The trickiest part of the test seems to be the
length of the test (time(test)) and the time to
deplete PCr (time(alactic)) since those two
values dramatically impact the accumulation
rate. On a bike, one can use a power meter
and stop the test as soon as the power starts
dropping. In the following paper: http://www.qucosa.de/fileadmin/data/qucosa/documents/14826/1742-4682-11-25.pdf
they use time(test) = 15 seconds and time(alactic) to
be time when power output drops by 3.5%.
Questions:
What protocol people use to measure VLamax in other
sports like running and swimming?
How reliable are VLamax tests in the field (not in the lab
on an ergometer)?
Is there an alternative to measuring anaerobic capacity VLamax
directly and using a reliable proxy that is not so tricky to measure?
I am interested in measuring maximum lactate accumulation rate
At ACSM 2015 Margot Niessen presented a poster of a study she and some other prominent researchers did on VLamax for running. The title is Estimation of Maximum Glycolytic Rate from Capillary Blood at Running Sprints of Different Durations - Margot Niessen;Ulrich Hartmann;Ralph Beneke These are some of the most knowledgeable researchers of lactate
I have a copy of the poster but is too complicated to post here. You may be able to get a copy from somewhere on the internet depending on what you have access to. They ended up recommending 80 m sprints to measure VLamax. It is very similar to the protocol you listed. Lactate after minus lactate before divided by the time.
The other alternative is to use Sebastian Weber’s software which computes VLamax and several other factors via his testing protocols. His website is http://bit.ly/2ldZzDW The software works with multiple sports
Two recent podcast with Sebastian discussing VLamax and cycling on Velo News
I tracked down the abstract you mentioned. I am posting it here in case somebody is interested.
I am slightly surprised that 9s - 11s sprint is enough to elicit VLamax.
Dan Lorang mentioned in one of his talks/interviews that VLamax is difficult
to measure in the field and that the cycling team (Bora) uses VLamax that
is computed by INSCYD software.
It’s too bad that many of VLamax estimation methods rely on proprietary software
and/or proprietary datasets. From my understanding of INSCYD’s approach,
the underlying principles have been published and peer-reviewed,
(https://www.researchgate.net/...t_of_the_muscle_cell) but there are still missing components
of various “magic” constants that are needed for the model to produce meaningful numbers.
Some researchers believe that there’s no good way of measuring anaerobic capacity (either using
lactate or oxygen deficit approach).
I am slightly surprised that 9s - 11s sprint is enough to elicit VLamax.
In the Niesssen study they used sprints of 40m to 300m and the highest values were for 80m.
The concept and model for VLamax was developed at Cologne and a mathematical model was developed. Jan Olbrecht who got his PhD from Cologne was the first to widely use it and became known due to his work advising Luc van Lierde and then to the coaches of several other world champions, mostly in swimming. Olbrecht still works with van Lierde and triathletes. He also was the adviser to Victor Campenaerts leading up to his world record http://bit.ly/2HcsaU4
Sebastian Weber came later but also from Cologne and has worked mainly with elite cyclists. His software is available to any athlete for a fee.
Dan Lorang mentioned in one of his talks/interviews that VLamax is difficult
to measure
Yes, it is very difficult to measure since there is no obvious external marker such as oxygen consumption. And that is the reason it has been ignored. But because it is difficult to measure doesn’t mean it is not there and the insight that came out of Cologne in the 1980’s was its effect on energy consumption and performance. See http://bit.ly/2ZSeiXA
The other alternative is to use Sebastian Weber’s software which computes VLamax and several other factors via his testing protocols. His website is http://bit.ly/2ldZzDW The software works with multiple sports
I believe (please correct me if I’m wrong) that A. the software is only available to coaches and not directly to athletes and B. it only works for cycling based on a power test - there’s no test for running
Yes, the INSCYD test is only directly available to coaches (and institutions),
but there are several coaching services that offer the test.
The test is available for any sport as long as you can provide speed/lactate
or power/lactate data. So, it would work for running since you know the
pace when you do the test.
It wouldn’t work for cross-country skiing (something I am also
interested in), because you can’t have speed data (unless you
do a test on a treadmill with roller-skis).
