Login required to started new threads

Login required to post replies

Prev Next
Blood Lactate Test vs FTP like I am a 3 year old
Quote | Reply
So if I have my power zones set up from FTP test, what is the need for a blood lactate test on the bike.

i understand the need running to get really accurate HR zones running, but why on the bike if we train with power

Yellowfin Endurance Coaching and Bike Fits
USAT Level 1, USAC Level 3
Quote Reply
Re: Blood Lactate Test vs FTP like I am a 3 year old [surfNJmatt] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Lactate testing won't tell you anything that performance testing won't tell you. The only reasons to do it are 1) circumstances are such that a maximal effort performance test is not possible/wise at the time, or 2) you're an old-school sport scientist who thinks that they can see The Grim in the tea leaves.

(Think the second bit is too harsh? Then answer this question: if performance testing and lactate testing provide divergent results - and of course they will never be perfectly correlated - which one is the better predictor of performance?)
Last edited by: Andrew Coggan: Dec 20, 17 16:38
Quote Reply
Re: Blood Lactate Test vs FTP like I am a 3 year old [Andrew Coggan] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Could a divergence point to a lack of will to make it really hurt?

Might impact what the athlete needs to do to reach their potential.

-------------
Ed O'Malley
www.VeloVetta.com
Founder of VeloVetta Cycling Shoes
Instagram • Facebook
Quote Reply
Re: Blood Lactate Test vs FTP like I am a 3 year old [surfNJmatt] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
surfNJmatt wrote:
So if I have my power zones set up from FTP test, what is the need for a blood lactate test on the bike.

Because you have money to burn and you like having someone poke holes in you while you're sweating profusely
Quote Reply
Re: Blood Lactate Test vs FTP like I am a 3 year old [RowToTri] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I would never draw such a conclusion based on lactate data, as there are simply far too many other possible explanations (starting with the fact that performance is multifactorial, with muscular metabolic fitness - for which lactate responses serve as a biomarker - being just one).
Quote Reply
Re: Blood Lactate Test vs FTP like I am a 3 year old [Andrew Coggan] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Andrew Coggan wrote:
I would never draw such a conclusion based on lactate data, as there are simply far too many other possible explanations (starting with the fact that performance is multifactorial, with muscular metabolic fitness - for which lactate responses serve as a biomarker - being just one).

But is it needed? Is me knowing my lactate response gonna help me train more effectively vs training with power

Yellowfin Endurance Coaching and Bike Fits
USAT Level 1, USAC Level 3
Quote Reply
Re: Blood Lactate Test vs FTP like I am a 3 year old [surfNJmatt] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Hi Matt- cyclists / triathletes ask me this question often. The two metrics are comparable to one another but also comparably deficient, and thus ineffective training indicators. Neither FTP nor Lactate Threshold testing tells you the “what”, “why”, or “how.” In other words, “what” type of energy an athlete has available to perform work/training/racing; “why” the athlete may or may not be improving his/her FTP, LT, or performances; and “how” to the athlete should steer his/her training to improve physiology for better performances.


FTP is an arbitrary metric, and serves as a proxy for only one type of effort. Using % of FTP values as a benchmark for training will, as a result, over work some and under work others. “Lactate threshold” (LT) values can be similar to an FTP value, but similar to FTP, it is a one-dimensional view of performance. Comprehensive blood testing (of which lactate threshold is a component) opens the doors to dynamic analysis on how all energy systems are performing (not just one energy system like FTP/LT), each of which are critically important in determining successful performance. Looking at either FTP or LT in a silo will give you a misinformed view of the truth.


Instead, I use (and recommend you use) a physiological profile test (PPT), which uses lactate but is not a lactate threshold test. This kind of test gives a more complete picture of the entire energy spectrum, and enables coaches and athletes to understand the “what,” “why,” and “how.” As a result, the coach or athlete can have more insight into the training stimulus required to improve both the metabolic outputs and performance of each athlete.

Below is an example of two cyclists PPT results (who I tested today), both of whom have the same FTP values. Despite having the same FTP values, Cyclist #2 is operating off more bioenergetic availability than Cyclist #1. Even though both have the same FTP value, they arrive at this value using different energy sources. Cyclist #1 will have a negative metabolic response and performance outcome if he trains at the same FTP % values as Cyclist #2 because their actual energy contributions when performing work at the same percentage of FTP are about 25% different. In summary, FTP or LT is too one-dimensional to extrapolate usage across various energy systems because it assumes all athletes have the same functional work capacity. This is not true given that the physiological blueprint for all athletes are extremely unique, and will cause athletes to under-optimize the needed training stimulus. Physiological profile testing will better pinpoint functionality across all energy systems and be specific to each athlete.

Physiologist. CEO/Founder Go Athletics. Coach/Consultant to Pros, Olympians, NCAA Champions, HS and Recreational coaches and athletes. 5x TeamUSA member, Ex-Pro Runner, NCAA All-American, now enabling others to achieve their potential.
Last edited by: BEPSqueen: Dec 20, 17 20:48
Quote Reply
Re: Blood Lactate Test vs FTP like I am a 3 year old [surfNJmatt] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Get a suitable data set and use WKO4: Power Duration Curve, iLevels and Optimised Intervals to see where your strengths and weakness's are and what you need to do in training to prepare for a specific competition.

