Could they track the first breakpoint of the lactate profile? Or a strict correlation exists only for the LT?

Yes, training however you want whenever you want without any regard to specifics has been known worldwide as the most successful form of training. </pink>

---

Badig| Strava

http://en.wikipedia.org/...Reductio_ad_absurdum

And yet you have personally defined those "tightly specified zones" and list their respective adaptations. hahaha
http://home.trainingpeaks.com/...ower-training-levels

---

Badig| Strava

I don't really undersand this. It is pretty damn easy to tell if a session is well below lactate threshold and damn easy to know when I'm above lactate threshold. The areas in between, not so much.

I'll share my personal algorithm:
Is this ride feeling boring? Yes- well below lactate threshold - No: Slow down some
Do I want to quit this interval and wonder why I do sport: Yes: Above lactate threshold. - No: Go harder you fucking loser.

Relevant pithy power proverb #1: They are called levels and not zones for a reason.

Relevant pithy power proverb #2: The training levels are descriptive, not prescriptive.

You can read more here:

http://lists.topica.com/...e.html?mid=901936066

And here:

http://www.peakscoachinggroup.com/...training_chapter.pdf

Or dig through >10 y of posts on the wattage list...

Hahaha.

"To help meet this demand, built directly into the WKO+ software program are a series of power-based training levels, or zones"

thinking you need to read your work a little more before posting.....

On a slightly more serious note though, If you truly feel that "training within tightly-specified "zones" yields better results has no basis in reality", then why would you bother spending so much time defining all of the various levels/zones etc, etc, etc. Wouldn't it have been better to go a totally different route?

---

Badig| Strava

As I said, "they're called levels and not zones for a reason", or really, a number of reasons, one of which is to try to discourage people from misunderstanding/misinterpreting them. Clearly, however, that hasn't worked in your case, despite the hundreds if not thousands of times I've explained the distinction...

Personally, I liked the precision of your earlier clarification: prescriptive versus descriptive. Hard to get confused if one thinks of it that way.

Unless one is deliberately getting hung up on semantics. *cough tjfry cough*

;)

But isn't Sweetspot a zone within levels 3 and 4?

In this article about the Sweetspot there is mention of a 'grey zone'.


http://www.nasvik.se/loadeffect.pdf


"increasing the intensity, such that ~103-108% of FTP is something of a grey zone, and the relative efficacy of ~10 minute intervals seems questionable."

Like it or not, people do train in zones. Doing 2x 20 minutes of Sweetspot is training in a zone.

But to be serious for a moment, is Dr Coggan pointing out that there is no magic zone or level in which or at which one should do all their training? Proper training or effective training requires work at numerous levels and a good effective training session will just as likely drift and meander through many levels or zones as be strictly confined to a narrow range of percentages of FTP.

No one is suggesting someone do nothing but sweetspot . Although I do think some recommend it as a good workout if all you have time for is an hours training.


I think some people assume that because the use of a power meter enables one to train within specific levels or zones with considerable accuracy that this is the very purpose of power meter use. They erroneously assume that just because they are training at a specific level they are training more effectively. Others assume that because they use a power meter and track their training and are using software to analyse their training they are training better and more effectively when all they are doing is documenting their own incompetence.


You can't blame Dr Coggan for power meter users incompetence or for the use of training zones. People have been in the habit of training in zones with heart rate for decades before power meters.


Riding outdoors it is almost impossible to stick to specific zones or levels anyway, yet some people seem to believe there is some magic physiological training benefit to be derived from developing the skill to ride for hours never drifting out of a specific training level.


If a coach tells someone to ride for a certain time at a particular wattage does it make any difference if you call it a level or a zone?

I notice the workouts shown in Training & Racing With A Power Meter give ranges of % FTP i.e. 91% to 105%.

Now surely that is a zone and the book is encouraging someone to train in that zone or at that level for a suggested number of minutes. e.g. 5 minutes VO2 Max 106% to 120% FTP.


I can't see any real difference between a power level and a zone. Does the word zone encourage people to train differently to the word level?

WOW just came back to read the thread and see its gone well of course here!!! What the hell is wrong with people? Get the device, test your Lactate threshold and then raise it. You get fitter and faster. Training is a combination of frequency, duration and intensity. The zones, levels or whatever the hell you want to call them just help you define two of the three parameters. Hell you know yourself when you are tired out and can function no more, you don't need a device to tell you that!!!!

---

He who understands the WHY, will understand the HOW.

Good observations here. I believe a power meter in the short term is effective for people to "lift" their efforts and stay within a planned power output when perceived effort deceives them over longer duration. Once past that baby step, the zones or levels help people color within the lines for planned workouts and it becomes a psychological benefit to feel like you are working the plan and achieving measurable progress.

The criticism against zones/levels is that people get anxious about whether they are doing this stuff "right", but I think the whole idea is astonishingly simple. A well trained athlete needs to create regular and repeatable training stress, but when it becomes too regular it needs to be changed up a bit (more intense or more duration at intensity) to induce next level adaptation. Along with this, trained athletes usually need to prioritize with specificity what they want to get better at. At some point, it isn't possible to lift your performance across the whole Y-axis (time) of critical power graph -- An increase in 60 minute power may come at the expense of 5 minute power and visa versa. This creates more training plan anxiety for athletes because no one likes to give up gains in any area to pursue them elsewhere, so we start wondering if there is a magic zone that is better than all the rest or some way to cut the knot.

