I’ve been reading some info about how VT and LT relate. i know that VT and LT don’t occur at the same point, but that you can use heart rate at the VT to approximate heart rate at the LT. I read an article on one university website that stated the heart rate at VT II is approximately the heart rate at LT. But, this seems too high? should i use heart at VT I or VT II to approximate my heart rate at LT?
Can you provide a hyperlink to the article? My $.02 is that you should just use real world performance testing and forget about LT and VT type testing. Real world testing is free and you can do it over and over again. Most coaches are prescribing training zones and programs based on real world tests nowadays. It is easier to work with and you could argue that it is a more valid way to determine training zones anyway.
Mike
First off … in many ways i agree with Mike, BUT if you are using VT’s etc. :
As i understand it, based on my experience and testing:
VT1 … (of course different for each individual) but likely 75-80% of VT2 Power … VT1 is the “true lactate” threshold, not the one everyone refers to as LT
VT2 … (same disclaimeras above) but power @ VT 2 is likely the spot where you’d AVG for a 1:00 TT etc.
One major problem is most don’t understand that true LT occurs much lower than what people think … there has been boat loads of discussion on this and why many people refer to the term now as “Functional Threshold” for the power OR HR you can sustain for approx 1:00. You can see there is a problem in usage of terminology as related to the “scientific” community and the “general” community. SO … i guess some folks might interpret VT different than others. 
My Best …
here’s the link regarding VT II and LT:
http://www.edb.utexas.edu/fit/cyclingaf.htm
the reason i bring this stuff up is that i participated in a study for a guy’s master’s thesis and part of the deal was that i got a free VO2 max test (on the bike). i haven’t got all the numbers back yet, but i do know my heart rate at VT I and II and my max heart rate. i don’t have a power meter so i was wondering if i could some of this data to be more objective when determining heart rate for various training zones.
Dave,
You can always define a Functional Threshold for any sport. For example, Daniels “T” pace is a Functional Threshold. Functional threshold pace/power correlates very well with Maximal Lactate Steady State, a lactate-based definition. You are right that Lactate Threshold, its correct definition, is a pace/power that is much lower than FT/MLSS, even though it correlates with it, of course.
As for the original question, even though the mechanism is not proven (yet), Ventilatory Threshold (II) does correlate very well with FT/MLSS. So if you’re using a incremental test protocol (e.g. Conconi protocol), the HR that corresponds to VT correlates very well with the HR for your FT. However, the pace does not, and in order to get a correct approximation you need longer stages.
even though the mechanism is not proven (yet), Ventilatory Threshold (II) does correlate very well with FT/MLSS.
Ass u ming that you’re not doing something that would dissociate the two, e.g., allowing yourself to become glycogen depleted, or pedaling particularly fast or particularly slow, doing lots of intervals vs. lots of steady state training, etc.
Test situation, normal world conditions, it’s a nice little test.
Test situation, normal world conditions, it’s a nice little test.
It’s certainly convenient, but given the fact that it’s clearly not a case of cause-and-effect, I’d say that the data should always be taken with a grain of salt.
I live in the SW and use mild salsa.
I live in the SW and use mild salsa.