Hamish Ferguson: Cycling Coach
Quote Reply
Re: Blood Lactate Test vs FTP like I am a 3 year old [surfNJmatt] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I don't know anything about blood lactate so I can't address that point but I would argue HR on the bike is still important with power.

HR is the best way I know of to identify the onset of illness or overtraining. When you start seeing significant difference between your HR and power zones (relative to your baseline) something isn't quite right. The ability to alter your training and address the problem early is very important to maximizing performance.
Quote Reply
Re: Blood Lactate Test vs FTP like I am a 3 year old [Andrew Coggan] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I don't want to hijack the thread but could you recommend an idiots guide to power zones? A quick google turns up a lot of stuff that references or refers to your work but a lot of the 'newer' stuff is complicated by the return of the WKO4 protocol. I also prefer to hear things from the horses mouth rather than from someone trying to sell me training advice based on someone else's work.

I just got a power meter and want to have a basic understanding of workout selection on Zwift, TR, etc. vs broad performance gains.
Quote Reply
Re: Blood Lactate Test vs FTP like I am a 3 year old [BEPSqueen] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
BEPSqueen wrote:
FTP is an arbitrary metric

Wrong. FTP is a functional measurement of the maximal metabolic steady state intensity.

BEPSqueen wrote:
, and serves as a proxy for only one type of effort

Wrong. FTP is highly predictive ( i.e., R>=0.9) of performance at durations ranging from a few minutes out to many hours.

BEPSqueen wrote:
Using % of FTP values as a benchmark for training will, as a result, over work some and under work others.

Aside from this simply being an assertion that is not backed up by any evidence, it also ass u me s that training is PRESCRIBED relative to FTP.

BEPSqueen wrote:
“Lactate threshold” (LT) values can be similar to an FTP value, but similar to FTP, it is a one-dimensional view of performance.

First, why the quotes?

Second, both FTP and LT are indeed one-dimensional, in that they are both indicators of an individual's muscular metabolic fitness, i.e., the ability to balance ATP demand with aerobic ATP production. If expressed as a power (or pace for running), they both also incorporate an individual's efficiency (or economy, for running). They are not, however, measures of other possible determinants of performance, e.g., VO2max, or resistance to fatigue during supra-steady-state exercise (reflected in, MAOD). However, muscular metabolic fitness is by far the most important determinant of endurance performance, so is deserving of such focus.

BEPSqueen wrote:
Comprehensive blood testing (of which lactate threshold is a component) opens the doors to dynamic analysis on how all energy systems are performing (not just one energy system like FTP/LT), each of which are critically important in determining successful performance.

If you are saying that FTP or LT don't really measure the capacity or functioning of the high energy phosphate or glycolytic energy systems, then I agree with you.

If you are trying to say that there are other energy systems, I have no idea what you are talking about (and neither do you).

If you are trying to say that the high energy phosphate and/or glycolytic energy systems are CRITICALLY important to success in endurance sports, you either need to provide some additional explanation as to what you mean by that adjective, or you need to go back (?) to graduate school.

BEPSqueen wrote:
Looking at either FTP or LT in a silo will give you a misinformed view of the truth.

Instead, I use (and recommend you use) a physiological profile test (PPT), which uses lactate but is not a lactate threshold test. This kind of test gives a more complete picture of the entire energy spectrum, and enables coaches and athletes to understand the “what,” “why,” and “how.” As a result, the coach or athlete can have more insight into the training stimulus required to improve both the metabolic outputs and performance of each athlete.

Below is an example of two cyclists PPT results (who I tested today), both of whom have the same FTP values. Despite having the same FTP values, Cyclist #2 is operating off more bioenergetic availability than Cyclist #1. Even though both have the same FTP value, they arrive at this value using different energy sources. Cyclist #1 will have a negative metabolic response and performance outcome if he trains at the same FTP % values as Cyclist #2 because their actual energy contributions when performing work at the same percentage of FTP are about 25% different. In summary, FTP or LT is too one-dimensional to extrapolate usage across various energy systems because it assumes all athletes have the same functional work capacity. This is not true given that the physiological blueprint for all athletes are extremely unique, and will cause athletes to under-optimize the needed training stimulus. Physiological profile testing will better pinpoint functionality across all energy systems and be specific to each athlete.

Nice sales pitch. However, where are data to back up your assertions?
Last edited by: Andrew Coggan: Dec 21, 17 4:01
Quote Reply
Re: Blood Lactate Test vs FTP like I am a 3 year old [Andrew Coggan] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Andrew Coggan wrote:
However, where are data to back up your assertions?

Dave?
Quote Reply
Re: Blood Lactate Test vs FTP like I am a 3 year old [surfNJmatt] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
surfNJmatt wrote:
Andrew Coggan wrote:
I would never draw such a conclusion based on lactate data, as there are simply far too many other possible explanations (starting with the fact that performance is multifactorial, with muscular metabolic fitness - for which lactate responses serve as a biomarker - being just one).

But is it needed? Is me knowing my lactate response gonna help me train more effectively vs training with power

As I mentioned, the only time I would recommend lactate testing is when you really need an indication of somebody's current metabolic fitness, and performance data/testing aren't available/can't be used.

