![]() |
View
New Forum Topics Today's Forum Topics Set as homepage |
|
|||||||
Welcome to CyclingForums.com You are currently viewing our website as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions. You will have to register before you can post to this thread. By joining our free online community you will have access to post new topics, communicate privately with other cyclingforums.com members (PM), respond to polls, upload photos and access other special features like product reviews and classifieds. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread | Display Modes |
|
|
#1 |
|
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
I've read a lot about using lactate testing in addition
to (instead of?) heart rate monitoring to make training more precise. How widespread is lactate testing today? How do you use it to improve VO2? |
|
|
|
|
#2 |
|
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
hbaker1@pipeline.com wrote in message ...
>I've read a lot about using lactate testing in addition >to (instead of?) heart rate monitoring to make training >more precise. > >How widespread is lactate testing today? > >How do you use it to improve VO2? > Measuring blood lactate levels can be done at intervals during a controlled sport-specific exercise session to plot an individual's blood lactate curve, and to determine that individual's lactate threshold (LT) pace, heart rate and precise lactate level (at LT). LT is also known as anaerobic threshold, and is the region of effort at which blood lactate starts to accumulate too fast to be neutralized. VO2max training is different from LT training, and is done at a level above LT; so once LT is known, you can use either a percentage above LT or a percent of maxHR to train at VO2max effort. LT training will improve the ability to ride at all speeds, particularly at tempo pace. The LT effort level area (pace and HR) can also be determined during sport-specific testing using a heart rate monitor and a carefully controlled progression of effort. There are many ways to do this but conconi's test is probably the best known. One book specifically about this and measuring lactate levels is "Lactate Threshold Training" by Peter Janssen, 2001. - Tony |
|
|
|
|
#3 |
|
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
<hbaker1@pipeline.com> wrote in message
news:qqlte01112o0sr4pvdicmeofjs4h70ff93@4ax.com... > I've read a lot about using lactate testing in addition to > (instead of?) heart rate monitoring to make training more > precise. > > How widespread is lactate testing today? > > How do you use it to improve VO2? I don't know but I saw Lance using a little handheld lactate guaging device in one of his Lance Chronicles episodes. It was called something like The Lactate Pro or something catchy like that. I wonder if they will one-day be as cheap as these $20 HRM's that we find everywhere. Dave |
|
|
|
|
#4 |
|
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
hbaker1@pipeline.com wrote:
> I've read a lot about using lactate testing in addition to > (instead of?) heart rate monitoring to make training more > precise. > > How widespread is lactate testing today? > > How do you use it to improve VO2? Training with a Powermeter is probably the most practical way to go about it. It will give you a very precise knowledge of your LT ( lactate threshold). Some that train with Power don't even wear their HR cheststraps anymore. www.topica.com/lists/wattage/read Before I started trainiing with Power I used to think my LT HR was 170 bpm. Today I know it varies between 165 and 175 bpm due to cardiac drift , temperature and other factors that are difficult to measure. I also know exactly how many Watts I can average for a given time period. The Power is much more consistent than my HR and in the end Power is what it's all about. I did not need to do any blood tests or visit a lab at any time. All I needed to do was to analyze my Wattage over a period of time using a good analyzing tool. www.cyclingpeakssoftware.com An example. My One hour LT is 270 Watts. If I want to do VO2 training I can look into the tables of the CyclingPeals Software and see that I should do intervals of 3-8 minutes at a Wattage of 286-326. Lower Wattage for 8 minutes and higher Wattage for three minute intervals. Updating and progress feedback is instantaneous. -- Perre "Power is the future" |
|
|
|
|
#5 |
|
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
In article <40eef493$0$96771$39cecf19@news.twtelecom.net>, Pistof
<dataylor123@yahoo.com> wrote: > <hbaker1@pipeline.com> wrote in message > news:qqlte01112o0sr4pvdicmeofjs4h70ff93@4ax.com... > > I've read a lot about using lactate testing in addition > > to (instead of?) heart rate monitoring to make training > > more precise. > > > > How widespread is lactate testing today? > > > > How do you use it to improve VO2? > > I don't know but I saw Lance using a little handheld > lactate guaging device in one of his Lance Chronicles > episodes. It was called something like The Lactate Pro or > something catchy like that. I wonder if they will one-day > be as cheap as these $20 HRM's that we find everywhere. The device he was using is good and only costs about $400, plus a small cost for the disposable blood extractor parts. Simple to use the device. Not as easy to use the information properly. -WG |
