Login required to started new threads

Login required to post replies

Prev Next
Re: No lactate threshold [xtrpickels] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
xtrpickels wrote:
klehner wrote:
Quote:
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.


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.


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.

Thank you. The brain is tricked into releasing carbohydrate it would otherwise withold?

You alluded to other instances where the brain is tricked into improved performance. Amphetamines, pain killers? Given false times or power readings? Placebo?
Quote Reply
Re: No lactate threshold [xtrpickels] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
xtrpickels wrote:
paull wrote:
Andrew Coggan wrote:


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.


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 ! :)


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.

So the same muscles at the same level of fitness, same capilliaries etc can output more power just because there are more red blood cells?

No improvememt in the fitness of the muscles, just an improvememt in blood?

No improvememt in heart stroke volume or increased sustainable heart rate just blood which delivers more oxygen per heart beat per pint of blood?
Quote Reply
Re: No lactate threshold [Trev] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Trev wrote:
xtrpickels wrote:
klehner wrote:
Quote:
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.


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.


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.


Thank you. The brain is tricked into releasing carbohydrate it would otherwise withold?

You alluded to other instances where the brain is tricked into improved performance. Amphetamines, pain killers? Given false times or power readings? Placebo?

From deceiving about how warm it is to blocking information from muscles to the brain, can all have an affect on exercise performance.

To your other post:
Yup:same body, more red blood cells = more power.
(Technically if you re-infuse a pint your volume is increased transiently and therefore stroke volume and cardiac output, but that goes away relatively quickly).

Increasing blood volume itself (say be using glycerol) hasn't really decreased HR, but may show an improvement for exercise in the heat due to increased sweat rate (banned by WADA as a masking agent). What Osmo Proload and Skratch Hyperhydration are attempting using high electrolyte load.

Study on autologous blood reinfusion: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3623787
Limiting factors for oxygen uptake: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10647532

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
Last edited by: xtrpickels: Mar 31, 15 15:01
Quote Reply
Re: No lactate threshold [Trev] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Quote:
You alluded to other instances where the brain is tricked into improved performance. Amphetamines, pain killers? Given false times or power readings? Placebo?

Sort of- cognitive tasks given while performing vigorous exercise has been shown to increase performance compared to the same workload and no cognitive task.

Google Ministry of Defense, Dr. Marcora, etc, for more info...Runner's World did fluff article on it a couple months ago I think. This is why assessment and selection programs use a high amount of cognitive testing during exhaustive exercise...weeds out the physically and mentally weak.

http://www.reathcon.com
Quote Reply
Re: No lactate threshold [Jerryc] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Jerryc wrote:
Quote:
And what has that to do with whether anything I've said is valid or otherwise?


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.

-----------
So you are not actually measuring the underpinning physiological changes occurring at cellular level, but other proxy integral measures for the result of such changes, such as VO2max and BL response.

How is that any different to using another integral measure like power output (other than they lack utility and are not measures of performance in the way power output is)?

http://www.cyclecoach.com
http://www.aerocoach.com.au
Quote Reply
Re: No lactate threshold [AlexS] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
How do you track real improvememt in fitness using power alone without blood lactate testing or heart rate other than by doing maximal tests?

How do you know there is a real fitness improvement as opposed to improved motivation or just simply trying harder than in the previous test?

Improvements in fitness are not just improvements in maximal performance - often you want to be able to sustain a given power easier so you have more in reserve for the finish or a major climb or for the run after the bike.

How do you measure improvememt or lack of it without maximal tests without some other reference like blood lactate levels or heart rate?

In rowing it is common to test at sub max power levels and look at blood lactate and or heart rate. This gives real evidence of improvememt in fitness. Maximal tests can still be used so I don't see why additional evidence and information should be ignored or discarded.
Last edited by: Trev: Apr 1, 15 2:51
Quote Reply
Re: No lactate threshold [Trev] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Trev wrote:
How do you track real improvememt in fitness using power alone without blood lactate testing or heart rate other than by doing maximal tests?

