You put up an OP on Olbrecht's book, and what Olbrecht does is laid out in his book. The book is mainly about training but the basis of the training advice is estimating the energy systems.

Olbrecht developed what is known as the T30 while a graduate student at Cologne and was published in 1985. Essentially this is an example of a distance test that seems to be the favorite of most here for testing. Before this there was the Cooper test that people used for running but this was a much shorter test.

Olbrecht rejected the T30 or other distance tests because they do not tell you all that is necessary to train someone correctly. You must have information about what causes the results of a distance test which is why he uses lactate testing. Also measures such as the V4 correlate highly with distance tests and can be done rather quickly and do not require any motivation.

Training once you have this information is then based on affecting the factors behind the test. So the main part of Olbrecht's books is about training energy systems but he spends a fair amount of time talking about the energy systems and their effect on performance. An extensive discussion of the factors behind a performance are on our lactate threshold page:

http://www.lactate.com/lactate_threshold.html


----

---

Jerry Cosgrove

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

I can't speak about Tri's but in bike racing, road & CX etc, threshold power test only tell part of the story. I can train at steady state and get my aerobic system strong to where it is at or near personal best but get killed in races where I have to go anaerobic many times. like-wise I can train anaerobically where my threshold power test is lower by 5-8% and win races. I see it all the time with the people I coach in CX. Crappy aerobic numbers (cat 4 range) strong anaerobic number (cat 1 range) and winning. Finding the right balance between aerobic and anaerobic for the type of racing you are doing is the trick. I have never use lactate measurement to find the balance but I could see its benefit.

---

BoulderCyclingCoach.com

There is no such thing as a pace that switches from aerobic to anaerobic. At rest you are using the anaerobic system but at very low amounts. As you increase intensity the body will utilize a slightly higher percentage of anaerobic energy. At the maximal lactate steady state the body will be using a combination of aerobic and anaerobic energy but the anaerobic component will be much higher than at rest.

Above MLSS both the aerobic and anaerobic energy levels will continue to increase. The aerobic system will continue to increase till VO2max but the anaerobic component will continue much faster. Above the MLSS the body can not utilize all the outputs of the anaerobic system and must stop or slow down, sometimes not for several minutes but sometimes within a very short time.

Here is a chart from our website illustrating the MLSS.



The actual pace that should be used in a specific workout is the one that will elicit the desired effect on the energy systems. Each effort will engage both the aerobic and anaerobic systems. The question is how much of each to engage during a particular workout and how to vary the workouts over a training period to optimize both systems. No one type of workout will come close to doing that.

This is not an easy thing to do and Olbrecht has his own computer model to do this which is not available for others but he lays out the concepts behind making these estimates in his book. Whether one uses these ideas to adjust effort (pace or power) is their decision. That is why training is an art as well as a science and the training process is constant experimentation. Lactate testing if done right can help estimate what is happening. It is not magic but a very good tool for estimating what causes a performance. A distance test is just a correlation.


---------

---

Jerry Cosgrove

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

To quote from the link you proceeded,

"First - there is an effort level called the maximal lactate steady state (MaxLass or MLSS) that an athlete can continue at for an extended period of time without having to slow down, can be as much as an hour or possibly longer. As long as the athlete maintains this effort level, his or her lactate level will remain constant. At small effort levels above this point the athlete's lactate level will rise, and he or she will be forced to stop, sometimes within a few minutes, sometimes a bit longer. Above this maximal lactate steady state there are no more steady states but an inevitable and frequently rapid progression to exhaustion. There is a threshold at which an athlete can maintain his or her effort for an extended time but above which there is a inevitable path to exhaustion. This effort level is also often called the lactate threshold, the anaerobic threshold or the onset of blood lactate accumulation (OBLA). The chart below shows that for this runner, at a pace above 4.2 m/s the lactate is no longer in a steady state and the athlete is forced to stop after a period of time."

This is exactly my point. There is an effort level, a pace or a wattage that you can sustain, if you increase the effort pace or power above that level you will move from maximal lactate steady state into onset of blood lactate accumulation, or in plain English, you go over the red line and have to slow down.

Now, if you know the pace or power you can sustain you don't need to know what the blood lactate number is for training purposes because you know the pace or power.

So I know from testing the pace or power I can sustain so I know if I'm training above or below the red line. It isn't as if there is a magic blood lactate number. It isn't the blood lactate number which dictates training it is the power or pace which causes the blood lactate to shift from steady state. The shift in lactate is a consequence of the increase in pace or power. So again I can't see how the lactate numbers help me train.

