3 min steps are too short for meaningful lactate numbers IMO. Sorry, but the test method is suspect. Additionally, why is the test method varying speed and grade?

LT1 is where you can run comfortabley for a long time and speak with minimal effort. LT2 is where it feels hard, you cannot speak more than a word or two, and is a pace you can sustain for between 35 and 75 minutes depending on your training state.

Despite the craze around lactate testing recently, this will serve you far better than any number from a test, especially when you take into account factors from running outside.

This was done in a lab and is the "modified bruce" protocol on a treadmill.

Can you explain more about how this test was done? A lot of it doesn't make a ton of sense. How much of this was measured directly, and in what manner, and how much was an estimate?

If thats a direct measurement, you don't have an L1. You have elevated lactate at baseline/rest. The one caveat here is an apparent lack of a warm up. Is that correct? I'd be curious to see a measurement after 20+ minutes of easy walking.

Anyway some more context would be great

---

Me: https://carnivoreendurance.blogspot.com/...ever-comes-next.html

Latest: Colorectal Cancer is in the News Again. Don't Blame Red Meat
https://carnivoreendurance.blogspot.com/...news-again-dont.html

Im going to answer swimmer and bird at the same time.

There was no warm up.
Also, what feels "easy" to me - where I can converse for an hour - is a HR at around 140. I regularly sing to myself at about that HR with no problem. The HR at which talking sucks and it is only a few words is probably about 170-175. Once I get to 190+ Im not talking, just suffering.

Plenty of bad labs out there.

It looks like the modified Bruce protocol is a stress test protocol and potentially a VO2 max protocol. Never seen anything like it for lactate testing, although it appears there is a little literature on its use.

Steps 2 and 3 show elevated lactate levels and 100% fat metabolism. I'd love someone with more education than me to chime in, but pretty sure that's not possible. I wouldn't trust anything that came from that lab

Lactate measurements reflect metabolic fitness as much as cardiovascular fitness. What "feels" easy is not necessarily easy on your body. That is to say, you're still incurring increased metabolic stress at literally any physical effort. Which is the reason for my question about which results were measured directly and which were estimated. The 100% fat thing is highly suspect, both because even on a zero carb diet you'd never burn more than ~99% fat but also because those lactate results imply very poor metabolic fitness and a corresponding reliance on carbohydrate utilization. Do you have actual RER measures from the test or are those fat/carb numbers estimated some how?

How you use this to set your training (again, assuming everything is directly measured, done correctly, accurate, etc.) is kind of up to you. As mentioned, you don't have an L1, which would be the first increase in blood lactate typically occurring around 1.5mmol of lactate. L2 would be the second exponential increase - based on these results, thats like 85 bpm for you. And yes, that does some crazy if you can run a 22 minute 5k, so keep in mind those assumptions about the test being legit.

For comparisons sake, my max HR is also 198 and as I've slowly been working my way back to health I've pushed my L1 (lactate 1.5ish) from about 130bpm/10:30 pace to 140bpm/9:15 pace. I'm in...I dunno, 18 mid to high 5k shape. That started with lots of walking. If I got the actual legit results you did my strategy would quite earnestly be to walk a lot and potentially take a look at diet in attempts to improve metabolic fitness. Buuuuut I'd also be wondering whether to take those results seriously

---

Me: https://carnivoreendurance.blogspot.com/...ever-comes-next.html

Latest: Colorectal Cancer is in the News Again. Don't Blame Red Meat
https://carnivoreendurance.blogspot.com/...news-again-dont.html

You have your answer then. You don't need lab testing. Keep your easy work around 140 bpm, do your hard work above that, and in my opinion, RPE is far more useful then heart rate

You could ask your doctor for a measurement of lactate to compare to the 0 mph one. It's possible that your lactate is elevated because the test indicates so, in which case you should speak with your doctor. The doctor will give a lactate test then, you can compare the result to that of the lab.

Honestly, my lactate meter gives out some funky results sometimes, anyone else have that problem?

Thanks for the in depth response. This output is copied exactly from the print out sheet from the lab (which is a well known university for sports/science).

I was thinking maybe bad readings - they did take them as I was still running - just put my arm down. I go in for another round in a month (just did a 12 week block) and was going to compare.

The initial sounded high based off research I had done and my times and effort levels didnt mix with the lactate results. I figured maybe I just had a higher tolerance of lactate if thats possible? or something just seemed off based on what I felt/do compared to what the result sheet showed me.

Currently, I am doing a lot of walking on an incline treadmill and then two 140s runs a week and 2 150 runs a week. Averaging 20-40 mpw the last 8 weeks.

The bolded part is a huge problem IMO. Lactate testing is finicky. If you touch the skin while attempting to get a blood sample you can't trust the result. And so I wouldn't be inclined to trust these

That said, it wouldn't be completely absurd to have an elevated resting lactate. It would not reflect greater tolerance for lactate, just poorer metabolic health/fitness. Its the results shooting up to 8+ that are incredibly suspect.

L1 should roughly occur a little before the point at which you have to open your mouth. If you're breathing comfortably through your nose the entire time while exercising you're probably at a metabolically easy (or close to it) effort. Unfortunately I'd put more stock in that simple test than the high-tech version you got here...

