It does seem as though VLamax and INSCYD are adding extreme advantage at the current time. Bora-Hansgrohe and Lotto-Jumbo are on an absolute tear right now when it matters.....Many athletes on each team at the same time are having great results, not just the genetic freaks. Without opening the can of worms of other "possibilities" arguments, I am going to believe that something is being done right in analysis and production of their training programs based heavily on VLamax / lactate and INSCYD data.

You could say the same for the sport of triathlon, looking no further than Dan Lorang. His athletes from short-long course are doing big things, week after week (Frodeno, Haug, Nieschlag) all utilizing VLamax into their training prescription.

---

Carson Christen
Sport Scientist , Coach
Torden Multisport

As mentioned using FRC to FTP ratio, not saying it is a hard and fast of aerobic and anaerobic supply as that is awfully individual and awfully complex.

But for the purposes of identifying strengths and weakness's of riders and for determining if the training has been effective, it's working pretty well.

---

Hamish Ferguson: Cycling Coach

I know you have the education background to go deep in the discussions if you want, but I appreciate how you keep things practical for the average person training.

I know for all that is going on in my busy life I will stick with this because it has been effective enough without a lot of complexity. I can see from each training session as the weeks roll on if I am progressing or not. I can sense that I am recovering while increasing the training load as the weeks progress. I can see that on the same outdoor course that my finishing time is getting better. Therefore, I will camp out right here in your quote.


Thanks!!

Hi Sebastian,

thanks for chiming in.

If I understand properly, as triathletes, don't we simply want to minimize VLAmax since it is at the expense of aerobic mechanisms.

Your podcast interview gave a few points on how to do this.

If we were roadies, crit riders, riding classics and grand tours things would be different.

What am I missing ?

Maybe Sebastian will reply and is certainly much more knowledgeable than I am. If VLamax was close to zero, the athlete would be slower because little pyruvate/lactate would be produced and it would force the muscles to use only fat. Fat metabolizes much slower than pyruvate/lactate in aerobic metabolism. So a moderate level of glycolysis is necessary for speed in a race for this reason. Also glycolysis is necessary for sudden bursts of speed in a cycling race and at the end of an event for sprints in close endurance races.



So the energy needs of the athlete determines how strong the VLamax should be for the race. Sebastian discusses this in one of his VELO podcasts http://bit.ly/2Y49UTG

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

---

Jerry Cosgrove

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

How do you use power to adjust your training session when you have high lactate levels? Not trying to be clever, but curious. The reason why I ask is that I saw one of the Norwegian triathletes adjust his power during a threshold session because his lactate levels were high. Would there be any way to get this data from power alone? I assume said athlete would be able to "push through" at the planned wattage, but he lowered it 20 watts for the rest of the session based on the readings from his portable lactate analyser.

This x 1000! "Fat metabolizes much slower than pyruvate" (i.e. the end product of the breakdown of glucose)

Very low VLamax = very low ability to generate energy from carbohydrate.

Even in an Ironman, at competitive levels, Carbohydrate oxidation is an important contributor to the required power output because it is simply faster than fat oxidation, i.e. fat oxidation alone simply isn't fast enough to keep up with competitive levels of output. I talked a bit more about the importance of having all systems contributing to performance at elite levels in this post...

https://www.alancouzens.com/...tburning_test_2.html

But the summary is - at high levels of performance, a competitive Ironman needs both energy sources - Fat Oxidation ~7-10kcal/min *AND* CHO oxidation of ~7-10kcal/min, i.e. all energy systems have a role to play, it's just the *balance* that shifts depending on the event and the individual.

---

Alan Couzens, M.Sc. (Sports Science)
Exercise Physiologist/Coach
Twitter: https://twitter.com/Alan_Couzens
Web: https://alancouzens.com

Would consider that training by power v training with power question. If they were struggling to maintain a power they normally would then, they would adjust the power. Easy to do in training. In a race you make a judgement call on easing off or pushing through it.

Would expect the same with lactate, but with power it's there in real time.

Having performed a few studies where we measured lactate, it's messy enough and a lot of dodgy readings and individual variation, so I wouldn't have too much faith in lactate measures from the field, especially taken by yourself. I would suggest HR is easier to work with.

