Cycling Training · Public discussion

Please interpret my lactate test results!

Started by GettingFaster · · Last activity · 15 posts · 1,913 views

Thread navigation

Jump through the discussion

Go to the original post, the replies on this page, or the latest preserved contribution.

Thread details

What we know about this thread

Original section
Cycling Training
Published
27 April 2005
Last activity
3 May 2005
Original author
GettingFaster
Posts
15
Discussion status
Public discussion
Total views
1,913
Views / 30 days
0

The navigation and discussion metadata provide context. Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Showing posts 1–15 of 15
Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Text size
  1. Can anyone tell me, based on this, what heart rates I need to be holding for long (=about 2 hours for me!) rides in order to see any aerobic development? Or even how I might determine the zones 1-5 in which to train that I've read about?

    Cheers for any help, a bit clueless about what to do with these test results now I've got them!

    Power: Lactate: HR:
    150...... 1.2 .....127
    170 ......1.6........ 132
    190 ......1.4 ......132
    210 .......1.1...... 137
    230 .......2 ........143
    250 ......1.7....... 144
    270 .......2 ........149
    290 .......2.3 ......152
    310 .......3.7...... 157
    330........ 4.7 ......161
    350....... 7.3 ......167

  2. GettingFaster said:

    Can anyone tell me, based on this, what heart rates I need to be holding for long (=about 2 hours for me!) rides in order to see any aerobic development? Or even how I might determine the zones 1-5 in which to train that I've read about?

    Cheers for any help, a bit clueless about what to do with these test results now I've got them!

    When you stopped at 167 bpm you were not able to continue?
    I.e. can 350Watt be considered the max power output you can do? (I ask this because I can't see the typical deflection in the hr/power graph)
    How long were the time intervals? Did you started with 2 minutes and then kept the work (Power*Time) constant?

  3. frenk said:

    When you stopped at 167 bpm you were not able to continue?
    I.e. can 350Watt be considered the max power output you can do? (I ask this because I can't see the typical deflection in the hr/power graph)
    How long were the time intervals? Did you started with 2 minutes and then kept the work (Power*Time) constant?

    The intervals were 3 minutes. No, I wasn't unable to continue but the guy doing the test said I'd passed my lactate threshold. We then switched to 1min intervals and started using a respirator to measure my VO2 max - I got to 400W before failure.

  4. There is a marked jump in your lactic reading around 290w. I would be training there and above to raise your output at which lactic acid affects your long term ability to time trial (lactic threshold)

    290 .......2.3 ......152
    310 .......3.7...... 157

  5. Before commenting, I would like to know your weight and age.

  6. gclark8 said:

    Before commenting, I would like to know your weight and age.


    23 years old, about 73-74kg. Been training pretty hard at endurance sports for about 4 years now but only recently got into cycling.

  7. It it was my test results, (I wish), I would train at 70-80%, with the occasional sprint/hill to 85-90%.

    However you should take the results to a good gym or cycling club. They should be able to advise, forum advice is not to be taken too seriously.

  8. GettingFaster said:

    Can anyone tell me, based on this, what heart rates I need to be holding for long (=about 2 hours for me!) rides in order to see any aerobic development? Or even how I might determine the zones 1-5 in which to train that I've read about?

    Cheers for any help, a bit clueless about what to do with these test results now I've got them!

    Power: Lactate: HR:
    150...... 1.2 .....127
    170 ......1.6........ 132
    190 ......1.4 ......132
    210 .......1.1...... 137
    230 .......2 ........143
    250 ......1.7....... 144
    270 .......2 ........149
    290 .......2.3 ......152
    310 .......3.7...... 157
    330........ 4.7 ......161
    350....... 7.3 ......167

    in all honesty the people testing you should have told you this information

    if you want to determine your zones i would recommend this http://www.cyclingnews.com/fitness/?id=powerstern

    ric

  9. frenk said:

    When you stopped at 167 bpm you were not able to continue?
    I.e. can 350Watt be considered the max power output you can do? (I ask this because I can't see the typical deflection in the hr/power graph)
    How long were the time intervals? Did you started with 2 minutes and then kept the work (Power*Time) constant?

    when you talk about the "typical deflection in the HR/power graph" do you mean the "Conconi Threshold" (which doesn't exist)?

    ric

  10. ric_stern/RST said:

    in all honesty the people testing you should have told you this information

    if you want to determine your zones i would recommend this cyclingnews.comfitness

    ric

    Thanks for the link Ric. The people doing the test did give me training zones based on the results, but they weren't the same zones I'm used to training with. I've been using the system in Joe Friel's 'training bibles' with zone 1=recovery, zone 2=extensive endurace, zone 3=intensive endurance, zone 4=sub-threshold (just) and zone 5 above lactate threshold. Does anyone know how to correlate the data to those ideas?

    Cheers.

  11. GettingFaster said:

    Thanks for the link Ric. The people doing the test did give me training zones based on the results, but they weren't the same zones I'm used to training with. I've been using the system in Joe Friel's 'training bibles' with zone 1=recovery, zone 2=extensive endurace, zone 3=intensive endurance, zone 4=sub-threshold (just) and zone 5 above lactate threshold. Does anyone know how to correlate the data to those ideas?

    Cheers.

    'Fraid i don't as i seem to recall the HR training zones i use (when people don't have a power meter) are quite different to Friels. Your best bet, if you want to stay using Friel zones would be to ask them. I can only help you with my zones or the ones i use.

    ric

  12. ric_stern/RST said:

    when you talk about the "typical deflection in the HR/power graph" do you mean the "Conconi Threshold" (which doesn't exist)?

    ric

    Yes, I was talking about that. I already read several times that this doesn't exist, but I still can't understand, I see it very well in my test results.
    Can someone point me to a good link on the subject?

  13. frenk said:

    Yes, I was talking about that. I already read several times that this doesn't exist, but I still can't understand, I see it very well in my test results.
    Can someone point me to a good link on the subject?


    Here's a link I found interesting: http://www.lactate.com/triathlon/trwhy.htm

    The conclusion may be controversial; would appreciate hearing comments.

  14. GettingFaster said:

    Thanks for the link Ric. The people doing the test did give me training zones based on the results, but they weren't the same zones I'm used to training with. I've been using the system in Joe Friel's 'training bibles' with zone 1=recovery, zone 2=extensive endurace, zone 3=intensive endurance, zone 4=sub-threshold (just) and zone 5 above lactate threshold. Does anyone know how to correlate the data to those ideas?

    Cheers.


    Zone 5a (Super-threshold) would be, if you assume your LT to be where you saw the signficant increase, would be just above that. As I'm writing this reply I don't have the data you presented in front of me so I can't talk numbers. I'm assuming you have Friel's Training Bible since you referenced it. There is a section that deals with how to determine zones based upon power and heart rate information.

    If you don't have the book let me know and I'll dig into it further for you.

  15. dhk said:

    Here's a link I found interesting: http://www.lactate.com/triathlon/trwhy.htm

    The conclusion may be controversial; would appreciate hearing comments.

    i was going to post a link to some actual peer reviewed studies which showed some of the same conclusions as this page (i.e., that Conconi point doesn't equal anything). i assume, but haven't read all of your link that it's based on the same actual papers.

    ric

Active in the last 60 minutes

Active in this thread

0 users · 0 guests ·0 bots ·0 total

No signed-in users are active right now.

No known search crawlers active right now.