(Note that I say this having been involved - as both a subject and an investigator - in some of the seminal research on LT back in the 1980s, and not having bothered measuring my own LT since the early 1990s, despite having ready access to the equipment needed to do so.)
Quote Reply
Re: Blood Lactate Test vs FTP like I am a 3 year old [scott8888] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I commend you for seeking answers straight from the source. There would be a lot less confusion in the world if more people (including certain journalists/publications) did that rather than listening to many others.

To answer your question: the path to enlightenment starts by grasping the ideas behind these (and other) pithy power proverbs (PPPs):

"They are called levels and not zones for a reason."

"The training levels are descriptive, not prescriptive."

"Alls you can do is alls you can do."

In terms of specific readings, what I wrote when I first introduced the levels back in 2001 (reproduced below) is always worth revisiting (given recent marketing claims that "FTP is dead", the bolded part in particular is worth emphasizing).

There is also the chapter (https://www.researchgate.net/...eter_an_introduction) I wrote for USA Cycling at around the same time, and of course our book.

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

"As promised, here is the schema I've put together. In developing it, I've drawn from a number of sources, including Peter Janssen's book 'Lactate Threshold Training', Joe Friel's 'The Cyclist's Training Bible', the British Cycling Federation's training guidelines (developed by Peter Keen), in addition to my own background in exercise physiology and experience of training and racing with a PowerTap the last couple of years. I would also like to recognize all the people who responded to my initial request for power data, as that has helped me to verify/refine the system. I'll begin by describing the various 'levels' in the system first, then discuss some of the details...

Level 1: Active recovery
Average power: <55% of 40k TT average power
Average heart rate: <68% of 40k TT average heart rate
Perceived exertion: <2
Description: “Easy spinning” or “light pedal pressure”, i.e., very low level exercise, too low in and of itself to induce significant physiological adaptations. Minimal sensation of leg effort/fatigue. Requires no concentration to maintain pace, and continuous conversation possible. Typically used for active recovery after strenuous training days (or races), between interval efforts, or for socializing.

Level 2: Endurance
Average power: 56-75% of 40k TT average power
Average heart rate: 69-83% of 40k TT average heart rate
Perceived exertion: 2-3
Description: "All day" pace, or classic long slow distance (LSD) training (note that the “slow” refers to the very high intensity, interval-centered training programs that were popular at the time the term was coined in the 1970's). Sensation of leg effort/fatigue generally low, but may periodically to higher levels (e.g., when climbing). Concentration generally required to maintain effort only during very long rides. Breathing is more regular than at level 1, but continuous conversation is still possible. Frequent (daily) training sessions of moderate duration (i.e., 1-2 h) at level 2 are possible (provided dietary carbohydrate intake is adequate), but complete recovery from longer workouts may take more than 24 hours.

Level 3: Tempo
Power: 76-90% of 40k TT average power
Heart rate: 84-94% of 40k TT average heart rate
Perceived exertion: 3-4
Description: Typical intensity of fartlek workout, â€spirited’ group ride, or briskly moving paceline. More frequent/greater sensation of leg effort/fatigue than at level 2. Requires concentration to maintain alone, especially at upper end of range, to prevent effort from falling back to level 2. Breathing deeper and more rhythmic than level 2, such that any conversation must be somewhat or very halting, but not as difficult as at level 4. Recovery from level 3 training sessions more difficult than after level 2 workouts, but consecutive days of level 3 training still possible if duration isn't excessive.

Level 4: Threshold
Average power: 91-105% of 40k TT average power
Average heart rate: 95-105% of 40k TT average heart rate (may not be achieved during initial phases of effort(s))
Perceived exertion: 4-5
Description: Just below to just above TT effort, taking into account duration, current fitness, environment, etc. Essentially continuous sensation of moderate or even greater leg effort/fatigue. Continuous conversation difficult at best, due to depth/frequency of breathing. Effort sufficiently high that continuous cycling at this level is mentally very taxing – therefore typically performed in training as multiple â€repeats’, â€modules’, or â€blocks’ of 10-30 min duration. While consecutive days of training at level 4 is sometimes possible, in general such workouts should only be performed when sufficiently rested/recovered from prior training so as to be able to maintain intensity.

Level 5: Aerobic power
Average power: 106-120% of 40k TT average power
Average heart rate: >106% of 40k TT average heart rate (may not be achieved due to slowness of heart rate response and/or ceiling imposed by maximum heart rate)
Perceived exertion: 6-7

Typical intensity of longer (3-8 min) intervals intended to raise VO2max. Strong to severe sensations of leg effort/fatigue, such that completion of more than 30-40 min total training time is difficult at best. Conversation not possible due to often 'ragged' breathing. Should only be attempted when adequately recovered from prior training - consecutive days of level 5 work generally not desirable even if possible.

Level 6: Anaerobic capacity
Average power: >121% of 40k TT average power
Average heart rate: N/a
Perceived exertion: >7

Short (<3 min), high intensity intervals designed to increase anaerobic capacity. Heart rate not really useful as guide to intensity due to non-steady-state nature of effort. Severe sensation of leg effort/fatigue, and conversation impossible. Consecutive days of level 6 training rarely attempted.

Level 7: Anaerobic power
Average power: N/a
Average heart rate: N/a
Perceived exertion: * (maximal)

Very short, very high intensity efforts (e.g., jumps, standing starts, short sprints).that generally place greater stress on the musculoskeletal rather than metabolic systems. Power useful as guide, but only in reference to prior similar efforts, not TT pace.