How do you know there is a real fitness improvement as opposed to improved motivation or just simply trying harder than in the previous test?
Unable to deal with the refutation of your earlier comments, you instead try to bleed over into unrelated matters.

i. who cares? We're discussing testing athletes for their racing performance, not the frail.

ii. there are (some pretty straightforward) ways, but what makes you think BL or HR response is any better at revealing motivational factors?

Trev wrote:
Improvements in fitness are not just improvements in maximal performance - often you want to be able to sustain a given power easier so you have more in reserve for the finish or a major climb or for the run after the bike.
This is contradictory.

If you can ride at a given absolute power more easily than before / have more in reserve, then by definition you are now capable of sustaining a higher power output than you were before, or of sustaining the same power output for longer. Hence your maximal performance has improved.

Choosing not to ride maximally for the duration is simply a tactical / strategic choice. You could have done that before as well. You'd just go slower.

Trev wrote:
How do you measure improvememt or lack of it without maximal tests without some other reference like blood lactate levels or heart rate?
Who cares? This is racing after all and racing tends to require maximal efforts at some stage to sort out the wheat from the chaff.

Trev wrote:
In rowing it is common to test at sub max power levels and look at blood lactate and or heart rate. This gives real evidence of improvememt in fitness. Maximal tests can still be used so I don't see why additional evidence and information should be ignored or discarded.
The real evidence of rowing fitness is improvement in race power output and race performance.

HR adds nothing of particular value to the assessment of performance, and BL is inconvenient, expensive, infrequent and often quite unreliable unless performed with great care.

http://www.cyclecoach.com
http://www.aerocoach.com.au
Quote Reply
Re: No lactate threshold [mcmetal] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
mcmetal wrote:
Trev wrote:

There is NO lactate threshold
Okay, now we know that the muscles don’t go anaerobic during heavy exercise and lactate production is due to carbohydrate being burned to produce energy. This brings us to the topic of “lactate threshold”. Recall that the theory of lactate threshold was that at some exercise intensity blood lactate levels increase dramatically, i.e. crosses a threshold, due to anaerobic metabolism. We already know that lactate is being produced in increasing high amounts for reasons other than the muscles becoming “anaerobic”, but is lactate increasing after crossing some “threshold”? Again, the answer is no.


This is good to know. No more Z4/Z5 intervals for me since they aren't doing anything different than Z1/Z2.


Flawed logic on your part.

Just because it can't be agreed what is happening at the (arbitrary) different Zones, it doesn't follow that the different zones aren't eliciting different responses.

The type of argument in this thread can be applied to any of the tools used to simplify exercise physiology.

Why are the zones defined as so?
Why do we use 4 minute intervals and not 4 minute 23 seconds? Is there no chance that the 4:23 is better?
How about Tabatha intervals? Why aren't they 23 seconds on 11 seconds off - was that even studied?

Simplicity is the thread that ties exercise physiology together.
People pretending to know the answer is what keeps us apart.


"Uncertainty Is an Uncomfortable Position. But Certainty Is an Absurd One.” – Voltaire

#######
My Blog
Quote Reply
Re: No lactate threshold [Andrew Coggan] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Andrew Coggan wrote:
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.

OK so I've gone through all this and yes it would appear that vo2max is not itself a primary input (after all, its the muscles that create the power, not the oxygen) but that additional O2 availability is a key cause of muscle adaptation (the muscles adapt to use that o2) and therefore, from a point of view of all the poor buggers on TTF and here trying to make sense of all this, we should really be considering that VO2 work (or any other way of getting MORE oxygen to the muscle) can have a substantial effect on fitness (call it metabolic or cardiovascular, its really at the point where the two meet, i.e. the O2 uptake of a muscle).

