Who is Gordo?
Who is Gordo?
I have a bigger question: what’s the basis for the claims made in this article?
Holy shit…
serious request:
could you be more specific as to which “claims” you refer and if possible the flaw in the “claim”.
Meaning is he describing the testing process wrong or the conclusions etc etc.
Thank you
…but, there are graphs and scientific-y words…and, it works for so-and-so…you scrutinize too much.
Seriously, I’ve discussed this with successful athletes quite recently, as it would seem that it is a “hot topic” with a number of prominent coaches like Max T, et al…
These athletes continue to improve, as evident from field testing and race performance but, find claims about lactate testing’s ability to be capable of being used as a means of determining future workout composition to be enticing…it comes down to not wanting to be “missing out”…
serious request:
could you be more specific as to which “claims” you refer and if possible the flaw in the “claim”.
Meaning is he describing the testing process wrong or the conclusions etc etc.
Thank you
Well for starters, the opening few sentences (emphasis added):
“It has become a somewhat common practice for intermediate to elite athletes to have regular lactate assessments in an effort to track improvements and to determine and periodically assess training zones. These are both worthwhile ways to use the data from a lactate test. However, it is of great importance that the data is being evaluated in the context of Ironman racing.”
That theme (i.e., that one can - and indeed, must - read the “tea leaves” of a plot of blood lactate concentration vs. exercise intensity) continues throughout the entire article, hence leading to my question.
Bottom line: blood lactate concentration is an indirect marker of metabolic strain within the exercising muscles, and as such is a powerful predictor of performance ability across a very broad range of exercise durations. Beyond that, though, you can’t really say anything more, and people who try to convince you otherwise are essentially just blowing smoke.
I almost stopped reading after this paragraph here:
"For the ironman athlete, there are a couple of important physiological implications to consider when we see elevated lactate values:
#1 Blood lactate can be indicative of a greater reliance on anaerobic processes for the production of energy.
#2 Blood lactate can be indicative of a shift from fat-burning to carbohydrate burning."
Also good:
“Without going into too much depth, for the science guys out there, the increased lactate exhibited from carbohydrate oxidation can be explained by the increased acidity of the carbohydrate molecule when compared to the fatty acid molecule.”
Must be for the science guys that don’t know a thing about exercise physiology.
And goes on and on…
thank you that was very helpful. One last question; and you may have answered it below (I am a little slow but trying to learn): if it is a powerful predictor of performance abilitly do you believe it is useful to determine watt and pacing “zones” to train within (assuming a properly performed step test)?
Thanks again
Bottom line: blood lactate concentration is an indirect marker of metabolic strain within the exercising muscles, and as such is a powerful predictor of performance ability across a very broad range of exercise durations. Beyond that, though, you can’t really say anything more, and people who try to convince you otherwise are essentially just blowing smoke.
thanks Paulo
I must admit most of that was pretty over my head (not hard to do) but I appreciate you pointing out specifics. The fact that it is/may be wrong makes the fact the it was over my head more palatable.
if it is a powerful predictor of performance abilitly do you believe it is useful to determine watt and pacing “zones” to train within (assuming a properly performed step test)?
Useful? Yes, at least under some circumstances. Necessary, or even ideal? Hardly.
Remember, “the best predictor of performance is performance itself”…which is why, e.g., running and swimming (and track cycling) coaches have been prescribing training based on pace for as long reliable watches have been available.
I almost stopped reading after this paragraph here:
"For the ironman athlete, there are a couple of important physiological implications to consider when we see elevated lactate values:
#1 Blood lactate can be indicative of a greater reliance on anaerobic processes for the production of energy.
#2 Blood lactate can be indicative of a shift from fat-burning to carbohydrate burning."
Well technically speaking, his statements are correct…it’s just an unnecessary distinction to make.
Also good:
“Without going into too much depth, for the science guys out there, the increased lactate exhibited from carbohydrate oxidation can be explained by the increased acidity of the carbohydrate molecule when compared to the fatty acid molecule.”
Must be for the science guys that don’t know a thing about exercise physiology.
That’s just got be poor choice of words, as I can’t believe that someone with a masters in exercise physiology could believe that lactate could be produced from fatty acids.
thanks for taking the time to share your knowledge; I appreciate the insight.
That’s just got be poor choice of words, as I can’t believe that someone with a masters in exercise physiology could believe that lactate could be produced from fatty acids.
I wouldn’t put it past him. Remember… this is the guy that fought you on all kinds of levels back on G’s old forum. I believe his main point was something akin to L2 being a different energy system from L4 and bunking the claim to a rising tide floats all boats. Also stating that the goal of IM training was to work hard at flattening the curve beyond one hour in duration vs attempting to raise the height of the curve. I still have that debate printed out on paper. It’s interesting to go back and read it.
That’s just got be poor choice of words, as I can’t believe that someone with a masters in exercise physiology could believe that lactate could be produced from fatty acids.
I don’t think he’s claiming that, or even that it reads like that. It is a poor choice of words, but not unintentional. Sound’s like he’s trying to claim that for a given amount of combusted CHO, if one were to work at the same rate burning more or entirely fat they’d produce less CO2. He’d be right too. He’s using the CO2 production logic to extrapolate to acidity. The problem in this (particular part of his) logic is that the last sentence in that paragraph implies that he’s saying that this, along with the lac-/H+ production contribute to muscle acidosis that impairs performance. Problem is that there is little bicarbonate buffering in muscle, mainly blood, and the blood H+ certainly isn’t going to work its way back into the muscle, so his whole acidity theory falls down there. He (like most) is also still gripping tightly to the H+ limiting muscle contractile performance theory, and hasn’t yet come to terms with the fact that this might not be correct.
I wouldn’t put it past him. Remember… this is the guy that fought you on all kinds of levels back on G’s old forum. I believe his main point was something akin to L2 being a different energy system from L4 and bunking the claim to a rising tide floats all boats. Also stating that the goal of IM training was to work hard at flattening the curve beyond one hour in duration vs attempting to raise the height of the curve. I still have that debate printed out on paper. It’s interesting to go back and read it.
Harumph…raise the left, fill the right. `Tis working far better for me than “flatten the curve” ever did. If your curve starts at 200W at 1 hour there’s only 1 place you can go on longer distance…down to pathetically slow! If it starts at 300W+ there’s a lot more space to go down before you start being really damn slow.
Yo, I can’t wait to read your book ? LOL
When’s it coming out?