Discussion:

1. Choice of 40k TT power as basis: Average power during a 40k TT provides a logical basis for a training system because it correlates very highly with power at lactate threshold, the most important physiological determinant of endurance cycling performance (since it integrates VO2max, the percentage of VO2max that can be sustained, and cycling efficiency). While shorter efforts might be more convenient, 40k was chosen because it is a standard distance and because power during a 40k is only slightly less than that generated during shorter TTs. In theory, one could derive specific correction factors to be used with data during shorter TTs (e.g., power during a ~20 min TT will be ~1.05 times that of a 40k) in order to fit such data into the system, but given individual variation in the exact shape of the power-duration curve, day-to-day variability in performance, and the breadth of the specified power levels, this may only convey a false sense of precision. Somewhat along the same lines, one could base a system on laboratory-derived measures, such as lactate threshold itself, but relatively few people have access to such measurements (as opposed to simply going out and measuring their own power during a TT). Conversely, one could dispense with using one single 'anchor' measurement, and simply reference all workouts back to the maximum power that an individual can generate for that duration (i.e., Friel's 'critical power paradigm'). However, such an approach requires much more testing than simply using TT power, while (in my opinion) providing little, if any, advantage in actual practice.

2. Number of levels: A compromise had to be made between defining more levels, to better reflect the continuum of physiological responses, and defining fewer levels, for simplicity. The seven levels specified were considered the minimum needed to adequately describe the different types of training required/used to meet the demands of competitive cycling. Even with seven levels, though, the range within each is somewhat broad. However, this should not be a major disadvantage, for several reasons. First, there is obviously an inverse relationship between power output and the duration that power can be sustained. Thus, it is axiomatic that shorter training sessions or efforts will be conducted at the higher end of a given range, whereas longer sessions or efforts will fall towards the middle or lower end of a given range. Second, since power is a more precise indicator of exercise intensity than, e.g., heart rate, workouts should still be adequately controlled despite the seemingly large range in power within each level. Finally, as with all systems exercise prescriptions should be individualized, in this case taking into account the power the athlete has generated in previous similar or identical workouts...the primary reference, therefore, is not to the system itself, but to the athlete's own unique (and current) ability. In this regard, the classification scheme described above should be viewed primarily as an overall framework, not a detailed plan.

3. Heart rate guidelines: The suggested heart rate ranges must be considered as imprecise, because of individual differences in the positive y-intercept of the power-heart rate relationship. That is, even when power is zero, heart rate is not, with differences between individual in this 'zero power' (not resting) heart rate significantly influencing the percentage of 40k TT heart rate corresponding to any given power output. Because of this, I do not believe it is really useful to try to derive power ranges from heart rate ranges (as Friel's initial attempt to do so readily shows). (Expressing heart rate as a percentage of the range from that at zero power (derived by back-extrapolation of the linear power-heart rate relationship) to that at 40k TT power - akin to the Karvonen formula for heart rate reserve - corrects for this individual effect and allows you to more precisely specify the levels based on heart rate. However, I rejected this approach as simply being too complex, especially given that this is a power-based system.) Nonetheless, I have derived guideline for heart rate (as well as perceived exertion) from power data, such that can be used along with power to help guide training.

4. Perceived exertion guidelines: The values given are from Borg's 10 point category-ratio scale (reproduced below), not the original 20 point scale that is probably more familiar to most people. This choice was made because the category-ratio scale explicitly recognizes the non-linear response of many physiological variables (e.g., blood and muscle lactate), and thus provides a better indicator of overall effort.

0 = Nothing at all
0.5 = Extremely weak (just noticeable)
1 = Very weak
2 = Weak (light)
3 = Moderate
4 = Somewhat strong
5 = Strong (heavy)
6
7 = Very strong
8
9
10 = Extremely strong
* = Maximal

Since perceived exertion increases over time even at a constant exercise intensity (power), the suggested values or ranges obviously refer to perceived effort as determined relatively early in a training session/series of intervals.

5. Other limitations: While the system is based on the average power during a workout or interval effort, consideration must also be given to the distribution of power within a ride. For example, average power during mass start races typically falls within the range defined as level 3 ('tempo'), but races are usually more stressful due to the greater variability (and therefore higher peaks) in power. Similarly, due to soft-pedaling/coasting down hills, the same average power achieved during a hilly (or even mountainous) ride will not reflect the same stress as the same average power achieved during a completely flat workout. In part, the variability in power is taken into account in defining the various levels, especially levels 2 and 3 (training at the higher levels is likely to be much more structured, thus tending to limit variations in power). Nonetheless, a workout consisting of, for example, 30 min at level 1 (as warm-up), 60 min at level 3, and another 30 min at level 1 (as warm down) would best be described as a tempo training session, even though the overall average power might fall within level 2 ('endurance').