If thats correct, then (for example) wearing an oxygen mask, or injecting EPO, etc, wouldn't have much same-day effect on an athlete, but in a relatively short time frame, if you kept it up and kept training, the muscle would adapt, it would start utilising that o2, and then it would generate more power.

I'm just a trying to get my head around something thats very complex in a simplistic way ! feedback welcome and appreciated :) thanks
Quote Reply
Re: No lactate threshold [AlexS] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
 
Quote:
So you are not actually measuring the underpinning physiological changes occurring at cellular level, but other proxy integral measures for the result of such changes, such as VO2max and BL response.

Yes, and no.

At the most basic level, one is interested in the gene expression of various proteins as a result of various exercise processes. These proteins will lead to various changes in cellular structure and chemistry.

No one yet understands this but they are studying it and learning more all the time. These changes result in changes to the energy producing capabilities of the muscle which will reflect in the ability of the person to contract the muscles in terms of speed and sustainability.

There is more than one energy producing system in the body but for most races there are only two that matter, aerobic metabolism and glycolysis. These two systems affect performance from races of 20 seconds up to ultra marathons. Thus, it would be prudent to understand just how these systems work to produce the energy necessary for contraction.

One system dominates energy production after 40 seconds and that is aerobic metabolism. There are contributions of energy from glycolysis after this time up till ultra long races. One can still contract the muscles without glycogen or a source of glucose so obviously there are examples where almost 100 % of the energy is from aerobic metabolism, nearly all of it the metabolism of fats.

Because of the small amount of energy from glycolysis in long races, exercise scientists essentially discounted it as a factor in endurance races. But there was a problem as several have pointed out, people with the same ability to produce energy by aerobic metabolism often exhibited very different abilities in long races. And one of the consistent findings was that the out put of glycolysis was causing this differential ability to utilize the aerobic metabolism. Hence the origin of the terms such as anaerobic threshold, lactate threshold, maximal lactate steady state (MLSS) and OBLA (onset of blood lactate accumulation.)

Most who study this just referred to some unknown factor or pointed to a result in the environment, not in the muscle as the cause of this difference. However, some looked for a metabolic explanation and they believe they found it. This metabolic explanation, not at the level of gene expression, but at a subsequent point in the process involved the interaction of the aerobic and glycolytic systems and the strength of each.

They named a process in the body for glycolysis similar to what exercise scientists had named for aerobic metabolism. They called it anaerobic capacity or VLA max to represent the rate of pyruvate production in the body. They also found that this capacity varied widely in people and obviously athletes. Now aerobic metabolism and glycolysis are the result of several things but rather than look specifically at each of the sub components, it became important to look at the two systems as a whole. This does not mean that there is no interest in the causes of each but for explaining muscle contraction it was easier to consider them as wholes within the cell.

They also found that two capacities interacted and affected how much of each capacity could be utilized in a race. The stronger the anaerobic capacity the more the contracting muscles used glycolysis and the more metabolites were produced which eventually limited contraction or the amount of aerobic energy that could be utilized.

So it makes sense to consider both in any athletic event. Aerobic capacity is best measured by a VO2max test but there are other ways of approximating it. One is blood lactate because the fuel for the aerobic system at VO2max is almost 100% pyruvate or lactate. Lactate is also the product of glycolysis so it can be used to assess the strength of the other system too. But any lactate test that does this is subject to the same problem that any other non VO2 max test has, it does not reflect the contribution of each system to the effort level. But lactate also reflects the output of glycolysis so can be used to try an assess anaerobic capacity.

It is not VO2 max and lactate. It is lactate as a window into both systems. Some find it easy to estimate VO2 max this way since the window into the aerobic system only requires a 4-6 minute sub-maximal test and not a one hour all out test. It is just as precise or maybe more so than a FTP test. The lactate test gets even more precise with multiple readings. Any maximal test to estimate anaerobic capacity is less than a minute so not onerous on any athlete.

