Lactate-based training

Is anybody using lactate-based training for running or cycling?
I would be interested in hearing how people use lactate testing
for training intensity monitoring.

One option is using the traditional threshold approach, but this
approach is riddled with so many problems (eg, what is “threshold”,
etc.)

I have been playing with lactate testing and I am trying to use
the method prescribed by Jan Olbrecht in his “Science of winning”
book.

The basic idea is simple and described in great detail here:
http://lactate.com/triathlon/lactate_triathlon_protocols.html

In short, you do the following:

  1. Find V4, speed at which lactate is 4.0 mmol/L, by running a sequence of submax runs.
  2. Perform a max test of 400-600m to get maximum lactate production VLamax.

Olbrecht then uses a proprietary software to compute aerobic/anaerobic capabilities.
Based on these results the intensity and volume of training is prescribed.

It is not clear from neither the book nor the above web page how these aerobic/anaerobic
capabilities are computed for running/cycling and without this proprietary software and
database.

What makes you think that training by lactate is not riddled by similar problems?

Not everyone is at threshold at 4.0mm-

Then how do you measure intensity? Especially in real time- outside. Any of the portable testers that you wear are also problematic.

And it is not exactly convenient to constantly take samples from your finger.

I did a lactate based test a few years back to determine my threshold. It was BS and was a waste of money. It told me my threshold at 4 mmol was 250w. That seemed rather low to me and within a week just simply riding with my fast group had an hour at 265w. My 20min was nearly 320 at the time. My FTP and 20 min got much higher in the following years following a better training philosophy.

Lactate threshold is defined as the work rate at which lactate rises 1.0 mmol/L above baseline resting values. 4.0 mmol/L is OBLA (onset of blood lactate accumulation). The best value in my opinion is maximum lactate steady state (MLSS). But MLSS takes several trips to the lab so it is impractical. It turns out that most people reach MLSS at about 4.0 mmol/L so OBLA is a pretty good proxy for it. Improved OBLA speed is a pretty good indicator of improved 10K race pace. OBLA pace would be a good estimate for extensive tempo pace.

Yes, my model - System Based Training (http://www.systembasedtraining.com/1814-2/) uses lactate testing extensively with 100s of coaches and 1000s of athletes across the world mainly collegiate track programs. My main protocol used is a physiological profile test- which assesses what bioenergy an athlete has available to train and adapt to.

The traditional textbook measures of 4 mmol or even the notion of a “lactate threshold” really is not applicable information for individualizing training using this remarkable biomarker.

To answer your questions:
Is anybody using lactate-based training for running or cycling? YES- I use it for all sports both endurance and team sports as a training load monitor and to give coaches and athletes individual parameters for daily APPROPRIATE training load to achieve performance objectives.

I would be interested in hearing how people use lactate testing for training intensity monitoring. Since physiology and bioenergetic are very dynamic, I test my athletes every 8-12 weeks to monitor for positive or negative energy shifts so training load can be adjusted accordingly. No matter what phase of training or racing you are in, if you do not have the bioenergy available you are trying to adapt/train, your body will not adapt to that type of training/work.

One option is using the traditional threshold approach, but this approach is riddled with so many problems (eg, what is “threshold”, etc.) - traditional approaches are general at best and really there is not really a standard “lactate threshold” for all. The complexities of lactate dynamics go way beyond this notion of a single “lactate threshold”.

I have been playing with lactate testing and I am trying to use the method prescribed by Jan Olbrecht in his “Science of winning” book.
The basic idea is simple and described in great detail here:
http://lactate.com/triathlon/lactate_triathlon_protocols.html - Jan’s model and suggestions are good but a bit outdated and will not work for most athletes. His protocols do not take into consideration dynamic physiology nor the average recreational athlete.

In short, you do the following:

  1. Find V4, speed at which lactate is 4.0 mmol/L, by running a sequence of submax runs. - NO- I would NEVER recommend these protocols- using v4 will over train some and under train most.
  2. Perform a max test of 400-600m to get maximum lactate production VLamax. - No- not relevant without knowing information at all net energy levels and you really wont know what to do with that data unless you have more information or extensive background on understanding anaerobic energy. Using v4 and a VLamax is very limited in understanding your physiology and developing your training program to fit your performance goals.

