vo2 phase before FT phase?

FORDGT40 said:

Lmax is the maximum lactate that you produce which usually occurs at your highest work rate. LT is a threshold value in relation to a heart rate that coincides with a disproportionate rise in lactate levels. these values are trainable. work rates can be similar at a given lactate level in trained individuals, but a schmoe like me might give a high lactate level at a much lower work rate, that has to do with clearance rates, production rates etc. Its not a simple as "A" plus "B" equals "C". It can be different for all individuals, and the training methods used to develop improvements in these values can also be different for each individual.

If you go back and read some of frenchyge's postings here, you'll find that he's not particularly confused about the textbook definitions of these parameters. He's just amused that FordGT40 is defining them in terms of power (i.e., as work rates), rather than blood lactate. He's an advocate of training with power, and skeptical of the value of knowing a given athlete's lactate accumulation curve.

WarrenG said:

Lance is someone who is able to handle relatively high levels of lactate for long periods. He does so well with this that his first real coach (when he came to Motorola and won the Worlds) did many tests that verified this. By our usual definitions of LT, Lance kind of distorts or alters those definitions.

I've seen the results of a number of lactate threshold tests performed on Armstrong during those years. There's really nothing particularly noteworthy about them, at least if you consider that even then Armstrong was a world-class athlete. Specifically, his lactate-power relationship is exceptional only in terms of the power he produces, while the lactate levels themselves are, if anything, a bit on the low side. IOW, you're wrong in claiming that he was "...able to handle relatively high levels of lactate for long periods." (which probably helps explain why testing done in Colorado Springs suggests that, unlike, e.g., Brad McGee, he wouldn't have been a phenomenal pursuiter).

FORDGT40 said:

Hope that clears that up.

I was just having some fun with you. Welcome to the forum, Billy. 🙂

FORDGT40 said:

PS. WOW, found this by "GOOGLEing" Lactate Threshold, very cool, detailed and easy to understand explanation
home.hia.nolacthres.htmOpen ↗

Yep, that's a great site. Let us know if you'd like some others.

acoggan said:

I've seen the results of a number of lactate threshold tests performed on Armstrong during those years. There's really nothing particularly noteworthy about them, at least if you consider that even then Armstrong was a world-class athlete. Specifically, his lactate-power relationship is exceptional only in terms of the power he produces, while the lactate levels themselves are, if anything, a bit on the low side. IOW, you're wrong in claiming that he was "...able to handle relatively high levels of lactate for long periods." (which probably helps explain why testing done in Colorado Springs suggests that, unlike, e.g., Brad McGee, he wouldn't have been a phenomenal pursuiter).

Then I guess the guy who was coaching him every day back then is wrong, and you, who have seen only a tiny number of the tests that were done are right. Arrogance defined.

WarrenG said:

Then I guess the guy who was coaching him every day back then is wrong, and you, who have seen only a tiny number of the tests that were done are right. Arrogance defined.

Or "...the guy who was coaching him every day back then..." simply misinformed you about Armstrong's results, perhaps in an attempt to impress you with his abilities. Until those data are published, it's hard to say where the discrepancy lies. What we can say is this: Armstrong's maximal (as in, measured at the end of a VO2max test) blood lactate levels have been reported in the scientific literature to be only 6.3-7.5 mmol/L, versus the 8+ mmol/L sometimes used as the criteria for defining a maximal effort:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=15774697&query_hl=1&itool=pubmed_docsum

Hey Frenchyge,

I'd love a list of links if you could email them to me, Hard to tell you're pulling my leg in writing! But thats cool, i reckon this forum is one of the best i subscribe to for friendly speech and joviality. I havent done much reading since finishing my degree, but ive just started cycling semi-seriously, and will get more serious as time goes on, so I'd love to get some Ex Phys Links to get my brain working again. Thanks for making me welcome, See yall round the forums. Next thing will be researching cycles!

Billy.

Welcome Billy.

I don't share your views on the importance of anaerobic capacity training in endurance based cycling training.

But still, would you have some example of sets you perform stimulating this energetic file?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

As for the main subject of this thread (LT before VO2Max development).

This year, I screwed my GP phase up (made few mistakes, some maintainance objectives were set too high, plus a big flu). So here I am, at the begining of SP phase, already late on my schedule.

Originally, I planned to do VO2Max early in 2006. But I had to rearrange my plan. I will keep focusing on Z3-4 for as long as it takes. I may even wait early April, when I hit the road, to develop VO2Max, mainly using a 9% grade, 1.6k long hill.