One last caveat: Defining various training 'levels' is obviously only the first step in developing a training plan, as what really matters is the distribution of training time or effort devoted to each of the various levels. Discussion of such matters, however, is probably best left to the future, so all I will say at this point is this: 1) I believe that training should be highly individualized, to account for each athlete's unique abilities, goals, and state of development (e.g., age, training background), and 2) compared to some, I tend to place more value in training at levels 2, 3, and 4 - indeed, what many consider to be 'junk training'. In that regard, my philosophy apparently parallels that of Peter Keen, or at least how his ideas are seemingly reflected in the BCF guidelines..."
Last edited by: Andrew Coggan: Dec 21, 17 8:27
Quote Reply
Re: Blood Lactate Test vs FTP like I am a 3 year old [Andrew Coggan] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Hi Andrew- so nice to meet you. Merry Christmas and Happy New Year :) My responses are in blue.

BEPSqueen wrote: FTP is an arbitrary metric

AC: Wrong. FTP is a functional measurement of the maximal metabolic steady state intensity.

Again, FTP being assumed as a “maximal metabolic state intensity” is subjective and doesn’t provide a sufficient understanding of the athlete’s underlying physiology. FTP is one of several data points that are needed to draw accurate conclusions about the current metabolic state of an athlete. Otherwise, it’s guessing.

BEPSqueen wrote: and serves as a proxy for only one type of effort
AC: Wrong. FTP is highly predictive ( i.e., R>=0.9) of performance at durations ranging from a few minutes out to many hours.

Correlation does not equal causation. That’s basic statistics. The use of FTP for training guidelines provides no insight into how to optimize the development of each athlete’s unique physiological composition. It does not inform “how” an athlete should adjust his/her training or “why” they should do so. It tells a very limited story, and athletes shouldn’t be subject to a one-size fits all approach, when the truth is that their underlying physiologies (i.e., how they source energy) are all very unique.

BEPSqueen wrote: Using % of FTP values as a benchmark for training will, as a result, over work some and under work others.
AC: Aside from this simply being an assertion that is not backed up by any evidence, it also ass u me s that training is PRESCRIBED relative to FTP.

I’ve worked in the field for ~20 years and have accumulated an abundance of evidence. Many coaches and athletes implement training intensities relative to FTP. I personally do not but if I am not mistaken, this was the point of Matt’s original question.

BEPSqueen wrote: “Lactate threshold” (LT) values can be similar to an FTP value, but similar to FTP, it is a one-dimensional view of performance.
AC: First, why the quotes?

As I would hope you would know, there are many “lactate thresholds” across the human spectrum. What most assume to be the common textbook answer, like the one you wrote there, is not a universal agreed upon definition of “lactate threshold”. Many people are theoretical sports science SME’s who troll on the internet but few actually work in the real world with real athletes.

AC: Second, both FTP and LT are indeed one-dimensional, in that they are both indicators of an individual's muscular metabolic fitness, i.e., the ability to balance ATP demand with aerobic ATP production. If expressed as a power (or pace for running), they both also incorporate an individual's efficiency (or economy, for running). They are not, however, measures of other possible determinants of performance, e.g., VO2max, or resistance to fatigue during supra-steady-state exercise (reflected in, MAOD). However, muscular metabolic fitness is by far the most important determinant of endurance performance, so is deserving of such focus.

I’m glad we finally agree. FTP may be a better one-dimensional metric than Vo2 max, etc., but the point of this whole conversation is that it is deficient tool to guide training when used by itself, especially when much better alternatives exist. To use one metric on the spectrum of energy, and then apply it across the spectrum, would be a gross disservice to any athletes that you work with. It assumes all athletes are the same, which is not fair to the athlete. It’s an obsolete methodology and assumes either a lack of access to other methods or a lack of physiological understanding (usually the latter). Alternatively, blood data is an objective measure of the truth, and eliminates the need to guess and extrapolate through one-dimensional metrics, because its usage can assess bioenergetic functionality across all energy systems. Thus, FTP goes the way of the neanderthals.

BEPSqueen wrote: Comprehensive blood testing (of which lactate threshold is a component) opens the doors to dynamic analysis on how all energy systems are performing (not just one energy system like FTP/LT), each of which are critically important in determining successful performance.

AC: If you are saying that FTP or LT don't really measure the capacity or functioning of the high energy phosphate or glycolytic energy systems, then I agree with you.
AC: If you are trying to say that there are other energy systems, I have no idea what you are talking about (and neither do you).

Andrew, this is pretty basic performance science. The human energy spectrum goes beyond a strict and rudimentary box of aerobic, anaerobic, and alactic definitions. These are the underlying pathways to output, but using net lactate to understand an individual’s physiology, percentage of energy contribution, and energy availability will give you greater insight as to the “how” of performance.

AC: If you are trying to say that the high energy phosphate and/or glycolytic energy systems are CRITICALLY important to success in endurance sports, you either need to provide some additional explanation as to what you mean by that adjective, or you need to go back (?) to graduate school.

Not sure where you came up with this assumption from anything I wrote….

BEPSqueen wrote: Looking at either FTP or LT in a silo will give you a misinformed view of the truth.
Instead, I use (and recommend you use) a physiological profile test (PPT), which uses lactate but is not a lactate threshold test. This kind of test gives a more complete picture of the entire energy spectrum, and enables coaches and athletes to understand the “what,” “why,” and “how.” As a result, the coach or athlete can have more insight into the training stimulus required to improve both the metabolic outputs and performance of each athlete.

