I said they were functional expressions in terms of energy output and the rate of energy output (power) and there is sufficient independence (but not total) between them. If an individual parameter did not have sufficient independence from the others then it would be redundant and should be removed from the equation/model.

The fact that you've decided to use your own inputs in your own modelling doesn't invalidate what I've said.

---

http://www.cyclecoach.com
http://www.aerocoach.com.au

Statistically/mathematically speaking, the best model is MMP(t) = f(Pmax, FRC, FTP). In a sample of ~150 cyclists, Pmax and FRC are positively associated with each other, whereas FTP is inversely related to the other two (based on the covariance matrix).

In such a model, Pmax obviously represents/reflects the combination of muscle mass, muscle fiber type, and neuromuscular control, whereas FRC represents/reflects the factors contributing to resistance to fatigue during high-intensity, non-sustainable exercise (e.g., muscle mass, muscle buffer capacity). FTP, on the other hand, is a surrogate measure of power at maximal lactate steady state.

(Note how VO2max doesn't even enter into the picture.)

One trains to influence adaptations to internal metabolic processes which then drive external output. One also trains to get more efficient in movement. These are the drivers of the MMP curve.

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

---

Jerry Cosgrove

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

This means none of these measures are independent of the other.


One of the more absurd statements I have ever seen. Thank you for making it.

VO2 max is having an effect on all these measures and so are other metabolic processes.

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

---

Jerry Cosgrove

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

Well, FTP only shares ~33% variance with the other two, but, yeah, you're right (and it is exactly what you'd expect from a physiological perspective).


Not absurd in the least (see Alex's comment about excluding parameters for which there is no statistical/mathematical justification for including.


While that seems to make sense physiologically, my point is that you can't show mathematically/statistically that VO2max influences the shape of the power-duration relationship. Presumably, that's because such a curve is really a reflection of fatigue/resistance-to-fatigue, which VO2max influences only indirectly, i.e., by impacting muscle metabolism/energetics. IOW, the role of VO2max is subsumed into FRC and FTP, and doesn't leave an identifiable "fingerprint".

And what has that to do with whether anything I've said is valid or otherwise?

---

http://www.cyclecoach.com
http://www.aerocoach.com.au

You are using in your equation, factors that you are not training. The factors reflect training not what is actually being trained. FTP is not was is being trained. FTP will change because of metabolic adaptations within the body or for economy reasons. These are the things that should be in your equation. It is what one wants to train in the right direction so that the FTP gets better.

So the equation should reflect the things that are actually driving all the points of the curve. Each point represents a time to exhaustion at a different power. What affects this time at all these power levels? If you knew, then that is what would guide training. I happen to believe that the main driver is VO2 max. And the second one is VLa max.

There is an impasse here. I disagree strongly with Dr. Coggan on what are the main causes for the MMP curve. Readers will have to decide on their own what makes more sense. It will affect how one trains.

-----------

---

Jerry Cosgrove

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

I take that to mean that you're a strong believer in lots and lots of VO2max intervals for all athletes, endurane or not? After all, your claim seems to be that VO2max is the primary determinant of performance at all durations ("the main driver is VO2max").

Thank you for asking the question. Blogs are certainly not the place for complete exactitude. However, my guess is that the vast numbers will never see these exchanges.

The MMP curve is essentially a series of races from a few seconds up to I guess several hours. Nobody probably does any more than a few points on this curve though I would be interested in any here who read this just how often they actually do the various times/distances.

We discuss on our triathlon website in a brief way this concept in a page titled

"What does it mean to be faster in a race?"

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

We take the point of view that each point on the MMP curve (though it is a term I have never used) is determined primarily by three metabolic factors: aerobic capacity, anaerobic capacity (using VLA max as the definition) and creatine phosphate.

If one wants to delve into the energy contribution of various races, the obvious answer is that the results are due to the strength of these three energy systems plus some other factors such as muscle strength. There is a lot of literature on this and it varies by researchers as to the contribution of each of the systems at the various time frames. I sat through a presentation on this by Uli Hartmann last December and he showed differences between what US and European researchers have found on this.

I once asked Jan Olbrecht about this and he replied for a 50 m freestyle or about 21-24 seconds aerobic capacity had almost no factor in the race. Whatever oxygen was used was already in the blood or muscles and while the swimmer obviously breathes during the race, the oxygen did not get to the muscles.

But he said that these swimmers spend most of their time training aerobically. Why? His answer was that they needed to be strong aerobically in order to do the other workouts efficiently that would lead to success in these races.