Olbrecht then uses a proprietary software to compute aerobic/anaerobic capabilities.
Based on these results the intensity and volume of training is prescribed. - I have software available for use by coaches, universities, and/or organizations.

It is not clear from neither the book nor the above web page how these aerobic/anaerobic
capabilities are computed for running/cycling and without this proprietary software and
database. - I do not think that his algorithms are available for public knowledge.

I didn’t mean to imply I would use V4 and VLamax tests
for training purposes, but merely to monitor your training
progress to see how aerobic and anaerobic capacities
change over time.

I wouldn’t necessarily use the lactate curve (and certainly not
V4 since L=4.0mmol/L is completely arbitrary and sport dependent).

Your testing system is certainly very interesting. From what I can infer,
there’s some underlying mathematical or empirical (based on test data)
that computes status of different capacities based on some sub-maximal
tests. In either case, the model would have to be sport dependent.
Sports where you use all four limbs (cross-country skiing, rowing)
are different than running, and running is different than cycling.

If I understand correctly, you only use lactate testing to determine
current capacities, but lactate tests are not used during the training
itself. Namely, you are not taking lactate samples during training
sessions to monitor intensity. Correct?

There are sports where intensity can be translated into
pace (running on track / swimming in pool) or power
(cycling), but there many other sports where you can’t
do that easily (cross-country skiing, trail running, etc.),
so you still run into the problem of proper training intensity
monitoring.

Hi- so in reference to this statement: I didn’t mean to imply I would use V4 and VLamax tests for training purposes, but merely to monitor your training progress to see how aerobic and anaerobic capacities change over time. I would recommend using testing to steer training and not validate/monitor it. Since, physiology is dynamic using testing data to understand what stimulus your body needs to improve performance is much more useful than just checking if those data points, whatever they may be, have improved. Using lactate as a biomarker is complex- improvements in aerobic or anaerobic values can be achieved using many different training stimulus/training types. For example, one season you can see gains in anaerobic power by training high intensity and the next you see gains in anaerobic power by training low intensity. Understanding the bioenergetic shifts which all have a push and pull effect on one another- balancing those for your individual physiology is key for improved performances. Many people get caught up on doing various testing protocols such as V4 or VMaxBla or even FTP and test just to see if the test got better but not using data to steer what training stimulus will make an improvement in some area of your physiology at that time to yield a performance improvement.

Using spot checking during training, based on my 19 years of studying lactate dynamics in the field, is very much not a reliable data point to monitor progress or steer a workout for the day. The volatility of lactate is high on a daily basis especially in the aerobic energy systems and the complexities of individual lactate dynamics on the anaerobic end would need years of continuous biomarker data monitoring to begin to understand. Setting your training with parameters to achieve intended physiological objectives that match your available physiology and that move towards your performance objectives such as increasing aerobic and anaerobic power and/or capacity is most important use of lactate data.

I wouldn’t necessarily use the lactate curve (and certainly not V4 since L=4.0mmol/L is completely arbitrary and sport dependent). Good- cause lactate curves are useless :slight_smile:

Your testing system is certainly very interesting. From what I can infer, there’s some underlying mathematical or empirical (based on test data) that computes status of different capacities based on some sub-maximal tests. In either case, the model would have to be sport dependent. Sports where you use all four limbs (cross-country skiing, rowing) are different than running, and running is different than cycling. Yes, I do have underlying algorithms based on a data set of 100,000 + that are used in my analysis and recommendations. The main testing protocol I use is the physiological profile test (PPT) and it is sport specific meaning we testing doing your sport activity or as close to possible as we can get. The PPT is actually a power test not a capacity test. Where we determine each persons power in each energy system (I break it into 8 Systems), then give you training parameters (total work volume, work to rest ratio and intensity) to increase capacity in each system by training with the appropriate power (depending on sport and energy system can be heart rate, velocity, watts, etc) to increase capacity in targeted area.