Now you have offered up the MMP curve as an example of what can be done without lactate. Each point on the MMP reflects the input of the three energy systems but after 10 second it reflects just glycolysis and aerobic metabolism. The curve that Dr. Coggan provided above is a perfect example of two athletes with the same aerobic capacities but differing anaerobic capacities. The one with the greater anaerobic capacity will excel at shorter distances as the curve indicates but at some point will start to get slower at longer distances. It is an almost perfect illustration of Mader's theory which is the basis for my comments.

Go to http://www.lactate.com/...riathlon_faster.html for examples of athletes that differ in time to exhaustion at various distances which is the basis for this curve.

I have been patiently pointing this out for a couple years but it seems to get lost in the rhetoric and the mocking. Now one can disagree with this assessment but it is something that one should carefully consider and not just reflexively dismiss it.



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

Jerry Cosgrove

Sports Resource Group
http://www.lactate.com
https://twitter.com/@LactatedotCom
Last edited by: Jerryc: Apr 1, 15 8:42
Quote Reply
Re: No lactate threshold [AlexS] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
AlexS wrote:
Trev wrote:
How do you track real improvememt in fitness using power alone without blood lactate testing or heart rate other than by doing maximal tests?

How do you know there is a real fitness improvement as opposed to improved motivation or just simply trying harder than in the previous test?

Unable to deal with the refutation of your earlier comments, you instead try to bleed over into unrelated matters.

i. who cares? We're discussing testing athletes for their racing performance, not the frail.

ii. there are (some pretty straightforward) ways, but what makes you think BL or HR response is any better at revealing motivational factors?

Trev wrote:
Improvements in fitness are not just improvements in maximal performance - often you want to be able to sustain a given power easier so you have more in reserve for the finish or a major climb or for the run after the bike.

This is contradictory.

If you can ride at a given absolute power more easily than before / have more in reserve, then by definition you are now capable of sustaining a higher power output than you were before, or of sustaining the same power output for longer. Hence your maximal performance has improved.

Choosing not to ride maximally for the duration is simply a tactical / strategic choice. You could have done that before as well. You'd just go slower.

Trev wrote:
How do you measure improvememt or lack of it without maximal tests without some other reference like blood lactate levels or heart rate?

Who cares? This is racing after all and racing tends to require maximal efforts at some stage to sort out the wheat from the chaff.

Trev wrote:
In rowing it is common to test at sub max power levels and look at blood lactate and or heart rate. This gives real evidence of improvememt in fitness. Maximal tests can still be used so I don't see why additional evidence and information should be ignored or discarded.

The real evidence of rowing fitness is improvement in race power output and race performance.

HR adds nothing of particular value to the assessment of performance, and BL is inconvenient, expensive, infrequent and often quite unreliable unless performed with great care.


Alex, you have not said anything I felt worth refuting. But I will go over your recent posts and reply to them in detail seeing as you challenge me to do so.

You should be aware I have no objection to maximal tests. I only object to doing too many or doing them at the wromg time.

You should be aware some older people, people with long term health problems or injury or anyone recovering from illness may need to avoid maximal tests. Even entirely healthy athletes in danger of overtraining or recovering from overtraining may want to avoid maximal testing.

Your statement "who cares" is frankly an insult to any athlete who has ever been ill or injured, thousands of older athletes, and any athlete who may have health problems from time to time.

I note you are unable to track performace improvememt without doing maximal tests.

You should remember, those who do sub maximal tests can still do maximal tests when necessary.

Many Olympic class athletes do sub maximal tests. It isn't only the weak who do sub maximal tests.

And to stay on thread. - do you beleive there is a heart rate threshold?

Would you agree that threshold heart rate is reasonably stable despite changes in fitness?
Last edited by: Trev: Apr 1, 15 9:56
Quote Reply
Re: No lactate threshold [AlexS] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Quote:
The real evidence of rowing fitness is improvement in race power output and race performance.