|
|
|
|
#6 |
|
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
In article <0KCHc.4669$dx3.37277@newsb.telia.net>, Per Elmsäter
<perDOTelmsater@telia.com> wrote: > An example. My One hour LT is 270 Watts. If I want to do > VO2 training I can look into the tables of the > CyclingPeals Software and see that I should do intervals > of 3-8 minutes at a Wattage of 286-326. Lower Wattage for > 8 minutes and higher Wattage for three minute intervals. My LT (4mMol) power is currently near 320-330 watts but I do VO2max intervals 30 seconds on/off for 5 to 10 minutes each set in the range of 480-550 watts during the "on" portion. Depending on your objectives you may want to add something like this to your training. -WG |
|
|
|
|
#7 |
|
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
warren wrote:
> In article <0KCHc.4669$dx3.37277@newsb.telia.net>, Per > Elmsäter <perDOTelmsater@telia.com> wrote: > >> An example. My One hour LT is 270 Watts. If I want to do >> VO2 training I can look into the tables of the >> CyclingPeals Software and see that I should do intervals >> of 3-8 minutes at a Wattage of 286-326. Lower Wattage for >> 8 minutes and higher Wattage for three minute intervals. > > My LT (4mMol) power is currently near 320-330 watts but I > do VO2max intervals 30 seconds on/off for 5 to 10 minutes > each set in the range of 480-550 watts during the "on" > portion. Depending on your objectives you may want to add > something like this to your training. > > -WG I do of course do different intervals than the ones prescribed above. It was as I stated an example of how my current fitnes will dictate at what level to train for different goals, with the help of a Powermeter and good training software. As for your 30 seconds on/off. If you look at what you average for 5 or 10 minutes, including the off portion, you'll notice that it is proabably in the range of 350-400 W which is percentagewise the same levels I work at when doing VO2max work at 3-8 minute intervals. I am in no way an expert on this. Just trying to follow the advice I've received, as I've understood it, from the Wattage group and Andy Coggan. Andy in particular has put down a lot of work in making Power based training effective and easily attainable by everyone. www.topica.com/lists/wattage/read Your Coggan levels would look like this at an LT of 330 L6 Anaerobic capacity 399 W and up Interrvals of 30 sec to 3 min on. app. 2 1/2 minute off L5 VO2 max 350-398 W 3-8 min on 2 1/2 - 5 min off. Preferably 2 1/2 min off L4 Lactate treshold 300-349 W 10-60 min on. 2 1/2 - 5 min off. Preferably 2 1/2 min off. 2*20 min very popular. L3 Tempo 259-299 W. Up to 2 hour hard riding. L2 Endurance 185-260W. Long Slow Distance L1 Active recovery 0-184W As your fitness increase or decrease, the software will adjust your levels. But Andy Coggan and co-developers of course explain it the best. http://www.cyclingpeakssoftware.com/power411.html Just hope maybe I've caught somebodys cattention and curiosity. I'm in no way affiliated with the CyclingPeaks group, but as a very satisfied customer I'd like to see them sell a lot of their products so they can continue to provide me with good training tools ![]() -- Perre You have to be smarter than a robot to reply. |
|
|
|
|
#8 |
|
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
In article <MhWHc.4729$dx3.37463@newsb.telia.net>, Per Elmsäter
<perDOTelmsater@telia.com> wrote: > warren wrote: > > In article <0KCHc.4669$dx3.37277@newsb.telia.net>, Per > > Elmsäter <perDOTelmsater@telia.com> wrote: > > > >> An example. My One hour LT is 270 Watts. If I want to > >> do VO2 training I can look into the tables of the > >> CyclingPeals Software and see that I should do > >> intervals of 3-8 minutes at a Wattage of 286-326. Lower > >> Wattage for 8 minutes and higher Wattage for three > >> minute intervals. > > > > My LT (4mMol) power is currently near 320-330 watts but > > I do VO2max intervals 30 seconds on/off for 5 to 10 > > minutes each set in the range of 480-550 watts during > > the "on" portion. Depending on your objectives you may > > want to add something like this to your training. > > > > -WG > > I do of course do different intervals than the ones > prescribed above. It was as I stated an example of how my > current fitnes will dictate at what level to train for > different goals, with the help of a Powermeter and good > training software. > > As for your 30 seconds on/off. If you look at what you > average for 5 or 10 minutes, including the off portion, > you'll notice that it is proabably in the range of 350-400 > W which is percentagewise the same levels I work at when > doing VO2max work at 3-8 minute intervals. Steady state intervals can serve different objectives than 30 seconds on/off. Think of the many accelerations during the shorter intervals. Each type of interval has its uses. This is why I suggested that you consider adding them to your training-not replacing your current method. > I am in no way an expert on this. Just trying to follow > the advice I've received, as I've understood it, from the > Wattage group and Andy Coggan. Andy in particular has put > down a lot of work in making Power based training > effective and easily attainable by everyone. > www.topica.com/lists/wattage/read > > Your Coggan levels would look like this at an LT of 330 > > L6 Anaerobic capacity 399 W and up Interrvals of 30 sec to > 3 min on. app. 2 1/2 minute off L5 VO2 max 350-398 W 3-8 > min on 2 1/2 - 5 min off. Preferably 2 1/2 min off L4 > Lactate treshold 300-349 W 10-60 min on. 2 1/2 - 5 min > off. Preferably 2 1/2 min off. 2*20 min very popular. L3 > Tempo 259-299 W. Up to 2 hour hard riding. L2 Endurance > 185-260W. Long Slow Distance L1 Active recovery 0-184W > > As your fitness increase or decrease, the software will > adjust your levels. Yes, but unfortunately power levels don't fall along a smooth, straight line when plotted against things like lactate and HR and the appropriate training levels are not necessarily a certain percentage of your LT power. It's good that you're happy with the numbers the software provides you. This information is far better than most of what is widely available, but the guidelines from the software are not necessarily the best choice for some people. -WG |
|
|
|
|
#9 |
|
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
warren wrote:
> Steady state intervals can serve different objectives than > 30 seconds on/off. Think of the many accelerations during > the shorter intervals. Each type of interval has its uses. > This is why I suggested that you consider adding them to > your training-not replacing your current method. > Agreed. Nor did I expect you to replace yours ![]() > This information is far better than most of what is widely > available, but the guidelines from the software are not > necessarily the best choice for some people. > Hey. This ain't no religion. Just adding my small thesis to all the others in the rbr testament. -- Perre You have to be smarter than a robot to reply. |
|
|
|
|
#10 |
|
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
In article <w4fIc.4775$dx3.37786@newsb.telia.net>, Per Elmsäter
<perDOTelmsater@telia.com> wrote: > warren wrote: > > Steady state intervals can serve different objectives > > than 30 seconds on/off. Think of the many accelerations > > during the shorter intervals. Each type of interval has > > its uses. This is why I suggested that you consider > > adding them to your training-not replacing your current > > method. > > > > Agreed. Nor did I expect you to replace yours ![]() I also do ones like you mentioned. Usually on a 2-4% hill. Sometimes with a 10 second sprint at the very end. > > > This information is far better than most of what is > > widely available, but the guidelines from the software > > are not necessarily the best choice for some people. > > > > Hey. This ain't no religion. Just adding my small thesis > to all the others in the rbr testament. It's a better thesis than most. -WG |
|
|
|
|
#11 |
|
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
"warren" <warren@usvhremove.com> wrote in message
news:100720041018348481%warren@usvhremove.com... > In article <40eef493$0$96771$39cecf19@news.twtelecom.net>, > Pistof <dataylor123@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > <hbaker1@pipeline.com> wrote in message > > news:qqlte01112o0sr4pvdicmeofjs4h70ff93@4ax.com... > > > I've read a lot about using lactate testing in > > > addition to (instead of?) > > > heart rate monitoring to make training more precise. > > > > > > How widespread is lactate testing today? > > > > > > How do you use it to improve VO2? > > > > I don't know but I saw Lance using a little handheld > > lactate guaging device > > in one of his Lance Chronicles episodes. It was called > > something like The > > Lactate Pro or something catchy like that. I wonder if > > they will one-day be > > as cheap as these $20 HRM's that we find everywhere. > > The device he was using is good and only costs about $400, > plus a small Hey, that's really not bad at all. It's probably a better investment than a pair of cranks. Do you have a source..., or better yet, the name of a good unit that I can search the Internet for? > cost for the disposable blood extractor parts. Simple to > use the device. Not as easy to use the information > properly. I wouldn't know. There probably are books on the subject, though. Dave |
|
|
|
|
#12 |
|
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Scroll down for a couple of points of clarification.