For the first 10 seconds, it is mostly creatine phosphate with some glycolysis and for the next 20 seconds, it is mostly glycolysis. After 40 seconds the races are strongly affected by VO2 max. World champions at these distances will almost certainly have high VO2 maxes. But what determines one VO2 max from another in how well they will do in these races is anaerobic capacity.

From a few minutes up to extreme distances the VO2 max will be the primary driver of performance but not the only one. Anaerobic capacity is always there, providing a lot of the energy at the shorter end and then determining how much of VO2 max can be accessed at the higher end.

Hope this clarifies things. And by the way, I am just the messenger here, providing what I have found to be the most consistent system to explain performance at both ends of the MMP curve.

When we first got involved in this business we searched for anyone who could explain it to us. It wasn't till we found Olbrecht 2 1/2 years after we started that we found someone who made sense out of it all. And by that time I had read about a thousand documents on it including many with Coyle's and your name on it.

As far as VO2max intervals, certain types of intervals are obviously beneficial for all athletes but by far, most of the training will be at lower intensities and this has the effect of building VO2 max too. Probably few track sprinters do low intensity stuff, possibly fearing it will erode anaerobic capacity. Swimmers don't have that problem. There are lots of philosophies on training.

I suggest you read Olbrecht's book if you want to understand his approach to training. His ideas are 1) a different perspective on energy metabolism from most, one that explains a lot of things; 2) a system on how to test these energy systems which is definitely different from everyone else; and 3) a system of training the various energy systems reflecting differences in fiber type.

It is this third part that most here are interested in. Many coaches and athletes just want to know how hard, how long and how often and whether intervals should be short or long or the rest short or long. There is obviously mechanical things that have to be trained.


----------

---

Jerry Cosgrove

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

VO2max sets the upper limit to aerobic ATP production, yes. In terms of the power-duration relationship, though, that means it influences the vertical position of the curve, not its actual shape (in fact, as I already pointed out, it isn't possible to mathematically/statistically identify any "signature" of VO2max from power-duration data).

Furthermore - and probably more importantly - individuals with the same VO2max can have markedly different power-duration curves, both in terms of their vertical positioning and in terms of their shape (cf. our 1988 paper on "Determinants of endurance in well-trained cyclists", in which time-to-fatigue @ 88% of VO2max varied over a 6-fold range in 14 individuals all with essentially the same VO2max).

IOW, VO2max is not the "primary driver" as you claim.

Something that alters the vertical position of the MMP curve, is most definitely a determinant of performance, isn't it ??

And therefore a determinant of FTP (since ftp IS the Y coordinate of MMP at around 1 hour)

And therefore a determinant of MMP

AND... by a hell of a lot. Its not uncommon for riders following the old school training model as recommended by Joe Friel for example to add 20-30w from a few weeks of vo2 intervals.

I find it interesting how you immediately go to discredit. You will notice that I have continuously said that anaerobic capacity is right in there with aerobic capacity affecting performance. I couldn't agree more with your comment:

in which time-to-fatigue @ 88% of VO2max varied over a 6-fold range in 14 individuals all with essentially the same VO2max

I would look to differences in anaerobic capacity as the factor in this. Your comment just makes my point. Thank you.

Here is the conclusion of the paper you cite

In conclusion, the present results indicate that individuals with a similar VO 2 max can vary greatly in glycogen utilization and time to fatigue *when cycling at the same work rate and percentage of V02max. These differences in performance ability during high-intensity submaximal cycling are highly related (r = 0.96; P c 0.001) to a combination of lactate production (i.e., %VO~ max at LT) and muscle capillary density (e.g., lactic acid removal). Muscle mitochondrial activity, which can be a primary determinant of lactate production (12, 21), was not different in groups L and H, nor was their blood lactate responses when running uphill. The factors associated with a high %VO2 rnax at LT when cycling and performance ability were years of cycling experience and percent type I muscle fibers. It appears that intense cycle training performed for -5 yr compared with 2-3 yr promotes continued neurological and/or muscular adaptations that reduce muscle glycogenolysis specifically when cycling.

You came across VLA max, but just didn't recognize it. You should have been reading Mader as he was coming to grips with the concept at that same time. Olbrecht was also in the midst of his doctoral research on the topic at the time.



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

---

Jerry Cosgrove

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

Yes, clearly - however, when performance can vary 6-fold in subjects all w/ the same VO2max, it's hard to support the claim that it is the primary determinant.

EDIT: To help illustrate my points, here are the fitted power-duration curves for two cyclists with essentially the same VO2max (and economy). Note the differences in performance, not only at shorter durations but also at longer durations (where the average difference in power is 10%). For comparison to our 1988 study, also shown is the power that would elicit ~88% of VO2max in both subjects, as well as the predicted time-to-fatigue at that intensity, which differed by ~2.5 fold (i.e., these subjects are not as radically different as the extremes of our published study).