I will ask Sebastian about this. My guess is that if a xcountry skier used the same course and varied the speed, the software would be able to calculate the VLamax but I am not positive.
1.) The Sprint test using 3.5% power drop off is a plagiat and pretty poorly done copy of the original method I developed and validated 2002/2003. It is only valid if the ergometer is set up specifically in terms of intertia, gearing, fly wheel mass (…think about doing a standing start sprint in 39x21 vs. 53x11 …your power profile will be very different).
2.) There are ways to determine VLamax in other sports, such as running for example. We did this in 2002 & 2003 with some olympic hockey and handball teams. It works pretty good. There is even a treadmill test for it, again given specific settings for the treadmill. It works almost as good as in cycling.
3.) Also correct is that INSCYD software computes VLamax for you based on data coming from non sprint tests, this works in almost any sport. This said, XC ski isnt easy but doable. As for today we have measured reliable VLamax values in running, skating (ice and road), kajaking, rowing, swimming and cycling of course.
I don’t see a reason why it shouldnt work also in other disciplines. However, from a practical application perspective most coaches and scientists seem to prefer the calculated VLamax from INSCYD over a direct measurement.
Send me a PM here if you are interested in chatting about specific protocols for running or skiing.
My guess is that if a xcountry skier used the same course and varied the speed, the software would be able to calculate the
VLamax but I am not positive.
The problem with cross-country skiing is that conditions are never the same. So, even if you ski on the same course all the time, the
speed will always be different because of temperature/humidity/snow conditions/different skis/wax, etc. It’s the same reason as why
you can’t use pace for intensity monitoring in skiing. There are some power-meters now, but they measure something different than
power in cycling.
One may be able to do repeatable test on roller-skis, but even there the pavement temperature (and how used the wheels are) makes
a difference. Hard, but not impossible.
Thanks for clarifications. Do you have any published work (yours) on measuring VLamax in the field or in the lab?
As you pointed out, it seems very very tricky to get it right in the lab and even trickier in the field
especially if you want to be consistent over time.
The issue I have with a very short test (such as 10s sprint test) is that in such a short amount of time
glycolitic metabolism may barely get activated. There is some stored creatine-phosphate (CP) and ATP
in the muscles, so the test would have to be long enough to deplete stored ATP and CP (and know how
long this takes), but not too long. 30s Wingate test seems too long as aerobic metabolism would
probably contribute significantly.
However, from a practical application perspective most coaches and scientists seem to prefer the calculated VLamax from INSCYD over a direct measurement.
This makes sense and I see how this would be more reliable over direct measurements. While you have validated your simulations
and measurements, I am very curious about testing some of these protocols (and maybe compare them to simulated values).
Creatine Phosphate will not be depleted during such a test, either 30s or 10s
and ATP is never depleted, the only status when this happens is when rigor mortis sets in
Again, if you want to discuss specific protocols we can do this directly
.
The concept and model for VLamax was developed at Cologne and a mathematical model was developed. Jan Olbrecht who got his PhD from Cologne was the first to widely use it and became known due to his work advising Luc van Lierde and then to the coaches of several other world champions, mostly in swimming. Olbrecht still works with van Lierde and triathletes. He also was the adviser to Victor Campenaerts leading up to his world record http://bit.ly/2HcsaU4
Sebastian Weber came later but also from Cologne and has worked mainly with elite cyclists. His software is available to any athlete for a fee.
Alois Mader deserves a mention & a large amount of credit for his formative work in VLamax & his later work in its modeling.
Alois Mader deserves a mention & a large amount of credit for his formative work in VLamax & his later work in its modeling.
Absolutely. Mader is the intellect behind most of the Cologne model and published several articles on it. Unfortunately some are in German so I personally do not understand them.
We give nearly all the credit to Mader on our website. Olbrecht and Weber were two of his students and worked directly with several world champions using his ideas.
To see some of the reaction here when I brought up Mader’s work, search for Mader on Slowtwitch and find a thread titled “no lactate threshold.” The comments made to diminish Mader are the most interesting. http://bit.ly/30e8qIz
Alois Mader deserves a mention & a large amount of credit for his formative work in VLamax & his later work in its modeling.