The standard test for performance in rowing is a 2000 m test simulated on an erg. In the US, this is nearly always a Concept II machine.

Shannon Grady who works with various athletes, mostly runners, also works with some high level rowers. She worked with a male light weight four and this boat eventually had the best time in the US about a year ago and was one of the best in the world.

Each athlete in this boat's 2000 m test were all time bests during this process but for the previous 3 years each athlete had stagnated at lower power levels. So yes, the 2000 m test is relevant but how to improve the 2000 m score is the real issue.

So it is best to ask what causes the result in a 2000 m test rather than just constantly repeating the test over and over which may not be optimal training.

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

Jerry Cosgrove

Sports Resource Group
http://www.lactate.com
https://twitter.com/@LactatedotCom
Quote Reply
Re: No lactate threshold [AlexS] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Alex, in a triathlon, where one must complete a run after the bike section, I very much doubt the best strategy is to do the bike section maximally. It is a race yes but a race in which the art of pacing is very important. A rider who paces him or herself better is likely to beat an athlete who is fitter but does not leave enough in the tank to stay in contention in the run.

Also, regarding your weaklings comment, triathlons and road races and timetrials, all sports in fact are full of people who don't win. Races of all sorts are full of weaklings with no chance of winning. But they take their sport just as seriously as elite athletes.
Quote Reply
Re: No lactate threshold [paull] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
It's really best to think of these systems in parallel. A marked improvement in any one portion of the system will have a modest improvement in the overall system.


O2 supplementation (and EPO eventually, once RBC count comes up) will both have immediate salutatory effects, as O2_sat will remain higher at exercise. This allows you to train at a higher level, thus (ostensibly) eliciting a stronger adaptation response from the body's various subsystems (read: fitness!). Your body will assuredly not linearly benefit from that extra oxygen, but still benefit (and plenty).

The question of who is right and who is wrong has seemed to me always too small to be worth a moment's thought, while the question of what is right and what is wrong has seemed all-important.

-Albert J. Nock
Quote Reply
Re: No lactate threshold [Derf] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Derf wrote:
It's really best to think of these systems in parallel. A marked improvement in any one portion of the system will have a modest improvement in the overall system.

O2 supplementation (and EPO eventually, once RBC count comes up) will both have immediate salutatory effects, as O2_sat will remain higher at exercise. This allows you to train at a higher level, thus (ostensibly) eliciting a stronger adaptation response from the body's various subsystems (read: fitness!). Your body will assuredly not linearly benefit from that extra oxygen, but still benefit (and plenty).

Yes indeed. I just know that there are riders and coaches who don't put the cardiac side high enough on their list.

The take home message about vo2max not being a determinant, while it may be technically true, is hugely misleading. That could easily fool your average Joe Athlete into thinking that oxygen availability and hence vo2max is not relevant !! Seems to me its incredibly relevant, and to almost all training.

A while back I found this comment on another forum from a very well respected physiologist. I hope he won't mind me posting it here !

Quote:

Improvements in VO2 max are primarily determined by increases in cardiac output; the muscle follows and broadly speaking is not really limiting. Fast-twitch or slow-twitch fibres, 3 s, 30 s or 300 s intervals - they're all a bit of a distraction from the most important issues. Find a training method that maximises the stimulus for cardiac adaptations - the heart wall thickness and the volume of the chambers. That doesn't have to be intervals - steady paced work can be just as effective if not more. Figure out how the heart works - how stroke volume is created most importantly.
Quote Reply
Re: No lactate threshold [paull] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Hence AC's comments about high VO2Max being a necessary, but insufficient selection guideline for an elite endurance athlete.

There's a lot of other things that will determine how high a %age of that VO2Max one may sustain for longer and shorter intervals. Ergo, it's utility as a marker is fairly limited.