So FWIW, this year for me that will be L3-4 first, then L5 (hills).

FORDGT40 said:

I'd love a list of links if you could email them to me,

Personally, I think this is the best treatment I've seen relating physiology with cycling performance: peakscoachinggroup.comPowerTrainingChapter.pdfOpen ↗
(careful though, as this is also 'gateway' propaganda into the Church of Andy 😉 )

Other good articles here: midweekclub.caarticlesOpen ↗

postal_bag said:

I was looking through a book by Dave Morris, I think, and it laid out a training plan in which a vo2 max type phase came just before an FT type phase. The FT phase came immediately before the beginning of the race season. What would be the reasoning behind this? Are the vo2 max gains maintained during the FT phase better than if you tried to maintain FT gains through a period of vo2 max work?

You owe it to yourself to read Jack Daniel's running formula. He also recommends this approach. And, he goes into the rational in fair detail. He aslo gives good advice on what to do with LT training while focusing on VO2 max.

yzfrr11 said:

You owe it to yourself to read Jack Daniel's running formula. He also recommends this approach. And, he goes into the rational in fair detail.

Having not read Daniel's book, can you share that rationale with us here? I'm wondering if perhaps there's not something different between running and cycling (or unique to running) that has led to his preference for training VO2max before training "T pace".

acoggan said:

Having not read Daniel's book, can you share that rationale with us here? I'm wondering if perhaps there's not something different between running and cycling (or unique to running) that has led to his preference for training VO2max before training "T pace".

I wonder when a person would do the above/supra- VO2max intensity training in such a plan. For most running events there may not be a need to do any of that training, but for many cycling events we need to be good at intensities near VO2max and sometimes well above that. If a person did VO2max, then FT/LT, when would they do the peaking preparation training for periods over VO2max?

If LT is done first and then maintained (mostly), VO2max (and above) ability can be built right up to peak. FT/LT power is certainly a priority but unless the event is a time trial longer than 10-20K you'll see most of the top places decided during efforts well above that. (In cycling more than running.)

acoggan said:

Or ".... What we can say is this: Armstrong's maximal (as in, measured at the end of a VO2max test) blood lactate levels have been reported in the scientific literature to be only 6.3-7.5 mmol/L, versus the 8+ mmol/L sometimes used as the criteria for defining a maximal effort:

Yup, certainly nothing impressive about LA's lactate levels. FWIW, I had a finishing blood lactate level of 13.1mmol/L in one of my previous VO2max tests. Eat THAT Armstrong😄 ....how i wish i could have been producing anywhere near the same power at the end as him though.😠

Hey Solar,

I don't understand what you meant by "stimulating this energetic file"? And if you read my other posts you'll note that i am new to cycling, very new, however i am an exercise scientist. It's ok if you don't share my opinions, neither myself or the people who wrote the articles i read in a number of reputable sports science journals will lose much sleep over it. We are here to share information if I'm correct. If you disagree that's cool, but you should research it first, as I have. If it's a new concept, you should research it before making an opinion. I'm not an expert, but I do have certain knowledge that others here may or may not have, and I'm willing to share it. I don't want to sound too confrontational, but every time someone makes a comment that is different to what someone else thinks it is usually challenged in an unusual manner. Just because I personally do not follow the recommendations that i may make or opinions i share doesn't mean that i don't believe in them, it just means i don't have the dedication to become an elite athlete. Anaerobic training can improve VO2max, therefore flow-on benefits for endurance athletes. It's just another tool in the training arsenal, doesn't work for everyone, but it has been shown to benefit a statistically significant number of people. Also, that comment wasn't made specific to endurance cycling.
Thanks for the welcome
Billy

PS. There are a lot of terms used that I am not familiar with such as, GP phase, Z3-4, SP phase and L3-4 etc. Thses are training specific terms that i have yet to encounter. Most of my knowledge is very broad based science specific so please excuse my ignorance and i will do my best to catch up with the lingo.

SolarEnergy said:

Welcome Billy.

I don't share your views on the importance of anaerobic capacity training in endurance based cycling training.

But still, would you have some example of sets you perform stimulating this energetic file?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

As for the main subject of this thread (LT before VO2Max development).

This year, I screwed my GP phase up (made few mistakes, some maintainance objectives were set too high, plus a big flu). So here I am, at the begining of SP phase, already late on my schedule.