The difference isn't due to varying anaerobic capacity, at least in any normal sense of the term. Now if you and/or Olbrecht wish to attempt to redefine the term, be my guest...but I think you'd find communication a lot easier if you didn't use terms to mean something that they don't.


Lots and lots of people were aware of the fact that VO2max was not the be-all and end-all as an indicator of endurance performance ability. As the saying goes, though, credit goes to those who do the work (publish the data).

I don't think the fact that it isn't readily comparable between riders stops it being a determinant.

Although absolute vo2max can't be readily compared between riders to determine how much power they create, you could be pretty sure that if a rider increases their vo2max, they will probably go faster.

Whether vo2max work is actually working by forcing muscle adaptations, well I'm not sure. But if that was the case, why would athletes go faster on EPO or blood doping ? - all you've done is increased the oxygen in their blood, and lo and behold they go faster with the same metabolic fitness (same aerobic machinery and plumbing) still in place.

Why would that be the case if O2, and hence VO2, wasn't a primary determinant of performance ?

Here are some graphics we just put up on our lactate threshold page in the last couple days:

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



From later on in the page:



The data was provided by someone who also was educated at Cologne and like Olbrecht was primarily interested in training athletes, not academia. I am not sure how he measures anaerobic capacity. He is now a coach of a high level cycling team and has been involved with TDF cyclists since 2005.

If you want to maintain that VO2 max is not the main driver of top performance in endurance races, then fine. Many will disagree.

Our point of view explains why some do better than others and how to train anaerobic capacity so they can do better in endurance races. I would think many would be interested.

Have a good day, I do not have time to go on at the moment. This discussion will make some great future web pages.

But your power curve just above makes my point better than anything I have said already. The cyclist with the red curve obviously has a higher anaerobic capacity and will be better at shorter races and not as good at longer races.

Thank you, I will use it in the future to support my position.


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

---

Jerry Cosgrove

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

You might ask yourself this: what happens to the shape of the power-duration relationship when VO2max is altered by blood-letting or transfusions? What about severe iron deficiency combined with transfusion? Aging?

(These are all examples of cases where changes in VO2max exceed changes in performance or vice-versa, i.e., performance in a relative sense moves in the opposite direction...thus demonstrating that the primary determinant of performance lies elsewhere, i.e., within the exercising muscles themselves.)

To state things in a Boolean way: having a sufficiently high VO2max (whatever that is) is a necessary but not a sufficient condition for elite (or any particular adjective you choose to use) endurance performance.

That would seem to be a problem...

Thanks, I'll need to chew on this and dig out those articles. Might even need a glass of red to get through it !!

I'm still stopped on the EPO question though, just.... why does it work ? Perhaps its because the body has less work to do in actually pumping the blood around ? e.g. lower HR for the effort, slower breathing, so athlete autonomically less stressed at that power ? less to do ? I dunno ! :)

Fatigue is caused by many things. The unconscious mind / reptilian brain/ brain stem / central governor is constantly monitoring heart, blood, muscles, temperature, fuel, hydration, internal organs, chemical balances etc etc; often the conscious brain is engaged in an argument with the unconscious brain and is trying to override the discomfort and pain messages it is receiving. The power we can sustain is to an extent down to motivation and how much discomfort and pain we are prepared to endure. Some are prepared to endure more than others in training or competition than others.

These interactions between body and mind are incredibly complex and there is much to be discovered and much argument about the little we already claim to know. The scientists don't agree with each other.

What we do know is that the pace or power we can sustain or average drops the longer the duration. We can't hold the same power or pace over 20 minutes as we can for 10 minutes, or for 20 minutes or 50 minutes. We can't hold what we can hold for 50 minutes over 60 or 90 minutes.

We can't even necessarily hold the same pace or power over a given duration on different days, in the cool or extreme heat, different inertia different riding position, uphill or on the flat etc etc. You are never sure exactly what power you can hold for a given duration on any particular day.

Get someone on a trainer and tell them to ride a 30 minute test then after 25 minutes ask them to just carry on and complete 60 minutes and they will slow down.

Do a 60 minute test. Start at the power you expect to be able to average over the entire 60 minutes - the first 10 minutes will feel really easy. After 20 minutes you will start to feel that an hour is a long time. The last 20 minutes becomes hard. Very hard and at about 50 minutes you might start thinking 'well I've done 50 minutes I'm sure I could hold this for 60 minutes but it's only a test I really don't need to hurt myself anymore.'
The same pace the same wattage, the same 'threshold' power was easy then incredibly hard and you couldn't do it for 70 minutes or 90 minutes, if you could, it wasn't your best effort over 60 minutes.