The question of who is right and who is wrong has seemed to me always too small to be worth a moment's thought, while the question of what is right and what is wrong has seemed all-important.

-Albert J. Nock
Quote Reply
Re: No lactate threshold [paull] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
paull wrote:
Derf wrote:
It's really best to think of these systems in parallel. A marked improvement in any one portion of the system will have a modest improvement in the overall system.

O2 supplementation (and EPO eventually, once RBC count comes up) will both have immediate salutatory effects, as O2_sat will remain higher at exercise. This allows you to train at a higher level, thus (ostensibly) eliciting a stronger adaptation response from the body's various subsystems (read: fitness!). Your body will assuredly not linearly benefit from that extra oxygen, but still benefit (and plenty).

Yes indeed. I just know that there are riders and coaches who don't put the cardiac side high enough on their list.

The take home message about vo2max not being a determinant, while it may be technically true, is hugely misleading. That could easily fool your average Joe Athlete into thinking that oxygen availability and hence vo2max is not relevant !! Seems to me its incredibly relevant, and to almost all training.

A while back I found this comment on another forum from a very well respected physiologist. I hope he won't mind me posting it here !

Quote:

Improvements in VO2 max are primarily determined by increases in cardiac output; the muscle follows and broadly speaking is not really limiting. Fast-twitch or slow-twitch fibres, 3 s, 30 s or 300 s intervals - they're all a bit of a distraction from the most important issues. Find a training method that maximises the stimulus for cardiac adaptations - the heart wall thickness and the volume of the chambers. That doesn't have to be intervals - steady paced work can be just as effective if not more. Figure out how the heart works - how stroke volume is created most importantly.

I think both you and the physiologist you quote are living in the pre-1960s. The simple fact of the matter is that endurance performance ability is more closely correlated to muscular metabolic fitness (expressed or power or pace at threshold) than it is to cardiovascular fitness (measured as VO2max). Moreover, the scope or magnitude of possible improvement is greater for the former than for the latter (since threshold can, and does, move closer to VO2max). Thus, while having an adequately-high (whatever that means*) VO2max is important for elite performance, and all endurance athletes should consider how their training may (or may not) increase their VO2max, such considerations should be secondary, not primary.

*When I was younger, mine was ~80 mL/min/kg, yet I never made it beyond cat. 1, so the bar must be higher than that. ;)

EDIT: So now having look up the context in which Jamie Pringle made his remarks, I've edited my post, as clearly he was speaking specifically about how to improve VO2max, not how to improve performance in general.
Last edited by: Andrew Coggan: Apr 1, 15 12:21
Quote Reply
Re: No lactate threshold [sub-3-dad] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
sub-3-dad wrote:
mcmetal wrote:
Trev wrote:

There is NO lactate threshold
Okay, now we know that the muscles don’t go anaerobic during heavy exercise and lactate production is due to carbohydrate being burned to produce energy. This brings us to the topic of “lactate threshold”. Recall that the theory of lactate threshold was that at some exercise intensity blood lactate levels increase dramatically, i.e. crosses a threshold, due to anaerobic metabolism. We already know that lactate is being produced in increasing high amounts for reasons other than the muscles becoming “anaerobic”, but is lactate increasing after crossing some “threshold”? Again, the answer is no.


This is good to know. No more Z4/Z5 intervals for me since they aren't doing anything different than Z1/Z2.


Flawed logic on your part.

I assumed (perhaps wrongly?) that mcmetal was simply being sarcastic.
Quote Reply
Re: No lactate threshold [Jerryc] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Jerryc wrote:
Quote:
The real evidence of rowing fitness is improvement in race power output and race performance.

The standard test for performance in rowing is a 2000 m test simulated on an erg. In the US, this is nearly always a Concept II machine.

Shannon Grady who works with various athletes, mostly runners, also works with some high level rowers. She worked with a male light weight four and this boat eventually had the best time in the US about a year ago and was one of the best in the world.