If I understand correctly, you only use lactate testing to determine current capacities, but lactate tests are not used during the training itself. Namely, you are not taking lactate samples during training sessions to monitor intensity. Correct? Correct- no sampling during training only during set test protocol sessions. Namely, PPT testing to measure current power in each system then give parameters for athletes/coaches to improve capacity in desired system. I do have a aerobic capacity and anaerobic capacity testing protocol that is used when needed for certain events and specific training phases to fine tune those areas.

There are sports where intensity can be translated into pace (running on track / swimming in pool) or power (cycling), but there many other sports where you can’t do that easily (cross-country skiing, trail running, etc.), so you still run into the problem of proper training intensity monitoring. Not necessarily, we work with all sports but yes as you get away from the measured variable sports such as running, rowing, swimming, cycling where much of the training is not over set distances, paces, or wattage the specificity of achieving desired physiological objectives above certain net energy levels is very difficult. But we can monitor and achieve desired recovery, aerobic foundation, and prolonged aerobic capacity by giving total volume and individual heart rate parameters. For the other days, we give total recommended work load, work to rest ratios, and approximate intensity (as using HR for intervals and high intensity is a useless governor). For most team sports, where anaerobic energy is in high demand, we ensure they are recovering properly between intensive sessions as well as perform regular PPT testing to track bioenergy availability to adjust overall training load and fueling appropriately :slight_smile:

Are you saying there isn’t a lactate threshold or that there is more than one lactate threshold?

Yes, my model - System Based Training (http://www.systembasedtraining.com/1814-2/) uses lactate testing extensively with 100s of coaches and 1000s of athletes across the world mainly collegiate track programs. My main protocol used is a physiological profile test- which assesses what bioenergy an athlete has available to train and adapt to.

The traditional textbook measures of 4 mmol or even the notion of a “lactate threshold” really is not applicable information for individualizing training using this remarkable biomarker.

To answer your questions:
Is anybody using lactate-based training for running or cycling? YES- I use it for all sports both endurance and team sports as a training load monitor and to give coaches and athletes individual parameters for daily APPROPRIATE training load to achieve performance objectives.

I would be interested in hearing how people use lactate testing for training intensity monitoring. Since physiology and bioenergetic are very dynamic, I test my athletes every 8-12 weeks to monitor for positive or negative energy shifts so training load can be adjusted accordingly. No matter what phase of training or racing you are in, if you do not have the bioenergy available you are trying to adapt/train, your body will not adapt to that type of training/work.

One option is using the traditional threshold approach, but this approach is riddled with so many problems (eg, what is “threshold”, etc.) - traditional approaches are general at best and really there is not really a standard “lactate threshold” for all. The complexities of lactate dynamics go way beyond this notion of a single “lactate threshold”.

I have been playing with lactate testing and I am trying to use the method prescribed by Jan Olbrecht in his “Science of winning” book.
The basic idea is simple and described in great detail here:
http://lactate.com/triathlon/lactate_triathlon_protocols.html - Jan’s model and suggestions are good but a bit outdated and will not work for most athletes. His protocols do not take into consideration dynamic physiology nor the average recreational athlete.

In short, you do the following:

  1. Find V4, speed at which lactate is 4.0 mmol/L, by running a sequence of submax runs. - NO- I would NEVER recommend these protocols- using v4 will over train some and under train most.
  2. Perform a max test of 400-600m to get maximum lactate production VLamax. - No- not relevant without knowing information at all net energy levels and you really wont know what to do with that data unless you have more information or extensive background on understanding anaerobic energy. Using v4 and a VLamax is very limited in understanding your physiology and developing your training program to fit your performance goals.

Olbrecht then uses a proprietary software to compute aerobic/anaerobic capabilities.
Based on these results the intensity and volume of training is prescribed. - I have software available for use by coaches, universities, and/or organizations.

It is not clear from neither the book nor the above web page how these aerobic/anaerobic
capabilities are computed for running/cycling and without this proprietary software and
database. - I do not think that his algorithms are available for public knowledge.

essentially- each net lactate value has a threshold not just v4 or some implied “exponential increase” in lactate.

Thanks for your detailed reply. There’s so many incorrect notions
about lactate-based testing. Unfortunately, there’s also very little
**practical **advice on how to use it effectively.