Originally, I planned to do VO2Max early in 2006. But I had to rearrange my plan. I will keep focusing on Z3-4 for as long as it takes. I may even wait early April, when I hit the road, to develop VO2Max, mainly using a 9% grade, 1.6k long hill.

So FWIW, this year for me that will be L3-4 first, then L5 (hills).

I really appreciated your views, I should have mentionned it. I am sorry.

But that doesn't mean I share them, and that I would be willing to implement them in a training plan for endurance cyclists.

VO2Max training isn't something easy. what I mean is that it is intense enough, to trigger the adaptation process. I don't see why I'd need to push the intensity even higher, while shortening the durations, and expect to develop a greater O2 consumption.

That being said, I believe that a touch of anaerobic capacity training may have favorable impact on maximum aerobic speed (especially at the begining of the interval, or time trial effort). But for this to happen, a VO2Max training protocol may still be required, somewhere in the yearly plan (in order to be able to sustain that speed). These are just my thoughts, not the truth.

FORDGT40 said:

I don't understand what you meant by "stimulating this energetic file"?

Sorry, you have probably realized by now, that I am still learning English. What I meant was : Give us some example of how you work LMax?

FORDGT40 said:

PS. There are a lot of terms used that I am not familiar with such as, GP phase, Z3-4, SP phase and L3-4 etc. Thses are training specific terms that i have yet to encounter.

GP = general preparation.
Z1 recovery
Z2 low level endurance
Z3 tempo, sub threshold pace
Z4 functional threshold, (lets just call that one threshold)
Z5 VO2Max
Z6 Anaerobic capacity
Z7 Anaerobic power (neuromuscular power)

Cheers

SolarEnergy said:

Z1 recovery
Z2 low level endurance
Z3 tempo, sub threshold pace
Z4 functional threshold, (lets just call that one threshold)
Z5 VO2Max
Z6 Anaerobic capacity
Z7 Anaerobic power (neuromuscular power)

I've never heard of this classification system before. I have, however, heard of one involving seven power-based training *levels*. 😉

FORDGT40 said:

PS. There are a lot of terms used that I am not familiar with such as...L3-4 etc.

See:

http://www.cyclingpeakssoftware.com/levels.html

or:

http://www.cyclingpeakssoftware.com/PowerTrainingChapter.pdf

or:

http://www.velopress.com/cycling.php?id=213

when the latter becomes available.

acoggan said:

I've never heard of this classification system before. I have, however, heard of one involving seven power-based training *levels*. 😉

oupss sorry. Thanks, I'll try not to shed some confusion on your system.

BTW, Fordgt40, acoggan is the person that came up with this classification.
He could probably give you a link for a document he wrote on this matter, amoung other interesting ones.

Cheers

SolarEnergy said:

oupss sorry. Thanks, I'll try not to shed some confusion on your system.

Not a problem, really...the only reason I'm always careful to draw the distinction between "zones" and "levels" is that when you're training with a powermeter, I think it is a mistake to worry too much about keeping your power in a certain range all the time. That's simply not the way we race or even just normally ride, so it makes no sense to me to try to train that way.

acoggan said:

Not a problem, really...the only reason I'm always careful to draw the distinction between "zones" and "levels" is that when you're training with a powermeter, I think it is a mistake to worry too much about keeping your power in a certain range all the time. That's simply not the way we race or even just normally ride, so it makes no sense to me to try to train that way.

?? not sure I understand. Is there something with the use of "Zone" as a term, that implicitly means being more restricted working in that "Zone" only, as opposed to the use of "Level"?

(Just a naive question, aimed at improving my use of "Shakespeare language"😉

acoggan said:

Having not read Daniel's book, can you share that rationale with us here? I'm wondering if perhaps there's not something different between running and cycling (or unique to running) that has led to his preference for training VO2max before training "T pace".

Briefly, Daniel says that for distances greater than 1500 meters, LT will be most important, so he recommends this phase (primary emphasis on T pace) to occur immediatly prior to your most important events. VO2 max emphasis is recommended prior to this (I pace), and speed work (R pace), first.

He prescribes 2 workouts per week (one primary, and the other maintainance). All of the other days are basic endurance runs (E pace). Really an interesting read. All of the principles are fairly standard and he recommends the standard interval durations for stressing LT, and VO2max.

What is noteworthy, however, is that his E pace falls squarly into L2, and he recommends avoiding L3. Also interesting is his preference for starting with speed work.