There is a sustainable pace or power for each specific duration. There is nothing special about any duration. There is no magic threshold pace that you can sustain for 20 minutes or an hour or longer.

Obviously if you row for 2,000m 6 to 7 minutes that duration is relevant. If you cycle for 25 miles then 50 or 60 minutes is special to you. But there is no 'threshold' you can hold for 20 minutes 40 minutes 60 minutes 70 minutes, which if you go over you tire easily. It isn't as simple as that, we fatigue and fatigue is complex.

Then you have motivation. When you do a 20 minute or 60 minute test and improve are you fitter or did you just try harder than ever before?

The brain plays a big part, and you can trick it. Just wash the mouth out with carbs and the brain thinks it is going to get carbs and allows you to speed up or continue longer at the same pace, yet no carbs have reached the muscles.

It's all very complex.

So for training purposes do we really need to know anything other than power / pace and distance / duration?

Do we really need to know blood lactate numbers?
Do we need to know Functional Threshold Power?

All we need to know is our power over durations which are relevant to our events and our training.

Training should be based on percentages of known performances rather than an estimated vague FTP number which might correlate well with blood lactate threshold or not depending on how you measured the blood lactate and how you estimated the FTP
and there is strong evidence there never was a lactate threshold anyway.

Doing a 20 minute test then taking a percentage and calling that FTP, then doing training at intensities based on percentages of the estimate is daft when you have real performance data over the durations you do in training.

If you really want to know your 60 minute power do a 60 minute test. If you decide doing 2x 20 minutes is the sort of training you want to do base the intervals on your 20 minute power. If you do 5 min intervals base them on previous 5 min intervals.

There is no need to use mental constructs, or imaginary thresholds.


So back to the original post and Noakes view that there is no lactate threshold. There does not need to be a threshold for lactate numbers to be of use.

I'm not disputing that those who know how to measure blood lactate and use those numbers to train athletes don't know what they are doing. They do know what they are doing, but most of us don't have access to blood lactate testing or have the know how to use the results in our training.

I am saying we don't necessarily need it to train effectively.

As far as FTP goes I think the name is just plain misleading. Functional OK fine, Power yes obviously, but Threshold? There isn't a threshold, not a lactate threshold or a power threshold. As for 60 minutes, well there is nothing special about 60 minutes. As for somewhere around 60 minutes between 50 minutes and 70 minutes or FTP based on a percentage of 20 minute power, here we visit Alice in a mathematical wonder land. The power curve may not be steep but it is still a curve, it isn't flat, there is no threshold.

Why on earth base your training and the quantification of your training on a vague wooly estimate, a mental construct, when you have real numbers from actual performance?

Not true, I think: you've tricked the brain into thinking that refueling is imminent, therefore it is safe to release more of the reserves that are already present. You can't increase or maintain output without increasing or maintaining fuel usage, can you? No matter how tricky your brain is.

---

----------------------------------
"Go yell at an M&M"

Correct and therefore the pacing strategy is limited ( at least in part) by the brain and not peripheral fatigue.
The fuel was there all along, but the brain is regulating your work load based on the information it has. "Anticipatory Regulation"

They've done numerous deception trials where the body can out perform if fed incorrect information.

---

I talk a lot - Give it a listen: http://www.fasttalklabs.com/category/fast-talk
I also give Training Advice via http://www.ForeverEndurance.com

The above poster has eschewed traditional employment and is currently undertaking the ill-conceived task of launching his own hardgoods company. Statements are not made on behalf of nor reflective of anything in any manner... unless they're good, then they count.
http://www.AGNCYINNOVATION.com

Limiting factors in trained individuals are in some regard central and not peripheral.
We know this because if you look at the oxygen uptake of a leg when both legs are working simultaneously it is lower than when that leg alone is exercising.

Therefore, tissues are competing for oxygen.
If you are able to utilize EPO (synthetic or altitude or ????), you are able to deliver more oxygen through increased red blood cells. This increased oxygen delivery is taken up by the local tissue and results in increased performance.

---

I talk a lot - Give it a listen: http://www.fasttalklabs.com/category/fast-talk
I also give Training Advice via http://www.ForeverEndurance.com

The above poster has eschewed traditional employment and is currently undertaking the ill-conceived task of launching his own hardgoods company. Statements are not made on behalf of nor reflective of anything in any manner... unless they're good, then they count.
http://www.AGNCYINNOVATION.com

Comparing absolute threshold power values with relative VO2Max values is ... well bit funny. Subject A could be 100kg and subject C 50kg.