Your approach of using lactate testing to determine various aerobic
and anaerobic capacities and using the results to steer
training in the right direction totally makes sense.

Olbrecht’s test as detailed in his book consists of identifying
aerobic and anaerobic capacities, maybe also lactate
clearing. That’s only 3 capacities that you can then follow
over time and guide your training.

Would you be willing to describe more details of your PPT
assessment? How does the actual test look like for running?

Perhaps monitoring training intensities is even more
challenging than assessing your capacities. HR monitor
is a good tool for certain sessions, but there are lots of
problems with it:

  • cardiac drift (can add 10-15 beats to your intervals)
  • HRmax changes from day to day and from sport to spot (if you are cross-training)
  • “zone” to give your body a proper stimulus can be very very narrow

So, even if you have your assessment done properly, you still need
to make sure you are actually training correctly on a daily basis.
In your experience, how do you actually do that effectively?

HR and lactate seem to be very flaky. Power could be used for cycling,
but depending on your daily state, 100W today may stimulate something
completely different tomorrow. Canova broke down different training stimuli
based on speed (% of race pace) that can also be tricky to implement in
practice or is not applicable at all for some sports. There’s also NIRS
(muscle oxygenation), but there’s very little practical guidance on how
to actually use it.

Therefore, it would seem that the most successful athletes are the ones
who have some natural ability to listen to their bodies and follow (or adjust)
training intensity appropriately.

I don’t think you’ll find may longitudinal studies showing that setting training intensity by method X is better than setting it by method Y in trained athletes. Nor will you find much showing that setting workout intensity by hr, power or pace is demonstrably better in terms of producing better adaptations.

If you believe in the utility of lactate testing, your long pole in the tent turns out to be how to measure intensity of workouts, since you can’t measure lactate in real time. So you determine that you need to do more work well below threshold. Assume that is the case, you still have to monitor your workout on any given day. You do that by going back and saying well I hit a blood lactate level of 1.5 mmol at a power of 200 or at a heart rate of 140 or RPE of 13.

So you are back to the drawbacks of each individual method of monitoring training intensity.

So then you have to go back and determine if lactate testing is telling you what you didn’t know before. Are you going to learn anything you can’t figure out from a critical pace test, or looking at your relative performance in races of various distances? Maybe, maybe not.

In general I guess it comes down to what you are trying to rectify? Have you plateaued prematurely? Do you not have insight to why? If that’s the case, then to me lactate profiling can be valuable, maybe you are off base in your assessment of what you need more of and the lactate testing can help you figure it out.

essentially- each net lactate value has a threshold not just v4 or some implied “exponential increase” in lactate.

Please can you explain what exactly you mean by net value and v4.

what you are trying to rectify? Have you plateaued prematurely? Do you not have insight to why?
The first question is the big picture. What are your aerobic and anaerobic capacities?
What has changed from 6 weeks ago? Can I explain why I am running slow or not progressing?
What is my weak link? The purpose of this is to guide your training in the right direction.

The second question is how do you determine training intensity and volume for some training session?
You have some goal in mind for your daily training, and you know in theory what you should do,
but how do you execute it?

Say that you want to apply certain stimulus to your body. For example’s sake, let’s say that your
“threshold” is at 4.0 mmol/L or HR = 165. You want to run some intervals below your threshold.
If your lactate is 3.5, 3.6, 3.6, 3.8 for four reps, you used the right intensity.
If after your first interval you measure your lactate at 4.2, you know you are going way too fast
(but you may not know that when going by “feel”, or if you go by HR).
If you are doing 6 reps and when you finished your 4th rep your lactate jumps to 4.2 (from 3.6 in your
3rd rep), you are probably done and you should not continue. If you did, you would be stimulating
something else, not the aerobic system as you planned initially.

It is not clear from neither the book nor the above web page how these aerobic/anaerobic
capabilities are computed for running/cycling and without this proprietary software and
database.

Since I wrote the webpage you referenced, I will try to clarify any questions you have about the availability of software. I do not have access to any software to estimate either aerobic or anaerobic capacity but know of three who do. One of which has responded here.