"The best predictor of performance is performance itself."

Jerry seems to be stuck in the same cause-effect inversion that many heart rate monitor advocates find themselves.

Are you truly missing the implications of what I am saying? I suggest you read Olbrecth's book. Above in this thread you pointed to a chapter in Tipton's book that you wrote. Another chapter in the book was written by one of the giants of exercise physiology of the 20th century, Wildor Hollmann. Olbrecht was a student of Hollmann and his associate, Alois Mader.

What you are saying is that they are stuck and you are not. Olbrecht has advised athletes with close to 100 Olympic and World Championship medals. I would think that people would be interested in how he is somehow stuck in an inversion and see how they can get stuck the same way.


No it is what is behind the power or pace. No one is pointing to a specific blood lactate number. At any pace or effort level there will be an associated lactate level that of itself means very little. It will vary from individual to individual.

But how it shifts with changing effort levels is indicative of the contribution of the two energy systems. Different types of test are necessary to estimate the two energy systems and their contribution at each effort. This is what lactate testing is mainly about.

The maximum lactate steady state is just one effort level (effort in terms of pace or power as well as lactate value -usually between 2.5 and 6 mmol/l and will vary by sport for each individual.) and not necessarily the best one to know. Other levels, more easily attained, can be used to set training paces just as well. But again what is really desired is what causes the relationship between a pace/power and a lactate value that is desired.

the real gold is how to train the factors behind these numbers. That is what training is all about.


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

---

Jerry Cosgrove

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

No, I just disagree.


http://en.wikipedia.org/...ument_from_authority


<shrug>


Good for him, but all that shows is that people think he is a good coach, not that measuring lactate provides any significant benefits.


Well that's easy: just put the cart before the horse, and favor use surrogate predictors of performance instead of performance itself as your guide to your training.

Interesting way or replying. Ad hominems, passing away experts who have done world class research as an argument from authority, success that is greater than most anyone else one can point to and nonsense replies.

By the way Olbrecht is not a coach but one who coaches and national teams hire to advise them on training. Those interested should investigate just what he is saying. There may be something that is being overlooked in their training. Essentially Olbrecht's training and testing philosophy is what he calls the Steering Process.

http://www.lactate.com/steering.html


-----------

---

Jerry Cosgrove

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

No ad hominem attacks from me - all I did was point out the lack-of-logic of the position you've staked out.

And yes, pointing out someone else's credentials to try to buttress your own case is arguing by appealing to authority. To make matters even worse, though, you brought up Hollman to make Olbrecht's position seem more convincing, when Olbrecht himself has apparently only published four scientific papers total...so you've got this whole argument-by-appeal-to-authority-via-proxy thing going on.

I think this is the crux of the problem. If you know what pace you can hold for 60 minutes and you train around that pace, you will improve your 60 minute performance. If you do training sessions with repeated intervals above that level, with recovery in between, you will get better at being able to attack during road races or sprints during crits. How does knowing your exact lactate numbers help in your training? From personal experience, I know the exact numbers I can hit on any given day will vary (due to temperature, fatigue etc...) . Having some "exact" number isn't going to change or help my workouts.

This is getting funny. You have not used ad hominems? My understanding of what they are has changed then.


It is not my case but Olbrecht's case. Why attack me or my so called errors in logic. Which is why I suggested you go to the horse's mouth and read his book. If I got it wrong then let me know. I am willing to learn.

Olbrecht was a student of Hollmann and Mader which some would say may indicate where he is coming from. So their ideas are relevant. The model he uses was developed by Mader and Heck at Cologne when Hollmann was in charge and Olbrecht a graduate student.


Olbrecht is not in academia but the process he uses is based on the research by others who have published. He has made modifications based on the thousands of athletes he has worked with and much of this is in his book. He is primarily interested in training athletes and has no time to publish. He has advised athletes all the way from age group swimmers to world champion and record holders. As I have said, those interested should investigate his ideas.

It is not me you are trying to impugn but Olbrecht and the people at Colgone who taught and advised him. Fine, if you disagree but be clear who and what you are disagreeing with. It is certainly not me.


---------

---

Jerry Cosgrove

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

Pointing out that you're confusing cause and effect is not an ad hominem attack, it is simply a statement of fact.


Because you're the one posting here.


And then see you to buy a lactate monitor, right? ;)


You shouldn't keep bringing Olbrecht and his ideas up if you're not willing and able to defend them.