Below is an example of two cyclists PPT results (who I tested today), both of whom have the same FTP values. Despite having the same FTP values, Cyclist #2 is operating off more bioenergetic availability than Cyclist #1. Even though both have the same FTP value, they arrive at this value using different energy sources. Cyclist #1 will have a negative metabolic response and performance outcome if he trains at the same FTP % values as Cyclist #2 because their actual energy contributions when performing work at the same percentage of FTP are about 25% different. In summary, FTP or LT is too one-dimensional to extrapolate usage across various energy systems because it assumes all athletes have the same functional work capacity. This is not true given that the physiological blueprint for all athletes are extremely unique, and will cause athletes to under-optimize the needed training stimulus. Physiological profile testing will better pinpoint functionality across all energy systems and be specific to each athlete.

AC: Nice sales pitch. However, where are data to back up your assertions?

If I was trying to make a sales pitch I would be on here daily. I have been on here only a handful of times, usually only at the request of others in the community who want me to provide information. I spend most of my time in the field working with athletes and helping them improve.


Physiologist. CEO/Founder Go Athletics. Coach/Consultant to Pros, Olympians, NCAA Champions, HS and Recreational coaches and athletes. 5x TeamUSA member, Ex-Pro Runner, NCAA All-American, now enabling others to achieve their potential.
Last edited by: BEPSqueen: Dec 21, 17 9:03
Quote Reply
Re: Blood Lactate Test vs FTP like I am a 3 year old [BEPSqueen] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
BEPSqueen wrote:
Hi Andrew- so nice to meet you. Merry Christmas and Happy New Year :)

Happy Resistmas to you as well.

BEPSqueen wrote:
FTP being assumed as a “maximal metabolic state intensity” is subjective

No, it is not subjective. There is a wealth of data out there demonstrating that maximal metabolic steady state intensity can be maintained for 30-60 (probably 40-70 in trained subjects) min, and/or vice-versa, the intensity that can be maintained for that duration, reflects maximal metabolic steady state.

BEPSqueen wrote:
and doesn’t provide a sufficient understanding of the athlete’s underlying physiology. FTP is one of several data points that are needed to draw accurate conclusions about the current metabolic state of an athlete. Otherwise, it’s guessing.

To support your claims, you need to define "sufficient", and/or demonstrate that additional physiological testing leads to more "actionable intelligence" and greater improvements in performance. All I can say is, good luck with that...other equally-or-more accomplished coaches and programs (e.g., Frank Overton, the AIS) have largely given up on physiological testing for a very good reason (i.e., it's not really helpful).

BEPSqueen wrote:
Correlation does not equal causation.

You're right. That's why we have performed studies in individuals matched for VO2max but differing in LT to help tease out cause and effect:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3403447

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1474063

Regardless, the key points are that:

1. Muscular metabolic fitness is an important determinant of performance over a very wide range of durations; and

2. Additional physiological testing does not provide insight into the (relatively small amount of) unexplained variance.

BEPSqueen wrote:

The use of FTP for training guidelines provides no insight into how to optimize the development of each athlete’s unique physiological composition. It does not inform “how” an athlete should adjust his/her training or “why” they should do so. It tells a very limited story, and athletes shouldn’t be subject to a one-size fits all approach, when the truth is that their underlying physiologies (i.e., how they source energy) are all very unique.

Explain how measuring how athletes "source energy" (indirect calorimetry?) provides any demonstrable benefit in terms of prescribing training.

(You do know that the most important determinant of substrate oxidation during exercise at a given intensity is diet, don't you? Compared to that, other factors - including even fitness, but also sex, menstrual state, age, genetics, etc. - are relatively weak influences.)

BEPSqueen wrote:
Many coaches and athletes implement training intensities relative to FTP.

Yes, many coaches and athletes - and commercial ventures - don't "get it". So what?

BEPSqueen wrote:
FTP may be a better one-dimensional metric than Vo2 max, etc., but the point of this whole conversation is that it is deficient tool to guide training when used by itself, especially when much better alternatives exist. To use one metric on the spectrum of energy, and then apply it across the spectrum, would be a gross disservice to any athletes that you work with. It assumes all athletes are the same, which is not fair to the athlete. It’s an obsolete methodology and assumes either a lack of access to other methods or a lack of physiological understanding (usually the latter). Alternatively, blood data is an objective measure of the truth, and eliminates the need to guess and extrapolate through one-dimensional metrics, because its usage can assess bioenergetic functionality across all energy systems. Thus, FTP goes the way of the neanderthals.

1. Simply repeating your claims does not provide any evidence that they are correct.

2. At the end of the day, the best predictor of performance is, was, and always will be, performance itself. Thus, why f*ck around with INDIRECT predictors (i.e., a *guess*) such as blood lactate levels, when direct measurement of performance is now so readily available?

BEPSqueen wrote:
Comprehensive blood testing (of which lactate threshold is a component) opens the doors to dynamic analysis on how all energy systems are performing (not just one energy system like FTP/LT), each of which are critically important in determining successful performance.

Again, nice sales pitch. Where are the data to back it up?

BEPSqueen wrote:
The human energy spectrum goes beyond a strict and rudimentary box of aerobic, anaerobic, and alactic definitions. These are the underlying pathways to output, but using net lactate to understand an individual’s physiology, percentage of energy contribution, and energy availability will give you greater insight as to the “how” of performance.

