There are lots of different ways. Check out gordo's site. One good measure that I use and I think is good for people who are pretty fit is an open 10k running race with your heart rate monitor. Run it hard at full race pace and get your avg heart rate. Use your avg HR as your LT.

Good luck

Spinney

---

http://www.mountainmettle.com

That sounds good. Should I do the same for the biking? Maybe a 30 minute timme trial?

"Oh my"



Would you mind elaborating?

That test was actually suggested by Gordo.

---

http://www.mountainmettle.com

On carmicheal's videos he says to figure out LT you should either A) on a trainer, warm up and then do an 8 min tt, 10 min cool down, and then do another 8 min tt. Use the higher avg HR for one of the 8 min sessions as LT. OR B) do two 3 mile tt's on the road on flat ground and use the same method to figure out LT

---

"Oh you hate your job? There's a support group for that, it's called EVERYBODY and they meet at the bar."

The duration of these are short enough that they would probably predict Vo2 more than LT.

For running/riding, something at or over 30 min would be a better predictor, preferably over.

---

Brian Stover USAT LII
Accelerate3 Coaching
Insta

What do you think "lactate threshold" measures? What do you think having this information will do for you?

---

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

It is a more accurate way of figuring out approriate training zones than basing it off Max HR.

---

http://www.mountainmettle.com

That doesn't answer the questions. My limited (and layman's) understanding is that LT is a measure of blood lactate that may or may not be useful for racing or training, as it often underestimates the performance levels that one can attain. I've read that using something called functional threshold is better: it's the level you can maintain for an hour or so.

---

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

Is this right? Are 2 - 8 minute time trials going to be more accurate than one 30 minute time trials or the other way around? Since the running test (10K) is going to be about 44 minutes, shouldn't the biking test be almost as long?

I'm not sure....but the majority of what I've read by people like Gordo points toward using LT as a benchmark.--Although using what you called FT may work as well, I don't know. I think what it comes down to is not overthinking it and being consistent.

---

http://www.mountainmettle.com

TTs of that short a duration will give you the power (or HR) you can hold for that short duration, which should be way over LT: what's the value in that? Go out and do a 60 minute TT; that will tell you what you can maintain for a more significant period of time. Or do a series of 30 minute TTs over time or a pair of 20 minute TT back-to-back, holding even power. Those should be a good estimation of your functional threshold.

---

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

There is really only 1 way to actually measure Lactate Threshold and that is to get formally tested. Essentially, you go to a lab and either run on a treadmill or on a bike on a trainer and the speed/elevation or power is gradually increased in incremental steps. At each step your finger is pricked and blood lactate is measured. This data is correlated with HR and power (if on the bike). When lactate moves above 3.5mmol/L that is your Lactate Threshold power and HR.

The other tests such as a 10k run or 2 x 8min TT are at best estimates of one's lactic threshold.

The key is that by training at or close to LT your muscles, especially the mitochondria undergo the "best" level of stress so that over time the oxidative capacity of your muscles increase the "most" versus super LT trainig work or long slow sub LT workout.

To answer your questions - LT and VO2max are time, not distance specific.

---

Brian Stover USAT LII
Accelerate3 Coaching
Insta

It really is neither distance or time specific but effort/intensity specific.

For example, I could go the same level of "easy" for 30 minutes, 8 minutes, or 60 minutes. It won't change my LT. That is if I measured my blood lactate at this time points they could all be below my LT.

That is usually why LT is defined as Lactic Threshold Power or less precisely LActic Threshold Heart Rate, meaning the power at which one reaches their Lactic Threshold or HR which is used as a proxy for effort. LT is not defined as the time to which I reach my LT as this is effort dependent.

if you want to know your LT (whether this is useful or not to know is a moot point) then most likely you'll need to go to an exercise physiology lab or some sort of sports performance centre that measures this -- and you must have blood taken for it (else you ain't measuring LT). Usually, it's either a finger prick sample or from an ear lobe.

The next point is that LT has nothing much to do with HR, it's generally defined within the literature as the work rate that elicits a 1mmol/L increase over exercise baseline levels (i.e., a lactate of 2.XX mmol/L) or the workrate that elicits a fixed 2.5 mmol/L. This is about 10 - 15% less power than, that which can be sustained in an all-out ~1-hr (cycle) TT. Consequently, this sort of effort can be maintained for up to 3+ hours (in biking). Work rate is power output (watts - W) in cycling and velocity (km/hr or m/s) in running. LT is modality specific.

As Desert Dude states, an 8-min TT would better predict VO2max rather than LT.

Some coaches base training zones on the average HR during (e.g.) a 1-hr TT. However, to the best of my knowledge no one _actually_ bases their training zones on LT.

Ric

---

http://www.cyclecoach.com

Ric-

In Gordo's book under the charts for zones you go to your estimate or actual LT which is in bold and you use that as the inidcator of which set fits you. Lots of people base their zones off LT and not Max HR.

---

http://www.mountainmettle.com

My feeling is that these zones aren't based on LT (which as i described in my previous post and can be maintained for several hours), but based on average HR during (e.g.) a 1-hr TT. It's highly unlikely anyone bases their training on LT zones, simply many coaches erroneously confuse mean HR from (e.g.) a 1-hr TT and actual LT.

Not that 1-hr TT HR is a foolproof method... For e.g., if i do a 1-hr TT on two consecutive days, i can record the same time (give or take a few seconds) and the same power, but my HR on the second day can be significantly lower (e.g., ~10+ b/min)

Ric

---

http://www.cyclecoach.com

Some of this is just semantics. I think that by knowing your LT or a close approximate you can more accurately determine your easy, steady, mod hard, hard zones. I think most will agree that this is better than using max HR to detrmine the zones. If you aren't using LT to figure out your zones or your AeT, what are you using?

---

http://www.mountainmettle.com

Well, i use power output to define training zones (see http://www.cyclingnews.com/fitness/?id=powerstern). However, if i was a runner, then i'd probably go with a mixture of velocity and RPE.

When i coach cyclists who don't have a power meter i base HR training zones on HRmax (and RPE), as does e.g., British Cycling.

Not to bang on about it, but you're unlikely to be using LT to base your HR zones off it. LT is something different to (e.g.) 1-hr mean HR (although power at LT and power for a 1-hr TT are highly correlated there's a significant difference between the two).

Ric

---

http://www.cyclecoach.com