Determining anaerobic capacity exactly is a difficult task. The three people I referred to are doing it routinely and very successfully but use their own proprietary software. We just had a video produced that describes in a simplistic fashion what we think is the best way to go about it. It is meant for people without appropriate software.

http://bit.ly/2mXr9YS

We then wrote a webpage that tried to explain the video in a little more detail. (there are some minor issues with the video that will have to be changed in the future but nothing that is problematic)

http://www.lactate.com/video/index.html

We know from correspondence that all will not agree. From your comments, you seem to understand the basic issues while some other commenters here do not.

No where do we ever say that 4.0 is the threshold. We in fact say several times that it is not. Many do not seem to understand this.

The 4.0 mmol/l measure will correlate with the threshold and is highly predictive of future performance. One of its values is that it is easy to measure so why do some elaborate and difficult other testing to estimate a threshold, especially when you can learn a lot more besides just the estimate of a threshold. We have a page on the lactate threshold that is very detailed and on that we define the threshold as the maximum lactate steady state which can often be far away from 4.0 mmol/l.

http://www.lactate.com/lactate_threshold.html

The main value for knowing the 4.0 number is that any training that moves the threshold will move the 4.0 measure in the same direction as the threshold. So this simple measure is a report card of how well your training is working in terms of changing the threshold.

Training is key and lactate testing (4.0 measure) is a very good indication of how well one’s training is working. But the 4.0 measure does not tell you much about the anaerobic system which will also affect the threshold. For that you need another test.

So one of the key uses of lactate testing is that it is a report card on how well your training is doing and the test for this is relatively simple and reliable.

The two other important uses for lactate testing are

it is a window into the metabolism of the athlete and what is behind the current conditioning level.

it is a way of setting training paces to change the current conditioning level, hopefully in a positive direction

It seems this last use is the only thing that most are interested in. However, lactate testing if used and understood will tell you a lot more.

One of the three people has their software available for use by anyone who is interested. See

http://bit.ly/2aoQmXa

for System Based Training.

Another is in the process of having his software available, hopefully, soon. That is Sebastian Weber who has been working with Tour de France cyclists for over 10 years. When it becomes available, we will post it on our website.

The third is Jan Olbrecht who works mainly with swimmers but currently works with Luc van Lierde in Belgium in the training of triathletes. Jan was Luc’s training adviser taking him from an age group swimmer to Ironman world champion. There are about a half dozen triathletes in the US, mostly in California who are working remotely with van Lierde and through him, Jan.

Jan was recently in the US at the University of Tennessee presenting his ideas mainly to swim coaches. Here is a page we wrote on this presentation

http://bit.ly/2lUqov8

Hope this provides some additional information on this topic.


You are welcome and agreed :slight_smile:

Your approach of using lactate testing to determine various aerobic and anaerobic capacities and using the results to steer training in the right direction totally makes sense. Thanks :slight_smile:

Olbrecht’s test as detailed in his book consists of identifying aerobic and anaerobic capacities, maybe also lactate clearing. That’s only 3 capacities that you can then follow over time and guide your training. Yes, it’s not a bad start but has it’s limitations.

Would you be willing to describe more details of your PPT assessment? How does the actual test look like for running? For running, it is a graded test that starts out easy and gets progressively harder until maximal effort is performed. Each stage lasts about 3-4 minutes and set target speeds are given for each stage. The athlete continues until they can no longer go faster for the next stage. 99% of our testing is done on the track so for most athletes we do 800m repeats and some 400s depending on the level of athlete. Here is a blog article that describes PPT a bit more- http://www.systembasedtraining.com/science-sunday-the-what-when-and-whys-of-system-based-trainings-physiological-profile-testing/

Perhaps monitoring training intensities is even more challenging than assessing your capacities. HR monitor is a good tool for certain sessions, but there are lots of
problems with it: My main protocol is a power test. I test power and give specifics for each athlete on how to train capacity within each System. To truly measure human capacity in each energy system we would need continuous data while exercising- we do not have that technology to date but will within the next 12 months :slight_smile: http://www.systembasedtraining.com/system-based-training-is-a-tool-for-coaches/