Actually, those ARE the only three pathways by which ATP can be produced (since we can't photosynthesize), and while measuring the blood lactate response does provide some insight into the metabolic/physiological determinants of performance, in practice nothing beats simply measuring performance itself.

BEPSqueen wrote:
If I was trying to make a sales pitch I would be on here daily. I have been on here only a handful of times, usually only at the request of others in the community who want me to provide information. I spend most of my time in the field working with athletes and helping them improve.

Perhaps iyou should spend less time in the field and more time actually studying the topic at hand.
Last edited by: Andrew Coggan: Dec 21, 17 10:16
Quote Reply
Re: Blood Lactate Test vs FTP like I am a 3 year old [BEPSqueen] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
BEPSqueen wrote:
Hi Matt- cyclists / triathletes ask me this question often. The two metrics are comparable to one another but also comparably deficient, and thus ineffective training indicators. Neither FTP nor Lactate Threshold testing tells you the “what”, “why”, or “how.” In other words, “what” type of energy an athlete has available to perform work/training/racing; “why” the athlete may or may not be improving his/her FTP, LT, or performances; and “how” to the athlete should steer his/her training to improve physiology for better performances.



FTP is an arbitrary metric, and serves as a proxy for only one type of effort. Using % of FTP values as a benchmark for training will, as a result, over work some and under work others. “Lactate threshold” (LT) values can be similar to an FTP value, but similar to FTP, it is a one-dimensional view of performance. Comprehensive blood testing (of which lactate threshold is a component) opens the doors to dynamic analysis on how all energy systems are performing (not just one energy system like FTP/LT), each of which are critically important in determining successful performance. Looking at either FTP or LT in a silo will give you a misinformed view of the truth.


Instead, I use (and recommend you use) a physiological profile test (PPT), which uses lactate but is not a lactate threshold test. This kind of test gives a more complete picture of the entire energy spectrum, and enables coaches and athletes to understand the “what,” “why,” and “how.” As a result, the coach or athlete can have more insight into the training stimulus required to improve both the metabolic outputs and performance of each athlete.

Below is an example of two cyclists PPT results (who I tested today), both of whom have the same FTP values. Despite having the same FTP values, Cyclist #2 is operating off more bioenergetic availability than Cyclist #1. Even though both have the same FTP value, they arrive at this value using different energy sources. Cyclist #1 will have a negative metabolic response and performance outcome if he trains at the same FTP % values as Cyclist #2 because their actual energy contributions when performing work at the same percentage of FTP are about 25% different. In summary, FTP or LT is too one-dimensional to extrapolate usage across various energy systems because it assumes all athletes have the same functional work capacity. This is not true given that the physiological blueprint for all athletes are extremely unique, and will cause athletes to under-optimize the needed training stimulus. Physiological profile testing will better pinpoint functionality across all energy systems and be specific to each athlete.




[/url]One of the best responses I have read here.

For people without understanding of training complexity and individual approach:

This is the difference between private gourmet cook and happy meal form McDonald or “Heathy sandwich from Subway”

For most people racing for fun, happy with their current progress, FTP is more than sufficient and quite good, it is actually quite awesome, but once they stop making big improvements, and current TrainerRoad/Zwift workouts based on FTP stop giving results, and WKO4+ suggested interval lengths will only make you tired not faster. The day when you will start chasing marginal gains and all your hardware is already top shelf.

You will need to pop the blue pill and discover personalized physiological based coaching, you will most likely (sadly due to volume) get somebody that uses WKO4+ and pretend this was “custom” just for you same as Subway sandwich. (If they are long enough in field and have good feel, you might be lucky for a moment)

But if you are super lucky you might also get somebody like poster above, only then, you will very quickly discover what real training is, and how it should look like. You will learn about your body more than you would ever expect.

Declaimer: I have no clue who BEPSqueen is, but his\her response shows he\she knows his\her stuff.
Quote Reply
Re: Blood Lactate Test vs FTP like I am a 3 year old [sebo2000] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
sebo2000 wrote:
Declaimer: I have no clue who BEPSqueen is, but his\her response shows he\she knows his\her stuff.

Yet was soundly schooled by Andy Coggan.

One person calls him/herself a physiologist. One has a Phd in Physiology and 100+ peer review publications to his credit.

Hamish Ferguson: Cycling Coach
Quote Reply
Re: Blood Lactate Test vs FTP like I am a 3 year old [sebo2000] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
sebo2000 wrote:
Declaimer: I have no clue who BEPSqueen is, but his\her response shows he\she knows his\her stuff.

What, because she made a bunch of unverified/unverifiable claims, and posted two completely opaque graphs?

That sort of hand-waving might fly where you live/work, but any scientist worthy of the name would require a higher standard of proof.