That is how I see the progression of thought anyhow that takes a simple (do X and you get better at X) into the realm of project management. As for lactate threshold, it sounds like for some application to specialize it would be helpful to know if you are working above or below that line, particularly if you are trying to train LT.

Absolute gold!
The two training zones of the polarized approach.

This is the exact approach that I am taking for training this year. I am getting too old to spend a lot of time training at high tempo or around threshold - I am too damn tired all the time and can never recover properly. This year it will be all easy training through the fall and then I will add in a couple of HARD sessions a week (one each per bike and run) of above threshold intervals. Gonna give polarized training a go.

So what is the difference between the cycling and running model that makes one $69.99 more?

The running edition pairs with power meters too:


BSX Insight:
Running Edition

• iOS and Android
• Free Shipping
• Extended Warranty
• 30-day Money back guarantee

• Pairs: ANT+ heart rate meter and power meter
• Measures: Running lactate threshold to determine your training zones based on heart rate (ANT+)

But if you have pace for running & swimming and power for cycling you do not need another gadget to establish your threshold. Even if the blood lactate data were accurate would it tell you anything that pace or power does not tell you?

Surely it is better to establish the pace or power you are able to sustain and work from that, than it is to base your pace or power on a lactate number and base your training on a pace or power which you might or might not be able to sustain.




The other problem is an unnecessary proliferation of gadgets, which leads to more confusion and increases the chances of malfunction.

We already have heart rate monitors, GPS and power meters, if we start using a lactate device as well, I can see it taking longer to get out the house than it does to complete the training session. The chances of everything consistently working properly are slim. I can see a lot of time wasted and a lot of frustration.

Some good points, especially the proliferation of gadgets. However if you're training to the lactate curve than this is undoubtably the way forward, and by that I mean focusing your efforts on the two turning points (what ever you might want to call them), and being able to see how a block of training affects them. If this is not how you train then, I agree, the gadget is a total waste of time and money.

SteveMc

The troll returneth...

It is pointless to do with more what can be done with fewer.

Give it up, Trev, or you'll get banned again.

We just need someone to build a hat that measures the output of the 'central governor' ;-)

I love it, something like google glasses projecting the opposite of your self defeating thoughts.. alternatively taking some 'endurance happy' pills before racing could do the trick, move aside beta-blockers....

SteveMc

The output of the central governor is power or pace surely?

Whatever is going on inside the body, the brain is getting all the feedback it needs, and regulates power output accordingly.

Fatigue is caused by so many things. An increase in blood lactate is just one thing that happens. Why base everything you do on that one measurement when you know the pace or power you can sustain?

The central governor theory interestingly allows you to ditch lactate and heart rate and concentrate on what matters, sustainable pace / power. The brain measures everything for you then regulates your power or pace. Why measure just one or two of those things which your brain measures constantly anyway? What matters is how you feel and the pace or power.


I take the view that we don't understand exactly what is going on in the body. We know some things and no doubt in time we will learn that what we used to know was wrong anyway, like for decades we were wrong about lactate. So for training purposes, let the brain do its job, and concentrate on what matters, which is how we feel at a given pace or power output and what pace or power we can sustain for the duration required.

That said, I would still like one of these devises. I'm interested in seeing how well it works and how the numbers correlate with feel and pace, but I'm not sure how or if it would improve my training or performance.

I read Olbrecht's book which is fascinating and informative but I can't get my head round how, if you know the pace or power you can sustain over the performance test or a 30 minute swim or run or a 60 min cycling test, that you need to know the lactate numbers as well.


The more I think about this the more I realise I have changed my mind somewhat. I lean very much to Coggan's ideas on this subject.

Yes, it will tell you what are the causes of the power and pace one is measuring. in order to increase one's pace or power, it is desirable to know just what to train or change.

Most people here seem to not understand just what lactate testing is about. It is not just a method to estimate a threshold but an estimate of the causes of a particular pace or power which are the aerobic system, the anaerobic system and economy. Other factors will affect the pace or power at any given moment (e.g. temperature, time of day, nutrition, previous workouts etc.) so they should be controlled as best as possible when testing but the main factors are the two energy systems and economy.

A threshold or another measure to estimate training paces will be one of the outputs of lactate testing but not the main reason for doing it. I realize that some think it is the only reason but that is shortsighted.


---------

---

Jerry Cosgrove

Sports Resource Group
http://www.lactate.com
https://twitter.com/@LactatedotCom

So you are saying that the lactate testing will show me at what power or pace I will be switching from aerobic to anaerobic? This will enable me to set training below it or above it to train the desired system?

But don't I know this power or pace from testing my performance?

Or are you saying the power or pace that I can sustain for 30 min or 60 min is actually above the level where I am still aerobic so that pace is in fact too high and the lactate test will fix the power or pace level more correctly?


I thought a 60 min cycling test and 30 min run or swim correlated closely with lactate threshold and as lactate is only one measure wouldn't it be more logical to base training on the performance test?