.75 l/m

Obviously i am not well trained.

But power at LT is typically lower than FTP by maybe 15%.

In power terms:
watts@LT < FTP < PVO2 Max < MAP

Alex Simmons said:

But power at LT is typically lower than FTP by maybe 15%.

In power terms:
watts@LT < FTP < PVO2 Max < MAP

When you say maybe 15% to which of the myriad of LT definitions this applies to?

frost said:

When you say maybe 15% to which of the myriad of LT definitions this applies to?

I think that's why he said maybe :-)

rmur17 said:

I think that's why he said maybe :-)

Good point 😄

rmur17 said:

I think that's why he said maybe :-)

Yeah and I'm thinking of 1 mmol increase in BL over baseline values or ~ 2.5 mmol.

Alex Simmons said:

Yeah and I'm thinking of 1 mmol increase in BL over baseline values or ~ 2.5 mmol.

Thanks Alex! (I haven't done a lactate test or seen real power/lactate curves so I was genuinly interested in this)

Alex Simmons said:

Yeah and I'm thinking of 1 mmol increase in BL over baseline values or ~ 2.5 mmol.

I did a LBP lactate test last night and before finding the person's LBP which uses trends and not absolute values, I took my clients resting lactate (HR 52bpm) and it was 2.1mmol.

I've had another last year with a resting lactate of 3.4mmol...

Both clients hadn't turned a pedal yet....So much for absolute numbers!

Rob

robuk said:

I did a LBP lactate test last night and before finding the person's LBP which uses trends and not absolute values, I took my clients resting lactate (HR 52bpm) and it was 2.1mmol.

I've had another last year with a resting lactate of 3.4mmol...

Both clients hadn't turned a pedal yet....So much for absolute numbers!

Rob

Something is clearly wrong with those measurements - either the analyzer malfunctioned, the samples were contaminated, and/or the subjects had performed some form of muscular exercise before the blood was drawn.

acoggan said:

Something is clearly wrong with those measurements - either the analyzer malfunctioned, the samples were contaminated, and/or the subjects had performed some form of muscular exercise before the blood was drawn.

Or the subject had consumed some fructose-rich food or beverage?

If analyzer, rest day and food is ok then 2.1 mmol might be first timer if lactate goes down in first minutes of test and subject is able to reach supposed max heart rate and decent result.

3.4 sounds overcooked. Me myself once had 3.1 resting level, no surprise test was useless.

In April last year on a training camp in Mallorca we were taking pre and post breakfast lactate levels. The biggest rise in lactate for me came after a long day in the climbs (7hrs). The following morning my resting lactate was 0.8 and 15mins later after eating breakfast it was 1.8.

The trend seen during the camp were after the bigger training days in the mountains with a bigger jump in lactate values after breakfast the following day.

Possible conclusion - due to lactate shuttle in refuelling the liver.

Andrew & Juerg @ FaCT have seen resting lactates as high as 7.5mmol and with over 3,000 samples taken they are pretty sure it is not an "error" reading.

robuk said:

Andrew & Juerg @ FaCT have seen resting lactates as high as 7.5mmol and with over 3,000 samples taken they are pretty sure it is not an "error" reading.

I am - blood lactate simply never rises that high at rest, at least not in a healthy individual (it could in someone with an inherited metabolic disease).

acoggan said:

I am - blood lactate simply never rises that high at rest, at least not in a healthy individual (it could in someone with an inherited metabolic disease).

In your opinion what do you consider the norm for lactate figures at rest to be?

robuk said:

In your opinion what do you consider the norm for lactate figures at rest to be?

~1 mmol/L. That's for peripheral venous blood drawn from an indwelling catheter placed >30 min before sampling, analyzed using an enzymatic colormetric/flurometric method.

acoggan said:

~1 mmol/L. That's for peripheral venous blood drawn from an indwelling catheter placed >30 min before sampling, analyzed using an enzymatic colormetric/flurometric method.

Just out of curiosity, how much if at all, would you expect that to differ from a sample that was drawn from a finger tip?

swampy1970 said:

Just out of curiosity, how much if at all, would you expect that to differ from a sample that was drawn from a finger tip?

Little or no difference if the blood were free-flowing and not contaminated by sweat.

Potentially a big difference if you have to "milk" the finger to get enough blood, and/or if it picks up lactate from (dried) sweat.

Alex Simmons said:

But power at LT is typically lower than FTP by maybe 15%.

In power terms:
watts@LT < FTP < PVO2 Max < MAP

Yes, but P(LT)/P(VO2max) < VO2(LT)/VO2(max) becasue when p=0 Vo2=>0

in other words the basal metabolic rate compresses the O2 results in comparison to power which appear stretched.

so if my resting vo2 is say 1.0, or at 0 watts vo2 is 1 L, then only 3.75 of the 4.7r is delta o2.

If we asume a constant delta w/o2 then it makes the ratio look much worse, ie 3.2-(1)/ 4.75-(1)= 58%

incedentally my P(LT) is 58.8% of p(vo2max), a pretty close result given the guess at basal meatbolic load.

even if you add the 15% to lt, i still only get 67.6% FTP/p(vo2max), which needless to say is way smaller than 80 or 90 %

11ring said:

incedentally my P(LT) is 58.8% of p(vo2max), a pretty close result given the guess at basal meatbolic load.

even if you add the 15% to lt, i still only get 67.6% FTP/p(vo2max), which needless to say is way smaller than 80 or 90 %

Well 58.8+15=73.8, but in any case, better get out there and train :p😄

Alex Simmons said:

Well 58.8+15=73.8, but in any case, better get out there and train :p😄

Shouldnt it be 58.8 * 1+(15%) or 58.8*1.15 not 58.8+15,

11ring said:

Shouldnt it be 58.8 * 1+(15%) or 58.8*1.15 not 58.8+15,

Er, well if you are adding two percentages of the same thing* then no but if we are talking relative differences, then yes. It kind of depends on what the [censored] we were talking about in the first place :p

* i.e. a % of VO2 Max

25% of a barrel of apples + 25% of a barrel of apples = 50% of a barrel of apples.

And 25% of a barrel of apples is 25% of a barrel of apples less than 50% of a barrel of apples.

However 25% of a barrel of apples is 50% of 50% of a a barrel of apples.
Make sense😄:p