EDIT: Just as an FYI, BEPSqueen is Shannon Grady. Here is her bio from the Go! Athletics website:

"Shannon Grady, Founder and CEO, M.S. Exercise Physiologist, has over 30 years experience as an athlete and over 15 as a physiologist, sports performance expert, and coach. She has competed professionally for the FILA Discovery USA and PowerBar Team Elite, and has 4 Top 10 World Championship finishes representing Team USA triathlon. Prior to founding GO! Athletics, Shannon worked as an Exercise Physiologist for the United States Olympic Committee. Over the last 15 years, she’s worked with elite athletes and teams, including U of Florida, U of Tennessee, Villanova University, Duke University, UCF, WUSA, and MLL, developing an algorithm and methodology based on data samples from 90,000 athletes."
Last edited by: Andrew Coggan: Dec 21, 17 13:18
Quote Reply
Re: Blood Lactate Test vs FTP like I am a 3 year old [Kiwicoach] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
You might as well save the electrons, Hamish - based on a quick search here sebo2000 seems to be another one who has drunk the Kool-Aid and believes that there is some sort of magic formula for training, which can be decrypted only by measuring things like "FATmax."
Last edited by: Andrew Coggan: Dec 21, 17 13:21
Quote Reply
Re: Blood Lactate Test vs FTP like I am a 3 year old [Andrew Coggan] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I would prefer that you kept it civil and left Stanley tools out of this.

Having said that I feel like I’m in a bit of a time warp lately on st. Lots of the same arguments coming up pretty much as they were discussed 5-10 and fifteen years ago.

Maurice
Quote Reply
Re: Blood Lactate Test vs FTP like I am a 3 year old [Andrew Coggan] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I started this conversation out to provide Matt with food for thought, but it’s interesting how hostile you become when your authority is threatened. Don’t worry, I’m not trying to steal ST forums from you; I’ll let you continue sitting in front of your computer typing posts and cursing at people all day.

You’re right, there is no magic formula to coaching, so I don’t understand why you are so vehement in defending your plain-vanilla, one-size-fits all approach to training. Your method is convenient and scalable from a business perspective, but is inferior from a quality standpoint in that it is not custom to the athlete, and thus will leave many athletes with untapped potential. The best we can do is continue to take into account as many objective variables as possible, so that we can get closer to the truth and reduce the unexplained.

I think the difference in our viewpoints can be summarized by your comment “the best predictor of performance is performance.” While it is true that performance will have a high correlation with performance (by definition), it does not explain anything about what you need to do to improve, or what the underlying reasons were for your performance. Using this approach forces you to start at the end result (performance) and reverse engineer how you got there, which leads to all sorts of retrospective biases. So while you mine for correlation, I focus on causation. My approach is to focus on developing the input variables that maximize performance, and the most indicative/objective measures that are available to us today come in the form of blood biomarkers.

Have a very Merry Christmas!

Physiologist. CEO/Founder Go Athletics. Coach/Consultant to Pros, Olympians, NCAA Champions, HS and Recreational coaches and athletes. 5x TeamUSA member, Ex-Pro Runner, NCAA All-American, now enabling others to achieve their potential.
Quote Reply
Re: Blood Lactate Test vs FTP like I am a 3 year old [BEPSqueen] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Good grief, so when you say you are a physiologist, does this mean you hold an actual qualification or just think it is something cool to add to your signature.

Have you even looked at WKO4 to see how well it models the entire performance duration curve, estimates not only FTP, but functional reserve capacity, power at VO2max, estimates muscle fiber type and many other things. From this one can develop interval programmes and training for all types of athletes from sprinter to ultra endurance.

Certainly not vanilla, more a goody goody gumdrops with choc and nut sprinkles and extra whipped cream.



BEPSqueen wrote:
I started this conversation out to provide Matt with food for thought, but it’s interesting how hostile you become when your authority is threatened. Don’t worry, I’m not trying to steal ST forums from you; I’ll let you continue sitting in front of your computer typing posts and cursing at people all day.

You’re right, there is no magic formula to coaching, so I don’t understand why you are so vehement in defending your plain-vanilla, one-size-fits all approach to training. Your method is convenient and scalable from a business perspective, but is inferior from a quality standpoint in that it is not custom to the athlete, and thus will leave many athletes with untapped potential. The best we can do is continue to take into account as many objective variables as possible, so that we can get closer to the truth and reduce the unexplained.

I think the difference in our viewpoints can be summarized by your comment “the best predictor of performance is performance.” While it is true that performance will have a high correlation with performance (by definition), it does not explain anything about what you need to do to improve, or what the underlying reasons were for your performance. Using this approach forces you to start at the end result (performance) and reverse engineer how you got there, which leads to all sorts of retrospective biases. So while you mine for correlation, I focus on causation. My approach is to focus on developing the input variables that maximize performance, and the most indicative/objective measures that are available to us today come in the form of blood biomarkers.

Have a very Merry Christmas!

Hamish Ferguson: Cycling Coach
Quote Reply
Re: Blood Lactate Test vs FTP like I am a 3 year old [Kiwicoach] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Kiwicoach wrote:
goody goody gumdrops with choc and nut sprinkles and extra whipped cream.

That sounds really disgusting.
Quote Reply
Re: Blood Lactate Test vs FTP like I am a 3 year old [Andrew Coggan] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Andrew Coggan wrote:
At the end of the day, the best predictor of performance is, was, and always will be, performance itself.

It is the best predictor of performance. Its not the best predictor of what to work on to change that performance and make it better. For a coach it does not give as much information as a lab test to work from. The more information you have, the more informed your decisions can be when deciding how to improve the performance of an athlete. Coaching to improve performance is best informed when you know what holds the performance back the most.

Where is the problem in sending an athlete for a lab test?

He who understands the WHY, will understand the HOW.
Quote Reply

Prev Next