---

Hamish Ferguson: Cycling Coach

Sebastian, thanks for jumping in.
I am confused by your answer - I did the Inscyd test and it is all based on power. The results where vo2max, vlamax and metabolic systems power curve (i.e. fat vs. carb along power). So if it's impossible to determine energy system from power alone, how does Inscyd software do it? sorry if i'm missing something or mischaracterizing.

thanks

Yes, all the same metrics from a critical power test...

https://vimeo.com/258888240

---

Hamish Ferguson: Cycling Coach

It's impossible to see what is happening from an internal energy generation perspective solely by using an external power meter.

You know, for this exact reason, they do make this thing called a metabolic cart for that very purpose.

---

Alan Couzens, M.Sc. (Sports Science)
Exercise Physiologist/Coach
Twitter: https://twitter.com/Alan_Couzens
Web: https://alancouzens.com

Very true, well bleeding obvious.

But the question is that these measures can be estimated enough to come to the same conclusions suggesting the various models proposed all, to some extent reflect the actual physiology.

Enough so, that you can take a Tony Martin type rider and assess that his high intensity power may be compromising his time trial power. But again, this is bleeding obvious. Even a 5s, 60s, 5min and 20min power profile chart will show you that.

We had a 6 week turn around between our age group track nationals and our age group road nationals and the change in my group of U17s from a 500m TT and 2000m IP to a 15km TT and a 63km RR, was easily tracked seeing the differences between riders with some showing a FRC strength and targeting the 500m and a sit on and s**t on approach to the road race, while others with a stronger FTP contribution favoured the pursuit, road TT and a more attacking approach to the road race.

Then within, all saw a shift from more FRC contribution to power in track duration's of 34s - 160s to more FTP contribution in the same duration's at road nationals.

The estimates reflected what we saw in the field based off power data alone.

From a coaching perspective, I don't talk power or power estimates, I coach performance. A rider isn't going to win because they have a perfectly measured threshold or W'. They just need to learn, in training, that they can ride hard enough, or smart enough (if need be) to perform, and on the day to race to those strengths.

---

Hamish Ferguson: Cycling Coach

Goes from a process of discovery for a rider to find their strengths and weakness, go back and test those weakness's, train those weakness, focus on areas of strength, maximise those strengths and race to those strengths.

If all you do is 4000m IP or a 40-km time trial, performance is pretty easy to quantify. 4min power in IP position, or 45-50min power in time trial position. Complexity comes in for road racing, or adding other events on the track, and the ever changing nature of road racing where the dynamics change in a race, in the same race from date to date, and with different courses, conditions and competition .

That's where some more general metrics like PMAX, PMAX/FRC, FRC, FRC/FTP, FTP and Stamina help to profile a rider, or even as simple as 5s, 1min, 5min and 20min to get an overall picture of the riders power to select events they will perform best in, and then focus on the specifics of that event within the time frame available.

What I am focusing my studies on, is recoverability. Current models don't do this very well, especially in mass start track cycling events, or to understand why riders doing Kilo or Pursuit fail to match their qualifying effort in the final 3-6 hours later.

Understanding the underlying physiology is crucial to developing better models of performance. The rider understanding this, however, is not going to enhance their performance.

---

Hamish Ferguson: Cycling Coach

Sorry if I haven't be 100% precise with this.

I was referring to the fact that no critical power model, in terms of power-duration curve and metrics such as W' allows to quantify exactly energy supply from all three energy supply mechanisms. So my term "critical power model" referred to the various ways of creating power durations curves and W'.

What you have performed to get your VO2max, VLamax, etc. were a series of specific tests. So here we talk about isolated tests which have had to be carried out in a specific manner. Those do allow to extract VLamax and VO2max with high accuracy.
What it does still not provide is a breakdown of all three energy sources during that specific effort, which is what I was referring to with my non 100% precise statement

Without knowing the specific case here, from my collaboration with the team you are referring to I would confirm your suggestion.
Especially at the lower intensity efforts, which are the majority of the training sessions here, the ability to finish a planned training at a certain intensity isn't a valid indicator of actually staying at the right intensity. In this case, lactate is used a marker for desired training stimulus, just as you describe.
And no, there is no way how you get this information from a powermeter - which is why those guys use the lactate analyzer in training (regulary).

Let me first put one thing right, because it is often misunderstood: changing VLamax, or specififally increasing is does not come at the expense of a reduced aerobic performance in terms of maximum aerobic energy production. It comes at the expense of reduced threshold power, FatMax, etc.. But FTP/threshold/MLSS isn't a marker of aerobic performance.