---

Me: https://carnivoreendurance.blogspot.com/...ever-comes-next.html

Latest: Colorectal Cancer is in the News Again. Don't Blame Red Meat
https://carnivoreendurance.blogspot.com/...news-again-dont.html

If we go by the nose breathing thing, then my L1 is going to be right around 140.

I have 1 more month of the training I have been doing - so Ill keep that (its beneficial either way in one way or another) and I will post my second results in a month. Curious if anything changed.

I appreciate the help with this haha been confused for damn near a month but figured millions of dollars in lab equipment and PhDs knew me better than I knew me.

This test is possibly precise, definitely not accurate. Increasing the gradient but not the speed is basically useless for everything except for hill climbing. It translates roughly to flat running, but I don't see the point in getting exact training data for running, but for uphill running instead of flat running. Might as well just use McMillan calculator at that point. Also 3 min intervals is not long enough for late to stabilize. 6 min is probably the minimum.

On the (very big) assumption that this data is correct we can infer that your anaerobic system is stronger than your aerobic system, relatively. In other words it seems like your ability to burn fat as fuel and hold a high pace for durations of hours is lacking in comparison to your ability to do a 5k or sprint tri. (Basically lactate production is proportional to carbohydrate use, a large aerobic base largely shifts to a higher fat burn rate at intensity up to sit 90%).

It gets complicated because with your seemingly high lactate production you're more reliant on anaerobic systems than aerobic. So if you set zones based on lactate values you'll end up training too easy (since you have high lactate at a relatively low %of max capacity).

The two tests you would really want to do are an actual ramp (6-10min intervals at maybe 30sec/m faster on each, stopping to take a test as quickly as possible between) and a VlaMax test (basically a 20ish second sprint with tests just before and 2/4/6min after). What you'll get from that is 1) a good idea of where your shift from aerobic to anaerobic begins (LT1 or something similar) and where your maximal steady state lies (LT2/MLSS/AT). From the VlaMax test you can get insight into if you're actually anaerobic heavy or just less fit. For example, if you show an LT2 at 8:00/m at 4mmol but your VlaMax is also very low then it would show lower fitness. But if VlaMax was very high then it works show a relatively overdeveloped anaerobic system. In the first case the prescription would be a balanced training plan, in the second it would be more skewed towards aerobic work.

Personally if you want to go down this route I would highly recommend getting your own meter. It's like $300 plus ~$2 per strip. It's about the cost of a 70.3 for a season of testing.

Sorry for the wall of text I just really like this stuff.

No thats rad, I appreciate the wall of text. Im a data/science guy so this is all fun to me.

I tried the at home meter but the lancet was way to small and I couldnt find bigger ones and it was super hard to do myself - I kept getting wonky numbers (touching skin, etc).

That is interesting of the unfit vs developed upper end system. I dont think the lab does those tests.

So devils advocate - say I go in a month a perform the same tests and there are changes - would that tell me anything? A shift to the right on the graph would still indicate an improvement in both systems yes? Or if the L1 shifted right but L2 stayed the same, it would indicate a better aerobic and vice versa?

What size lancets were you using? I've never had a problem with 28g disposable ones from amazon.

Going in and retaking the test in a month (I'd recommend 2 months between tests, the signal of fitness gains in 4 weeks is too small compared to the noise) could possibly give you some data, but it may or may not be helpful. It is very important that you replicate as close as you can to the first test (hydration and food in the last couple hours make the biggest difference).

Let's say you take the test again at the same speed/gradient and all of the lactate values are uniformly 0.2mmol lower. You could draw two possible conclusions: 1-Your total work capacity (VO2max) has increased and thusly your body is working at a lower total percentage for the same output as before, reflected in lower lactate values. Or 2-Your anaerobic capacity has decreased relative to your aerobic capacity, so at the same workload your balance has shifted to a greater % aerobic work. This sounds bad, but in the context of endurance events it can be quite good. It lowers your maximal output ceiling but generally increases the length of time you can stay at any one submaximal output.

Remember that the blood lactate value is basically a measure of excess glycogen burn in the most recent minutes. You can lower lactate at a given out put by increasing global fitness or shifting the workload to the aerobic system (possibly by decreasing the anaerobic ability).

It would have been a 3 month time period from test 1 to test 2 (i'm 2 months into specific training based off the test 1 results).

Ok all that said - Im looking to do a 5k PR that I accomplished like 12 years ago and nowhere near hitting right now. Thought it would be fun to get data along the way this time.

What is the aerobic vs anaerobic importance for that distance? Does the lower end much matter compared to the higher end or?

3 months is much better.

A 5k is a tough one to draw conclusions for based only on this test. You could (and should) run a 5k very far above LT2/AT. It's essentially a 20min TT. The importance of glycogen burn is much more important. Depending on where your fitness is specifically right now it's possible that a better 5k time would see your lactate curve shift to the left, due to your body shifting the balance more to anaerobic systems (although it looks like you're already pretty anaerobic heavy).

As I said though, 7 min miles on flats do not compare to 15min miles at 16% gradient. It's perfectly possible that your 5k time improves and your uphill running ability drops off. A much simpler test in service of this goal is just to go out and do 10min at 5k goal pace and take a lactate reading then.