  • cardiac drift (can add 10-15 beats to your intervals) - Yes, cardiac drift is does happen but HR zones are set to stay within a particular energy system. If your HR is drifting you are most likely pulling from a different energy source and need to adjust your effort to stay in the right zone for that energy system.
  • HRmax changes from day to day and from sport to spot (if you are cross-training) - the HR is sport specific- we don’t give same HR zones for running, biking and/or cross training. Ideally, you test in which ever mode of training you are doing- triathletes test in all and get specific zones for each.
  • “zone” to give your body a proper stimulus can be very very narrow - yes, very specific- that is why we individualized and give specifics for each athlete.
    My model is not only an assessment but an application. System Based training prescribed training is a predictive response model. I have developed parameters (intensity, total volume, work to rest ratios etc) to target each System (8 of them) specifically for each athletes so desired stimulus is achieved with great certainty. Some systems, HR and total time is used to govern stimulus, some systems velocity/power and work/rest targets are given.

So, even if you have your assessment done properly, you still need to make sure you are actually training correctly on a daily basis. In your experience, how do you actually do that effectively? Yes, that is what my model and application is. 100s of coaches have implemented it for the last 15 years. Each athlete has daily training parameters that they adhere to. When adherence rates are highest, results are greatest. The application I developed makes it pretty simple for athletes and coaches to follow even in large team scenarios :slight_smile:

HR and lactate seem to be very flaky. No they are not- if used correctly. http://www.systembasedtraining.com/science-sunday-why-heart-rate-training/

Power could be used for cycling, but depending on your daily state, 100W today may stimulate something completely different tomorrow. Using power or velocity to achieve intended physiological stimulus for lower energy systems is not recommended due to daily net lactate volatility- HR is best in these areas. Higher net lactate energy systems or short duration interval training using power or velocity is best to achieve intended physiological stimulus.

Canova broke down different training stimuli based on speed (% of race pace) that can also be tricky to implement in practice or is not applicable at all for some sports. Yes, too individualized and only useful in certain situations and training phases.

There’s also NIRS (muscle oxygenation), but there’s very little practical guidance on how to actually use it. NIRS- is not actually measuring lactate values and the ratio between deoxygenated Hgb and oxygenated Hgb is a far fetched correlation to an interpreted “lactate threshold” - I wouldn’t recommend this to determine training zones or steer or guide training plans.

Therefore, it would seem that the most successful athletes are the ones who have some natural ability to listen to their bodies and follow (or adjust) training intensity appropriately. In my experience, it’s not that easy to “feel” or “listen” to your body until something is drastically wrong and you are unable to recover normally and your body is unable to return to homeostasis after training sessions are complete. It is often the most talented athletes that push their bodies further than most that lead to the physiological decline. Tough athletes mentally push through or ignore physiological signs of weakness and end up on the sidelines or wondering why their performances are declining. It’s very difficult to also "feel’ the slight differences in energy systems until your workout starts declining. Knowing the limits and lines to each energy system is very effective in achieving optimization in each area. After all, #blooddontlie! http://www.systembasedtraining.com/think-its-mental-your-blood-wont-lie/

Hi-

So when we collect lactate samples it’s actually a NET lactate value (net lactate= lactate production - lactate clearing). On the human net lactate spectrum we can measure NET lactate values between 0.6 and 32 mmol. Each NET lactate value has various characteristics in terms of how can effect performance. Some of those different characteristics relevant to performance include: trainability, power, capacity, and velocity. Each net lactate energy system varies in these characteristics and be trained accordingly.

V4- simply means velocity at 4 mmol. It’s pretty much an arbitrary data point which really has no value for performance in any event.

"In my experience, it’s not that easy to “feel” or “listen” to your body until something is drastically wrong and you are unable to …

You should get some better experience.

You are welcome and agreed :slight_smile:

Your approach of using lactate testing to determine various aerobic and anaerobic capacities and using the results to steer training in the right direction totally makes sense. Thanks :slight_smile:

Olbrecht’s test as detailed in his book consists of identifying aerobic and anaerobic capacities, maybe also lactate clearing. That’s only 3 capacities that you can then follow over time and guide your training. Yes, it’s not a bad start but has it’s limitations.

