What physiologic reasons effect the time that power at OBLA can be sustained? After reading some time ago on Ferrari's sight he mentioned that Armstrong's power over 30m was slightly inferior to his power at OBLA and that on average most cyclist's could produce 10to30 watts over their power at OBLA. I also read somewhere Allen Lim mention that most cyclists' probably could not produce their OBLA power over 60 minutes.
So many coaches still base training zones or levels off of OBLA and was wondering why when there could be quite an anaerobic component if an athlete could not sustain OBLA for 30m? If that is true about Armstrong and Ferrari was prescribing intervals around OBLA for him, he must have been doing a lot of 20MP intervals. Being ignorant on Armstrong's exact training prescriptions I would guess that Armstrong probably trained more on feel in his intervals and they just used OBLA to track fitness increases.
Anyway, was just having random thoughts after reading some of this on the web and wondered what other's opinions were and what effects the time OBLA can be sustained.
Anyway, was just having random thoughts after reading some of this on the web and wondered what other's opinions were and what effects the time OBLA can be sustained. Robert Barker
Hi Robert, metabolic constraints are probably the number one reason forcing one to slow down after significant time spent riding at OBLA. That along with muscle resources availability.
Note that FTP (cycling's threshold as defined by Dr.Andrew Coggan, PhD) is a power level that is very close to one's OBLA (defined by most scientific literature as being the intensity that triggers an accumulation of blood lactate of 4 mmol/L).
So hearing that Armstrong would have difficulty sustaining this for 30min leads me to think that there may be some semantic issue here.
Note that FTP (cycling's threshold as defined by Dr.Andrew Coggan, PhD) is a power level that is very close to one's OBLA (defined by most scientific literature as being the intensity that triggers an accumulation of bloo[lactate of 4 mmol/L).
OBLA was defined as the exercise intensity corresponding to a blood lactate concentration of 4 mmol/L because, on average for endurance athletes in a variety of sports, that is level corresponding to maximal lactate steady state. There is an inverse relationship between the active muscle mass and the blood lactate concentration at MLSS, though, so on average cyclists can typically sustain an intensity associated with a lactate concentration of 6-7 mmol/L in a quasi-steady-state.
SolarEnergy said:
So hearing that Armstrong would have difficulty sustaining this for 30min leads me to think that there may be some semantic issue here.
Actually, it sounds correct to me. Armstrong is known for exhibiting unusually low lactate concentrations during exercise, so being unable to sustain or barely able to sustain an intensity associated with a fixed concentration of 4 mmol/L for 30 min makes sense. (IOW, his MLSS is lower than his OBLA.)
So many coaches still base training zones or levels off of OBLA and was wondering why when there could be quite an anaerobic component if an athlete could not sustain OBLA for 30m?
Doesn't particularly matter which reference point is chosen since most of the training will probably be done at a fraction of (ie, less than) the reference point. Some use Max Aerobic Power and define training at lower fractions of the reference point as compared to a schema based upon FTP, for example.
OBLA was defined as the exercise intensity corresponding to a blood lactate concentration of 4 mmol/L because, on average for endurance athletes in a variety of sports, that is level corresponding to maximal lactate steady state. There is an inverse relationship between the active muscle mass and the blood lactate concentration at MLSS, though, so on average cyclists can typically sustain an intensity associated with a lactate concentration of 6-7 mmol/L in a quasi-steady-state.
Actually, it sounds correct to me. Armstrong is known for exhibiting unusually low lactate concentrations during exercise, so being unable to sustain or barely able to sustain an intensity associated with a fixed concentration of 4 mmol/L for 30 min makes sense. (IOW, his MLSS is lower than his OBLA.)
What about instead of fixed 4 mmol/l they just used the second breakpoint definition and power there? Would that make any difference? I just watched the video of Armstrong's lactate test out of curiousity to try to pick up some of the numbers Golich was saying... the first test had Lance at a 3.7mmol/L at 400watts, 6.0mmol/L at 425watts, and 7.2 at 450. In his second test which is the video he was at 3.2mmol/L at 400 watts, 4.1 at 425, and 7.0 at 450. So his breakpoint moved up 25 watts but his la concentration at the breakpoint was higher. Can anything be deduced from this?
OBLA was defined as the exercise intensity corresponding to a blood lactate concentration of 4 mmol/L because, on average for endurance athletes in a variety of sports, that is level corresponding to maximal lactate steady state. There is an inverse relationship between the active muscle mass and the blood lactate concentration at MLSS, though, so on average cyclists can typically sustain an intensity associated with a lactate concentration of 6-7 mmol/L in a quasi-steady-state.
Actually, it sounds correct to me. Armstrong is known for exhibiting unusually low lactate concentrations during exercise, so being unable to sustain or barely able to sustain an intensity associated with a fixed concentration of 4 mmol/L for 30 min makes sense. (IOW, his MLSS is lower than his OBLA.)
Thank you very much I understand.
So there again. If OBLA was set based on avg obtained in a variety of sports, it means that Armstrong isn't an isolated case. Takes a few to set the average. Would this value set based on variety of fitness condition as well?
IOW, among well trained population, is it common to see one's MLSS lower then OBLA?