To answer your question: as Alan pointed out as an IM Triathlete you need also a certain energy supply coming from the glycolysis (and/or other ways to produce pyruvate) in order to maximize total energy supply. So therefore you need a certain level of VLamax.
From a practical perspective and from experience it is rarely too low in amateur athletes, but it could be.
I think the point here is: only knowing & monitoring a physiological metric allows you effectively work on it in training (very few people would like to start a diet to lower body weight without controlling their weight throughout this process).

Thanks

My termiiology is probably wrong. I guess we are also conditioned by oher's emphasis on how FTP is the center of the universe :-)

If I understand properly, VLAmax will affect the time it would take me to deplete my W' ? If so, what is the longest time you've seen athletes need to deplete W'. I am trying to understand the impact of test time on results and calculation of W'.


Have you seen or done any work with the Novo Nordisk guys ? I am trying to understand if/how insulin plays with this mechanism. Do you know of any litterature ?

That's the very point of this thread - going by the critical power model, your statement above isn't so "bleeding obvious."

In the critical power model, W' is independent of CP. It sits on top. There's absolutely nothing in the model that suggests that an increase in W' automatically results in a decrease in CP. Or, in Tony's case, there is nothing in the model that suggests that his high intensity power is 'hurting' his time trial power as these 2 factors are independent in the model. That's one of the reasons it's a crappy model. There are more.

As Sebastian has pointed out, in the real world, if aerobic power doesn't change and anaerobic power goes up, the result will be a *decreased* threshold, i.e., as you've pointed out in the Tony Martin example, a strong anaerobic power does 'hurt' an athlete's threshold power (all other factors being equal). Again, the CP/W' model doesn't reflect that in the same way that a VO2max/VLamax model does. In that model...

VLamax up + VO2max unchanged = drop in threshold

VLamax down + VO2max unchanged = rise in threshold

That's one of the reasons it's a better model.

---

Alan Couzens, M.Sc. (Sports Science)
Exercise Physiologist/Coach
Twitter: https://twitter.com/Alan_Couzens
Web: https://alancouzens.com

No, VLamax does not per se effect W'.
For most cycling events (>1min) the majority of the energy of W' is actually aerobic. In very short efforts the Creatine Phosphate content of the muscles are important (something that we measured in highroad times in some sprinters and classic riders).
Furthermore there are several factors determining W'. Some of them isn't about energetic contribution at all...for example think about buffering capacity...!
Think about how much of your VLamax you are able to use in a supra-threshold effort, what is the maximum lactate concentration someone can reach, how quick does it accumulate (as a marker)...just to name a few.

@Sebastian Weber

Thanks for participating here.

In the latest Velonews podcast you mentioned that the best approach to lower VLamax is low cadence just below threshold for extended periods. So basically Sweet Spot training. You mentioned that this approach is supported by many studies. Can you tell us what studies exactly or at least from which authors in which time period?

As you know there is quite some debate on avoiding-certain-zones and so currently (actually really liked your response in the podcast when asked for this polarized vs threshold question). Would be interesting to see what studies support this no-man's-land zone training. I'm really a little bit irritated by this polarized-craze.

I was going to ask a similar question, but more from the opposite spectrum. As someone with a middle of the road VLamax, I don't want to lower mine since the bike legs of the majority of the triathlons I do are off road on a mountain bike. Does this middle intensity work significantly change VLamax? or is it more of a slow process that takes several seasons to really change.

Hey
I didnt mention any particular studies but was referring a lot to own studies conducted and the practical experiences from having used measurements of glycolytic power production in amatuer athletes for >15y now.
But for studies you might want to look out for the classic ones which look at enzyme adaptation based on endurance training. So I would say the best places to start with is look at Hawley, Holloszy & Booth, Saltin and maybe also Pette as comparison.

Honestly it doesn't make any sense to declare specific zones or intensities to "no-mans-land zones".
Whatever kind of stimulus you apply to your muscles - or don't apply - will have an effect on the adaptation.
For example: if your threshold is lets say 280W@75kg and you train 12h specifically per week, and you would go on a bike trip riding 100W for 8h per day you would still get an (most likely very significant) effect out of it.

Do the results from yesterday bring this thread back to life? Half pink

Great thread.

Building on the above further: What's your best idea on how quickly the VLAmax can change for an athlete? comparing e.g. w/ VO2max or so forth. Is on or the other more or less sensitive? and how does it vary depending on your history of training? Any pointers or general guidance on this would be hugely interesting.