Would you be willing to describe more details of your PPT assessment? How does the actual test look like for running? For running, it is a graded test that starts out easy and gets progressively harder until maximal effort is performed. Each stage lasts about 3-4 minutes and set target speeds are given for each stage. The athlete continues until they can no longer go faster for the next stage. 99% of our testing is done on the track so for most athletes we do 800m repeats and some 400s depending on the level of athlete. Here is a blog article that describes PPT a bit more- http://www.systembasedtraining.com/science-sunday-the-what-when-and-whys-of-system-based-trainings-physiological-profile-testing/

Perhaps monitoring training intensities is even more challenging than assessing your capacities. HR monitor is a good tool for certain sessions, but there are lots of
problems with it: My main protocol is a power test. I test power and give specifics for each athlete on how to train capacity within each System. To truly measure human capacity in each energy system we would need continuous data while exercising- we do not have that technology to date but will within the next 12 months :slight_smile: http://www.systembasedtraining.com/system-based-training-is-a-tool-for-coaches/

  • cardiac drift (can add 10-15 beats to your intervals) - Yes, cardiac drift is does happen but HR zones are set to stay within a particular energy system. If your HR is drifting you are most likely pulling from a different energy source and need to adjust your effort to stay in the right zone for that energy system.
  • HRmax changes from day to day and from sport to spot (if you are cross-training) - the HR is sport specific- we don’t give same HR zones for running, biking and/or cross training. Ideally, you test in which ever mode of training you are doing- triathletes test in all and get specific zones for each.
  • “zone” to give your body a proper stimulus can be very very narrow - yes, very specific- that is why we individualized and give specifics for each athlete.
    My model is not only an assessment but an application. System Based training prescribed training is a predictive response model. I have developed parameters (intensity, total volume, work to rest ratios etc) to target each System (8 of them) specifically for each athletes so desired stimulus is achieved with great certainty. Some systems, HR and total time is used to govern stimulus, some systems velocity/power and work/rest targets are given.

So, even if you have your assessment done properly, you still need to make sure you are actually training correctly on a daily basis. In your experience, how do you actually do that effectively? Yes, that is what my model and application is. 100s of coaches have implemented it for the last 15 years. Each athlete has daily training parameters that they adhere to. When adherence rates are highest, results are greatest. The application I developed makes it pretty simple for athletes and coaches to follow even in large team scenarios :slight_smile:

HR and lactate seem to be very flaky. No they are not- if used correctly. http://www.systembasedtraining.com/science-sunday-why-heart-rate-training/

Power could be used for cycling, but depending on your daily state, 100W today may stimulate something completely different tomorrow. Using power or velocity to achieve intended physiological stimulus for lower energy systems is not recommended due to daily net lactate volatility- HR is best in these areas. Higher net lactate energy systems or short duration interval training using power or velocity is best to achieve intended physiological stimulus.

Canova broke down different training stimuli based on speed (% of race pace) that can also be tricky to implement in practice or is not applicable at all for some sports. Yes, too individualized and only useful in certain situations and training phases.

There’s also NIRS (muscle oxygenation), but there’s very little practical guidance on how to actually use it. NIRS- is not actually measuring lactate values and the ratio between deoxygenated Hgb and oxygenated Hgb is a far fetched correlation to an interpreted “lactate threshold” - I wouldn’t recommend this to determine training zones or steer or guide training plans.

Therefore, it would seem that the most successful athletes are the ones who have some natural ability to listen to their bodies and follow (or adjust) training intensity appropriately. In my experience, it’s not that easy to “feel” or “listen” to your body until something is drastically wrong and you are unable to recover normally and your body is unable to return to homeostasis after training sessions are complete. It is often the most talented athletes that push their bodies further than most that lead to the physiological decline. Tough athletes mentally push through or ignore physiological signs of weakness and end up on the sidelines or wondering why their performances are declining. It’s very difficult to also "feel’ the slight differences in energy systems until your workout starts declining. Knowing the limits and lines to each energy system is very effective in achieving optimization in each area. After all, #blooddontlie! http://www.systembasedtraining.com/think-its-mental-your-blood-wont-lie/