Big fan, as I have noted before. Thought i would point out that you are an elusive debater, or perhaps just a man of few words.

Man of little free time.

I know others have said this, but I'm really glad you've come back to posting on ST.

Thank you, but don't expect it to last...lots on my agenda in the near future.

Exactly what idea am I not willing to defend?

Now how able I am in defending them is a different question and I will let others be the judge.


I was going to leave all this go but this comment is beyond the pale. What cause am I confusing with effect? My main argument is that distance tests do not consider the causes for the specific result obtained in the distance test let alone what is behind the actual competitive performance.

For example, one calculates a power number or a pace for a specific distance test. What physiologically actually led to that specific number. The distance test may be a predictor of a competitive performance but it is not the cause of the performance. What causes the specific distance tests may also lead to a specific performance during a competition but it is more important to actually assess what is actually causing each.

It is these causes behind any performance that have to be trained. Once one understands what are the causes for any performance whether it be a workout result or an actual competition, one is better able to guide training toward an optimal performance.

I would suggest you explain how you are considering cause and effect and contrast it with my analysis of cause and effect. Maybe then we will all get it.


-------

---

Jerry Cosgrove

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

You keep appealing to authority (Hollman) by proxy (Olbrecht) rather than addressing the reason(s) why using lactate data instead of performance data to guide training is superior.


"Beyond the pale"? Man, you are awfully thin-skinned...


See Richard H's last post in this thread. He summed things up quite nicely.


1. Lactate is an effect, not a cause.

2. Properly-conducted field tests can tell you just as much about the physiological changes underlying improvements (or decrements) in performance as lactate testing, if not more so.

3. At the end of the day, "the best predictor of performance is performance itself."

(Another quote worthy of remembering in the present context: "That which gets measured, gets improved.")

Here is maybe a bit more of a description, or the relationship between AnT and MaxLass, from Canova:



But you must not think of the type of workout (that is clearly over the Threshold, and can reach 11 - 13 mmol for a top runner well trained), but of the EFFECT of this training. The question was : what type of training do you use for improving AnT ? The answer is : a lot of run that we can check between 95 and 105 % of the speed of the race.
I want to describe, for example, one type of training that Gianni Ghidini (the current coach of Bungei, Yiampoy and Kamal) and me use with these guys during the last period, having the goal to IMPROVE SPECIFIC ENDURANCE, developing intensity from the Threshold to Specific Endurance.

1) 6 x 600m (rec. 4 min) in 1:28 (60/28) 1:28 (60/28) 1:27 (60/27) 1:27 (60/27) 1:26 (60/26) 1:26 (60/26)

2) (about 10 days later) 5 x 600 (rec. 5 min) in 1:26 (60/26) 1:25 (59/26) 1:25 (59/26) 1:24 (59/25) 1:24 (59/25)

3) (about 10 days later) 4 x 600 (rec. 6 min) in 1:23 (57/26) 1:22 (57/25) 1:21 (57/24) 1:20 (56/24)

4) (about 10 days later, in the case of Bungei 8 days before Zurich) 3 x 600 (rec. 8 min) in 1:19.3 (54.2/25.1) 1:19.5 (54.6/24.9) 1:17.2 (53.0/24.2)

The next workout (before OG) will be 2 x 600 (rec. 10 min) in 1:16 (52/24).

This type of work starts about 2 months before the main event, having the goal of supporting AnT. After the first two sessions, when we test the speed at a level of lactate of 6 mmol, we can find an improvement of about 5-8 sec, per km. After the first two sessions, the focus of this training is the improvement of SPECIFIC ENDURANCE, joined with the capacity of increasing speed in the final of the race. The 5th workout is very specific,lactate reaches a level of 16-18 mmol, but in any case is an evolution of the first workout.

The normal use of groups of short distances increasing the speed every test, is a good way for increasing the AnT in aspecialist of 800 or 1500m. For example, 4 groups of 3 x 300m in 42/40/38 with 2 min recovery (and 5 min between the sets), or 4 groups of 3 x 600min 1:33/1:30/1:27 rec. 2 min and 5min, for specialists of 800 and 1500/3000m respectively, are workouts very good for increasing the AnT.