To see some of the reaction here when I brought up Mader’s work, search for Mader on Slowtwitch and find a thread titled “no lactate threshold.” The comments made to diminish Mader are the most interesting. http://bit.ly/30e8qIz
Thanks Jerry,
After scrolling through that, I better understand your reluctance to bring him up again
Not surprising, though, as Coggan’s FTP world view is mighty strong around these parts and any suggestion that there might be more complex physiological system interactions at play borders on heresy
Anyhow, just wanted to draw attention to Mader’s formative research. Sometimes when these proprietary software packages come out, the research originators are largely forgotten/not given the credit they deserve (e.g. Banister’s HUGE influence in the development of the PMC). The research also helps us better understand/validate what’s behind the proprietary algorithms.
any suggestion that there might be more complex physiological system interactions at play borders on heresy
But Olbrecht’s and Weber’s success have to say something. No training adviser in the world has had more Olympic, World Championship and European Championship medal winners than Jan. Weber is much younger and already has a boatload of high level success stories.
. No training adviser in the world has had more Olympic, World Championship and European Championship medal winners than Jan.
That may be a slight overstatement (I can think of a few contenders) but my own biases may be at play as well - I was doing my apprenticeship under Thorpe’s coach shortly before he and Pieter were duking it out
But, no argument that Jan is one of the sharpest minds out there. “The Science of Winning” had a huge influence on me when I first read it and is still one of my favorites. Sebastian also comes across as very cluey from what I’ve heard from him on podcasts etc.
Personally, I’m just happy to see a move away from the “FTP is everything” paradigm. Because, as you stated in that other post. There are more ‘moving parts’ to consider, especially wrt training, than solely looking at FTP.
Not surprising, though, as Coggan’s FTP world view is mighty strong around these parts and any suggestion that there might be more complex physiological system interactions at play borders on heresy
Yes, hasn’t Dr AC’s work been bastardised and misinterpreted by many.
Can see why someone with his credentials in exercise physiology gets tetchy when people with fewer palmares do that.
It staggers me that so few see the intent of many of the metrics that Andy developed, to create function methods of analysing power meter data, based on a sound understanding of the underlying physiology, to allow more cyclists to take control of their performance.
But then, a functional method of doing so, based on simple metrics from a power meter and other measures like resting heart rate and RPE, would make a lot of so called exercise physiologists redundant.
Yes, hasn’t Dr AC’s work been bastardised and misinterpreted by many.
Yes, including himself! He keeps changing his own definition of FTP! Makes it very hard for us ‘so called exercise physiologists’ to keep up with what physiological measure he’s trying to approximate! Let alone the cyclists who are trying to use this point to ‘take control of their performance’.
You’re confusing the concept of a threshold with the ways of estimating a threshold. Doesn’t seem too unreasonable to expect that in 15 or so years of the concept of FTP, that Andy and others would come up with better methods.
That being said, recent studies using the 95% of 20min power, with or without the prescribed anaerobic blowout do indicate that even Hunter’s method is not that bad for the weekend warrior looking to get started with training with power.
With regards to VLamax I would suggest newer metrics in WKO4 offer as good an estimation of the physiology for the price of a software licence.
You’re confusing the concept of a threshold with the ways of estimating a threshold.
In his latest TP article, he now suggests 5 very different, very vague ways of estimating FTP that could potentially result in quite different numbers e.g.
“simply evaluate the power that you can routinely produce in training during long(?) hard(?) efforts” vs
"you may wish to perform formal testing to determine your ‘critical power’ vs
“you can use your Normalized Power from a ~60min mass start road race”
Add to these, as you brought up, the 20min * 0.95 with or without the recommended warm up and anaerobic ‘blow out’ from the original Training and Racing with a Power Meter and you’re very right, when it comes to answering the simple question, “What is my FTP?” it all gets, well, confusing!
Surely, if we move away from physiological testing to a ‘functional’ test, it is essential that we define one specific functional context that we’re testing over!
Much less confusing IMHO to stick with a finger prick and the simple question…
*“Is my blood lactate steady at this power output or going up?” *
