I have the opportunity to get my LT tested through a local lab at a discount (tri club is subsidizing a portion of the cost) but I can only test running or cycling LT- not both. Which should I test? My thinking is the bike since it’s the longest portion of a tri so more accurate training info for it is most beneficial. Getting both done at this point is not an option, though I may do the other at some point in the future. Is it easier to infer running training zones from cycling LT analysis (or vice versa) or are they just too different? I’ve heard the rule of thumb that cycling LT is 5-10 bpm lower than running LT. Is this a reliable means of translating results from one sport to another?
I’ve heard the rule of thumb that cycling LT is 5-10 bpm lower than running LT.
Remember – LT is defined as “pace at which lactate first rises…” (running) or “power at which lactate first rises…” (cycling).
LT is not defined by HR, so using the HR readings from the test sort of defeats (part of) the point of the test (which is accuracy and precision). HR readings are an imprecise afterthought to the power/pace determinations.
With that caveat, I agree – do it biking and record your power and HR at which lactate first rises to the level the tester is looking for. But, it’s the power number that will tell you about your fitness. The HR number just gives you some rough guidance for setting training intensities.
Hi Julian- thanks for the clarification and the input. You’re right that LTHR is different from LT pace or LT power. The former will drift over time during exercise, while the other is more or less constant. I think we had this discussion a few weeks ago when I asked about whether I should ignore or obey HR drift. Unfortunately, I don’t currently have access to a power meter, so I my thought process is to test for LT power and it’s corresponding HR, then set training zones from this data. During training I would then set pace and PE based on these zones at the beginning of the workout, and then hold pace based on a constant PE, even if HR drifts. I think this is the best approximation in absence of a power meter. Thoughts?
Julian… you said, "The HR number just gives you some rough guidance for setting training intensities. "
I agree. But, you brought an interesting point in another post (at G.B.'s) when you mentioned an exception to your HR being only a rough guidance was when you used HR in a situation where Pace was not relevant. That situation was running up a steep hill and short in nature.
I noticed the same issue applies to altitude and extreme heat (at least for me - that is). Basically, when Pace is not “typical” (because of environment) then HR could actually become a better benchmark. Which made me think about the HR to Pace/Power relationship.
For years, I have always used both (HR and Pace for running and Power when I use my CT). What I have done is found that cardiac drift is my friend (so to speak). It tells me more about how outside the norm my pace is because of what ever the reason (environment, illness, lack of proper recovery, etc.). So, In essense I still find HR to be very useful… NOT because it determines LT, but rather **HR says more about how much I have deviated from my typical/expected Pace (or deviations within my typical power to PE range). **Why the deviation occurred could be many reasons (i.e., heat, altitude, sickness, etc). However, what has surprised me in the past is how HR deviations (while Pace and Power seemed within the norm) has been a good pre-indicator of problems that I’m not aware of (or, blow off as just “being out of sync” and insignificant).
So, I think your thought about HR not be a good representation of LT is correct… but, I do think you underestimate it’s value in determining situatuations outside “normal” training situations. Therefore, I find the combinationn of HR, Pace and Power to be crucial elements that are more useful for different reasons. I don’t negate the HR as much as some other do. Instead, I prefer to put HR on the same level, but for different reasons and with different applications. I think of HR is an added tool and less of a afterthought. Knowing when HR counts as a tool and less of an afterthought can be useful
I wish A. Coggin was around to ask his opinion… but, curious what you think?