Because the pace that you can sustain for long distances (durations) is a function of your VO2max, your LT (for which anaerobic threshold can be used as a surrogate), and your economy/efficiency. It is therefore a contradiction to say that VO2max and LT (AT) are not "limiters", then in turn ask what sort of pace the person can maintain, since the latter is a function of the former.

I'm happy that you're happy.

Unfortunately, I have not had the chance to get my running VO2max tested yet. I won't be able to do that for another couple of weeks.

As for training history, I've been at it for about a year and a half. Learned to swim at that time and just started running at that time also. Cycled in the past, but not at any appreciable volume. I just started logging my training in February, so my training history since February is:
total cycling miles: 4000
total running miles: 1000
total swimming yards: 350,000
average week:
4x swim (3 masters + 1 open water)
3x cycling (2 @ 30 miles, 1 @ 80-100 miles)
4x run (1 lsd @ 10-16 miles, 1 tempo for 6 miles or 6 mile brick after bike, 1 track, 1 recovery @ 4 miles)
still a newbie as I've only done 4 triathlons: 1 sprint, 2 HIM, 1 IM.

I did not get tested with the intention of trying to improve my numbers, it was merely a part of a research study. As I now have access to quantitative physiological data, I merely want(ed) to see if I could leverage the information to improve my training.

You can.

I guess my point has been lost in all this - I was really just trying to ask you to think of training in terms of specific work causing specific adaptations. It's the approach and where it leads you. If one is armed with the knowledge that as Coggan pointed out that performance is a function of VO2max then there is real risk of focusing on that VO2max number (same with AT) rather than focusing on the fact that you ran a 1:58 half marathon off the bike, potentially with VO2max and AT data that suggests you should be much much faster.

the 1:58 is a bit misleading as I was using the race to train for an IM and to test my nutrition and so I was really worried about going too hard and jeopardizing my IM training (the IM was 3 months after the HIM). Of course it ended up being a moot point as I melted in the freakish heat the day of the IM due to not taking in enough electrolytes and fluids.

[reply]Both numbers are largely irrelevant to long distance - Ironman or Half-IM racing.[/reply]

While this thread was kind of amusing, I was actually hoping for some specific comments for Kogan (as they might apply to me as well). For instance, kb if you had said "My AT is 350W etc" then it might help some. For instance, my AT is around 325W, I can hold 285W for a few minutes (maybe 5 if I am lucky), my FT is about 240-250W, and 5 second is about 1100W. Given this I am a reasonably balanced cyclist using AC's charts. My training should be a fairly balanced combination of intervals, tempo rides and LSD rides. Without this kind of info I don't know that anyone could really give you direct advice.

---

---

AC and JoB pretty much explained what I meant, but to answer your specific question I want to remind you that what we call "VO2Max training" also increases LT. The same with "LT training", it increases VO2Max. So we can't think of those two training methods of being responsible of targeting only LT and/or VO2Max. Even low intensity training is able to elevate both LT and VO2Max.

As for Zinc, what is wrong with saying "I was wrong, I had some misconceptions about the physiological concepts but I'm glad this discussion came up because I learned a lot"? That would be a great attitude and save you some ridicule of backtracking, flick-flacking, sommersaulting your way in this thread.

[reply]
As for Zinc, what is wrong with saying "I was wrong, I had some misconceptions about the physiological concepts but I'm glad this discussion came up because I learned a lot"? That would be a great attitude and save you some ridicule of backtracking, flick-flacking, sommersaulting your way in this thread.[/reply]

Sorry Paulo, I don't think I have learned anything - other than perhaps to be more clear off the bat and not attempt any kind of dialogue to lead someone to an answer.

It's not that I was wrong and back-pedaling, it's that you didn't understand where I was coming from and did not look at how I had qualified my statements and instead read them as absolutes.

"It's not that I was wrong and back-pedaling"

Ok, you win oxymoronic statement of the week!

---

"I really wish you would post more often. You always have some good stuff to say. I copied it below just in case someone missed it." BarryP to Chainpin on 10/21/06

The printout that I received does not have power number associated with the gases measured, it just recorded the gas numbers as a function of time. There was a person taking my HR as well, so I do have that information. Depending on how one defines VT2 (the last flat point or the first point that rises), my AT/LT occurred at 82% (HR = 149) or 86% (HR = 160) of my VO2max. HRmax was 179. VO2max was 59.

Speaking of power vs. HR, I came across an interesting article (while figuring out how to calculate AT/LT) that would suggest that a training plan that is HR-based would be more consistent than a power-based one.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/...52&dopt=Abstract

So given the data available and my history should I:

a) forget about the physiological data because I'm a country bumpkin?
b) revisit the topic once I have VO2 running data?
c) revisit the topic once I've obtained the corresponding power data?
d) just keep training without specific focus in the near term because I'm a newbie and no type of training will be more beneficial than any other?
e) some combination of the above?
f) lower my seat post and remove that last spacer separating my stem from the top of my headtube?