But what is important to remember, is that every distance needs a specific Aerobic Support, that is not the real AnT. For example, in the case of 3000 SC/5000, we can create a MAX LASS (Maximum Lactate Steady State) of 6/8 min at a level of 11-13 mmol of lactate, and the AnT that we need is the speed at a level of 8 mmol about. So, don`t pay attention at the CONVENTIONAL THRESHOLD of 4 mmol,because is something for physiologists, but really in many case doesn´t mean anything.

I try to write the level of lactate that you must use like AEROBIC SUPPORT for the specific workouts in different events :

800m 8-12 mmol
1500m 7-10
5000m 6-8
10000m 5-7
HM 4-5
Mar 4

The benefits of this device, and information you've provided from this discussion, really have me scratching my head as to why any athlete would need one. Or for that matter why, as a coach, I would be concerned in any way, shape, or form at to what a person's lactate levels are at any given time.

Seems a little like VO2max testing. Nice numbers and all, but, in reality, for day to day usage pretty useless. Especially when things like power data is becoming very readably available.

The fact that cannot be clearly articulated as to how it actually will help improve training practices means you'll have a real up hill battle trying to sell these things.

Just to be fair to the BSX Insight folks:

Jerry sells portable lactate measuring devices that require a small sample of blood. Such devices have been around for 10-20 y or so, but outside of lab settings/among elite athletes and coaches haven't really caught on the way, say, heart rate monitors or more recently, powermeters, have.

BSX Insight, OTOH, is taking pre-orders for a near-infrared spectroscopy (NIRS) device that measures muscle oxygenation non-invasively, i.e., without any tissue (blood or muscle) sampling. While this is a newer technology, similar devices (e.g., MoxyMonitor) have been on the market for a few years. What sets the BSX Insight device/approach apart is that rather than using NIRS to routinely monitor muscle oxygenation during training, their goal is to use NIRS to predict lactate threshold from data obtained during formal testing.

Read this if you're bored:

http://www.letsrun.com/...ad=458338&page=0

It's a thread on threshold, about 113 pages.....you can skip most of it and maybe look at the posts from Canova and Cabral and a few others. Whether you agree or disagree at the end with the value of LT or MaxLass identification vs output....you will hopefully take something of value away.

Regarding this device, unlike the moxy the BSX is locked or intentianally limited in its use, as far as I know you can't use it across sports or across athletes or across a wide spectrum of testing without paying extra.....the business model on this sucks and likely means it won't acheive market penetration like PM's or Hrm's.

Maurice

This is really only the second question addressed to me about this topic today. Nearly all the comments have been a pissing contest about something I am not sure what, I believe it is over my incompetence. So most of what I said today has not been an attempt to answer a specific question such as yours.

If one wants to get really good, one has to test or as we say measure. From the steering page on our website:

http://www.lactate.com/steering.html



One can get better by just training as long as it is not too much and too strenuous. Nothing wrong with this as long as the athlete has no long range objectives to optimize performance. There are hundreds of books and websites today to provide training programs and advice. This is how most non elite athletes trained till about 20 years ago and how many if not most still train today. Often they will use feel and how fast or how easy they can complete a typical set to judge progress. But they will often reach a plateau in their competitions after initial success and maybe a little more intensity and volume will get them even better. Results in competitions are their measure of how well they are doing. And they keep track of similar workouts and compare with past results.

Testing - But many others will want to test more systematically along the way to see if they are progressing in their training. It could be very disappointing for someone to spend a lot of time training and then find out they are no better than their last competition or even worse. So one should test periodically to know that they are progressing and use measures that correlate with competition performance. One type of test to do this is some type of distance test. I am sure there are various types and I am not a triathlete or coach but have come across several different examples. You will know what they are much better than I. People seem to have their favorites.

One could also do a lactate test and and get the same feedback but maybe even better. Two lactate tests of 5-6 minutes each will provide similar information (e.g. the V4 - or pace that produces 4 mmol/l of lactate or P4 - the power that produces 4 mmol/l of lactate) to a 60 minute all out TT or any other distance test than one finds useful. This lactate test is a simple test that can gauge progress over the course of a training seasons and is used by many around the world. It does not require any motivation on the part of the athlete to complete and is over in about 12-15 minutes of sub maximal exercise.

So just for ease of compliance and speed of the test, the lactate test has its benefits. It does require a blood drop and for that reason many do not like it. But it is not expensive and two test strips will cost less than $5. One can purchase an analyzer for less than $300 (currently $280 for the cheapest one) so a coach can amortize it over several athletes. It is possible to add a couple stages to this simple test and look for inflection points to estimate what is known as the maximal lactate steady state. Some think this is necessary and such a test does provide additional information beyond a threshold estimate. But it is not necessary to set training paces.