Each athlete in this boat's 2000 m test were all time bests during this process but for the previous 3 years each athlete had stagnated at lower power levels. So yes, the 2000 m test is relevant but how to improve the 2000 m score is the real issue.

So it is best to ask what causes the result in a 2000 m test rather than just constantly repeating the test over and over which may not be optimal training.

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

Thanks Jerry.

In the UK it is the same, a Concept2.

I know from bitter personal experience that 2000m on a Concept2 requires training other than maximal efforts over 2000m.

Training incorporates maximal efforts yes, but over shorter durations and sparingly. Maximal efforts over longer durations like 15 minutes 20 minutes or 60 minutes are done for specific reasons.
Quote Reply
Re: No lactate threshold [Jerryc] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Jerryc wrote:
Quote:
The real evidence of rowing fitness is improvement in race power output and race performance.


The standard test for performance in rowing is a 2000 m test simulated on an erg. In the US, this is nearly always a Concept II machine.

Shannon Grady who works with various athletes, mostly runners, also works with some high level rowers. She worked with a male light weight four and this boat eventually had the best time in the US about a year ago and was one of the best in the world.

Each athlete in this boat's 2000 m test were all time bests during this process but for the previous 3 years each athlete had stagnated at lower power levels. So yes, the 2000 m test is relevant but how to improve the 2000 m score is the real issue.

So it is best to ask what causes the result in a 2000 m test rather than just constantly repeating the test over and over which may not be optimal training.

------------
Where did I say a 2000m test was the best way to train? The question was about performance tests, not training.

http://www.cyclecoach.com
http://www.aerocoach.com.au
Quote Reply
Re: No lactate threshold [AlexS] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Quote:
The question was about performance tests, not training.

And I said that the premier performance tests in rowing was inadequate. It doesn't tell the coach or athlete what has to be trained. You focused on the last phrase of the last paragraph when the heart of remark was elsewhere, on the relevancy of this test.

-----------

Jerry Cosgrove

Sports Resource Group
http://www.lactate.com
https://twitter.com/@LactatedotCom
Last edited by: Jerryc: Apr 1, 15 13:36
Quote Reply
Re: No lactate threshold [Trev] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Trev wrote:
Alex, in a triathlon, where one must complete a run after the bike section, I very much doubt the best strategy is to do the bike section maximally. It is a race yes but a race in which the art of pacing is very important. A rider who paces him or herself better is likely to beat an athlete who is fitter but does not leave enough in the tank to stay in contention in the run.
Where did I say one should do the bike section maximally?

For those who are competing (either against others or themselves) then it's a maximal effort for the duration of the event.

Trev wrote:
Also, regarding your weaklings comment, triathlons and road races and timetrials, all sports in fact are full of people who don't win.
The vast majority. So, are you saying that only winners should ever do a maximal effort?

I never said weaklings. I said the frail.

Trev wrote:
Races of all sorts are full of weaklings with no chance of winning. But they take their sport just as seriously as elite athletes.
Assuming they are healthy then there is nothing wrong with maximal tests to determine your fitness. Your fitness might suck, but doing a maximal power-duration effort isn't a particularly big deal or something to be avoided like the plague.

But there are a number of people for whom a maximal test efforts are as inappropriate as racing, or even just participating. For some that might be because they have a temporary condition (e.g. doing a maximal effort while you have a bad viral infection is dumb), while others have chronic issues (e.g. heart disease, obese, or other serious medical conditions) and of course maximal performance tests are not appropriate. But then they aren't racing either, which is what discussion about athletic performance tests are about.

If all they are doing is a walked fun run, then they don't need a test of athletic ability, they need a check by their doctor to make sure they wont die. That's hardly relevant for the discussion of testing for athletic performance.

http://www.cyclecoach.com
http://www.aerocoach.com.au
Quote Reply
Re: No lactate threshold [Jerryc] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Jerryc wrote:
Quote:
The question was about performance tests, not training.