You are correct. I should have clarified that statement a bit more…

What I meant to say was, in my experience especially with elite and anaerobically strong athletes, when less than a second difference in their performance means they make an Olympic team or not :frowning: Or means they win NCAA or World championship or not :frowning: Where “feel” in training means the difference in using slightly too much anaerobic energy on a daily basis that prematurely depletes their anaerobic stores or under develops key upper end aerobic systems. Their ability to maintain desired velocity over desired distances becomes limited. An anaerobically strong athlete, has the tendency to go to their strength more often than not to complete workouts even when not asked to…they often tend to rev their engines to strong too frequently when not controlled. Because they tried to “feel” those workout and slight energy differences between too much anaerobic contribution or not they are not working the correct energy system to get the exact physiological gain they need to win when it counts. It’s almost impossible to “feel” that exact difference in energy contribution especially when anaerobic energy comes into play.

You are correct. I should have clarified that statement a bit more…

What I meant to say was, in my experience especially with elite and anaerobically strong athletes, when less than a second difference in their performance means they make an Olympic team or not :frowning: Or means they win NCAA or World championship or not :frowning: Where “feel” in training means the difference in using slightly too much anaerobic energy on a daily basis that prematurely depletes their anaerobic stores or under develops key upper end aerobic systems. Their ability to maintain desired velocity over desired distances becomes limited. An anaerobically strong athlete, has the tendency to go to their strength more often than not to complete workouts even when not asked to…they often tend to rev their engines to strong too frequently when not controlled. Because they tried to “feel” those workout and slight energy differences between too much anaerobic contribution or not they are not working the correct energy system to get the exact physiological gain they need to win when it counts. It’s almost impossible to “feel” that exact difference in energy contribution especially when anaerobic energy comes into play.

Many things going on in the body, lactate is just one. What else do you measure? If lactate levels are that important might we have evolved to ’ feel’ it like we can feel our breathing or sensations in our muscles?

Same could also be said of heart rate. Other than the feeling of our heart thumping away fast during very hard efforts and just after hard efforts we don’t really feel the heart but we do feel our breathing and sensations in the muscles, we feel heat etc.

More attention should be paid to what we feel and learning to feel.

Yes, many things are going on in the body and I am not saying lactate is the end all be all to solving the worlds problems but it is a very great indicator of many things performance related and can be easily measured in the field setting.

Without getting into a dissertation on the dynamics of human physiology, energy adaptation, and bioenergetics (as I could ramble on for hours on the topic) here’s the short version…

The use of lactate as a diagnostic to understanding a persons current metabolic state is extremely beneficial. Human physiology and bioenergy is very dynamic on a daily, weekly, and monthly basis. Lactate, along with many other biomarkers, as a static biomarker is pretty simple to understand.
Add in uncontrolled subjects (aka every human living normal life) with stressors such as training, life, mental, etc plus their daily fuel intake and availability, its like taking these static measures putting them in a soda bottle and shaking them up and trying to make sense of what is going on. Stuff is all over the place.

I have been studying lactate dynamics in the field setting for 19 years in a very heterogenous population. Understanding how various physiological make ups respond to training and other stressors is challenging but using a biomarker such as lactate can provide great insight to how an individual is adapting and handling stress from all sources. Implementing that data to adjust what stresses each athlete can handle at that point in time is extremely valuable for positive response physiological adaptations.

For example, let’s take the standard v4 data point that is commonly used to set training zones and intensities. Now, if I test an athletes complete physiological profile and do not stop the test at “lactate threshold” or v4 you will see that one test a value of v4 can be 100% of their maximal effort and another test just 4-6 weeks later v4 could be 50% of their maximal effort. Their perceived effort and exertion on both tests were the same but their net lactate values at maximal effort were drastically different. Two very different energy systems that the athlete was using to achieve a perceived maximal effort. If you set the intensities and values on a v4 or by feel you are missing the mark dramatically in both these scenarios.

In short, energy availability is dynamic. Perceived effort and feel matches what your current availability of energy is.

So, no in my experience of dealing with humans, they have not evolved to “feel” these energy differences as it’s relative to what they currently have available. Yes, can you have success in performance, “feeling” your way…yes. But me personally, I do not like guessing, I do not like assumptions and my main job is to improve performance. Use of objective data vs subjective data makes my job much more effective.