Interpretation - But what does the power or pace mean whether it comes from the distance test or the lactate test?

What is behind this number. if one wants to train to make the number better next time. Would it not make sense to know what caused both the results of the distance test or the V4. We have a website on the "lactate threshold" and I have linked to it above. What does the LT mean, what causes it and how to train to improve it. One of the causes of the threshold is what is called anaerobic capacity. So when one gets a number from a distance test, one does not know what is the cause of that number. What combination of the aerobic and anaerobic system produced the number. A lactate test that attempts to get at the anaerobic component will help the coach estimate both the aerobic and anaerobic contribution and thus set more intelligent training objectives. This will require an additional short test and a couple more test strips so we are up to about $8 in supplies.

Examples- We once knew a triathlete who only wanted to be respectable in local meets. He competed for social reasons and could care less how he did as long as he did not stink up the place. He was actually quite talented but did not want to do the training to get better. He had a great V4, the speed which generated 4 mmol/l of lactate but his anaerobic capacity was off the charts. He generated 18 mmol/l in an all out test which meant his threshold was potentially much better if he would train to lower his anaerobic capacity. He just wanted to meet female triathletes and did enough training to do ok on weekend meets. There was another example Olbrecht told us about of a female that had a V4 equal to the world's best but never excelled in meets. He tested her on an all out test and all she could generate was some where between 4-5 mmol/l of lactate. She had a weak anaerobic capacity so any test of endurance such as a distance test or V4 would mis-lead the coach.

Now I realize that most are not familiar with the concept of including the anaerobic capacity in their training plans but if it is not considered it does not mean it isn't there and affecting both testing and performance. Since coaches are not used to this concept so they do not train to raise or lower it. And by doing so are not optimally training the athlete. Others are doing it instinctively.

Training- The other or main part of Olbrecht's approach is just how various training sets affect both aerobic and anaerobic capacity. Theoretically one does not need lactate testing to implement this but one is rolling the dice when one does. I met a swim coach who typed Olbrecht's book into his computer before there was an ebook. He could search for any concept he wanted to read about. He rearranged the book to suit his training approach and would classify every training set he gave his swimmers based on Olbrecht's classifications and implemented them based on Olbrecht's recommendations. He said he had good results and was on the fence whether to include lactate tests too to ensure he was doing it right or maybe to get it better. Only a couple of his swimmers were going to nationals and he wondered if he could make them even better.

Some people just want a system where they input a number and out pops a training plan. The question is what number you input and if it should be modified by something else. Then you train and measure again for the next training period. Hopefully, it works.

I apologize if this is not the most coherent explanation but the essence is,

performance is composed of many things and a very important one is the anaerobic capacity and how it interacts with the aerobic system, testing to get at the energy systems is best done with lactate testing, and finally training is based on training energy systems since this is what affects performance.

---------

---

Jerry Cosgrove

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

"One could also do a lactate test and and get the same feedback but maybe even better. Two lactate tests of 5-6 minutes each will provide similar information (e.g. the V4 - or pace that produces 4 mmol/l of lactate or P4 - the power that produces 4 mmol/l of lactate) to a 60 minute all out TT or any other distance test than one finds useful. This lactate test is a simple test that can gauge progress over the course of a training seasons and is used by many around the world. It does not require any motivation on the part of the athlete to complete and is over in about 12-15 minutes of sub maximal exercise."

Well I'm not entering into a pissing contest. I am very impressed by Olbrecht and his methods, I'm just not convinced the lactate testing is needed when you have pace or power. I'm trying to see both sides of the arguments and the thought below crossed my mind after reading the above.

There are times when one does not want to do maximal tests. Some athletes don't seem to be able to produce maximal performances in training. With some athletes you don't know if an improvement in a maximal test is due to real improvement or improved motivation, or they may have been sandbagging previously, or, even possibly the motivational skills of the person conducting the tests has influenced the result.

I know from rowing some coaches use heart rate for sub maximal testing, looking at power and heart rate ratio. Your device may well be useful for sub maximal testing on occasions where for one reason or another you want to avoid maximal tests.


So I can see their might well be a place for lactate testing with athletes coming back from illness or injury, older athletes, athletes with recovery problems. Coaches may find sub maximal tests useful when they have athletes known to be lazy or who have an inability to push hard in training tests or athletes who refuse point blank to be tested maximally.