And I said that the premier performance tests in rowing was inadequate. It doesn't tell the coach or athlete what has to be trained. You focused on the last phrase of the last paragraph when the heart of remark was elsewhere, on the relevancy of this test.

-----------
Where did I say that such a test was the only one that should inform a coach about an athlete's training?

Having a mean maximal power duration curve would be as instructive for coaches of competitive rowers as it is for cyclists.

But if 2000m is the race, then you surely need to test for it?

http://www.cyclecoach.com
http://www.aerocoach.com.au
Quote Reply
Re: No lactate threshold [Trev] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Trev wrote:
You should be aware I have no objection to maximal tests. I only object to doing too many or doing them at the wromg time.
Then why don't you say that rather than attack maximal tests in the first place.

Has anyone on this thread ever suggested high frequency maximal testing? It's a strawman.

Trev wrote:
You should be aware some older people, people with long term health problems or injury or anyone recovering from illness may need to avoid maximal tests. Even entirely healthy athletes in danger of overtraining or recovering from overtraining may want to avoid maximal testing.
Another strawman. Suggesting an argument that doesn't exist to knock down. It's rather tiresome Trev.

When you've finished stating the bleeding obvious, then do let me know.

Trev wrote:
Your statement "who cares" is frankly an insult to any athlete who has ever been ill or injured, thousands of older athletes, and any athlete who may have health problems from time to time.
Come off it Trev. If a maximal test is obviously inappropriate, then then nobody cares about such tests because they are obviously inappropriate.

Another strawman.

Trev wrote:
I note you are unable to track performace improvememt without doing maximal tests.
That's an unfounded claim about my capabilities.

Trev wrote:
You should remember, those who do sub maximal tests can still do maximal tests when necessary.

Many Olympic class athletes do sub maximal tests. It isn't only the weak who do sub maximal tests.
So?

Trev wrote:
And to stay on thread. - do you beleive there is a heart rate threshold?
Since our heart beats when performing a threshold level effort (however that happens to be defined), then one can define such a thing, but it's likely to be in a typical range than a specific number.

Trev wrote:
Would you agree that threshold heart rate is reasonably stable despite changes in fitness?
HR response varies with fitness.

http://www.cyclecoach.com
http://www.aerocoach.com.au
Quote Reply
Re: No lactate threshold [Trev] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Trev wrote:
How do you track real improvememt in fitness using power alone without blood lactate testing or heart rate other than by doing maximal tests?

How do you know there is a real fitness improvement as opposed to improved motivation or just simply trying harder than in the previous test?

Improvements in fitness are not just improvements in maximal performance - often you want to be able to sustain a given power easier so you have more in reserve for the finish or a major climb or for the run after the bike.

How do you measure improvememt or lack of it without maximal tests without some other reference like blood lactate levels or heart rate?

In rowing it is common to test at sub max power levels and look at blood lactate and or heart rate. This gives real evidence of improvememt in fitness. Maximal tests can still be used so I don't see why additional evidence and information should be ignored or discarded.

I think I'm one of the largest proponents of lab based testing but anyone who says that Lab based testing is a better measure of performance than actual performance is just plain wrong.
I think lab based is a great resource to understand changes, but the fact of the matter is you can either be improved, the same or worse on your lab testing and still faster or slower in the real world.

When someone has increased threshold wattage, I tell them their threshold wattage has improved... I don't tell them they're a faster cyclist.

Do you know wattage at threshold is a better predictor of performance than say VO2max? Because it integrates more components such as economy, effectiveness etc.
Field testing integrates the physiology with the motivation etc. You can't focus on one while losing sight of the other.

For those who are not "performance" athletes but recreational, ask them if they can ride up that hill easier or finish that century. If they say yes, that's all that matters.
Ultimately it's not about fitness, its about 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
Quote Reply

Prev Next