In article <MhWHc.4729$dx3.37463@newsb.telia.net>, Per Elmsäter <perDOTelmsater@telia.com> wrote: >> warren wrote: >> > In article <0KCHc.4669$dx3.37277@newsb.telia.net>, Per >> > Elmsäter <perDOTelmsater@telia.com> wrote: >> > >> >> An example. My One hour LT is 270 Watts. If I want to >> >> do VO2 training I can look into the tables of the >> >> CyclingPeals Software and see that I should do >> >> intervals of 3-8 minutes at a Wattage of 286-326. >> >> Lower Wattage for 8 minutes and higher Wattage for >> >> three minute intervals. >> > >> > My LT (4mMol) power is currently near 320-330 watts but >> > I do VO2max intervals 30 seconds on/off for 5 to 10 >> > minutes each set in the range of 480-550 watts during >> > the "on" portion. Depending on your objectives you may >> > want to add something like this to your training. >> > >> > -WG >> >> I do of course do different intervals than the ones >> prescribed above. It was >> as I stated an example of how my current fitnes will >> dictate at what level >> to train for different goals, with the help of a >> Powermeter and good training software. >> >> As for your 30 seconds on/off. If you look at what you >> average for 5 or 10 >> minutes, including the off portion, you'll notice that it >> is proabably in the range of 350-400 W which is >> percentagewise the same levels I work at when doing >> VO2max work at 3-8 minute intervals. >Steady state intervals can serve different objectives than >30 seconds on/off. Think of the many accelerations during >the shorter intervals. Each type of interval has its uses. >This is why I suggested that you consider adding them to >your training-not replacing your current method. >> I am in no way an expert on this. Just trying to follow >> the advice I've received, as I've understood it, from the >> Wattage group and Andy Coggan. Andy in particular has put >> down a lot of work in making Power based training >> effective and easily attainable by everyone. >> www.topica.com/lists/wattage/read >> >> Your Coggan levels would look like this at an LT of 330 >> >> L6 Anaerobic capacity 399 W and up Interrvals of 30 sec >> to 3 min on. >> app. 2 1/2 minute off L5 VO2 max 350-398 W 3-8 min on 2 >> 1/2 - 5 min off. Preferably 2 1/2 min off L4 Lactate >> treshold 300-349 W 10-60 min on. 2 1/2 - 5 min off. Preferably >> 2 1/2 min off. 2*20 min very popular. L3 Tempo 259-299 W. >> Up to 2 hour hard riding. L2 Endurance 185-260W. Long >> Slow Distance L1 Active recovery 0-184W The only "preferably" to any of the above interval prescriptions is that they are the way I personally prefer to usually structure my workouts. That is, I've never really made any specific recommendations for how people do intervals, merely shared what I've found to be effective. Along the the same lines, the guidelines/examples given for the types of intervals that would fall into levels 4, 5, and 6 should be viewed as simply examples, i.e., there are a million different ways of structuring interval training sessions, all with particular advantages and disadvantages. >Yes, but unfortunately power levels don't fall along a >smooth, straight line when plotted against things like >lactate and HR and the appropriate training levels are not >necessarily a certain percentage of your LT power. I'm not sure what you mean by "a smooth, straight line", but you can in fact predict how much power somebody can sustain for a few minutes to many hours based on just one metric, i.e., their LT. That in turn makes it quite possible to put forth training levels based on that power, and have what is practically a "one size fits all" system. The only trick is 1) understanding the science that makes this possible, and 2) having the the experience necessary to place the divisions appropriately. >It's good that you're happy with the numbers the >software provides you. This information is far better >than most of what is widely available, but the >guidelines from the software are not necessarily the >best choice for some people. First, the only "guideline" built into the software is a simple calculator that will figure your training levels for you. You're not forced to use it, though - in fact, there are also HR-based calculators using different systems (e.g., Friel's, USAC's, the BCF's) for those who prefer that option. Second, I'm not sure what you mean by "not being the best choice", but as I indicated above, it is indeed quite possible to describe practically any training session based on the power levels I've defined. Andy Coggan |
|
|
|
|
#13 |
|
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
In article <eCwIc.1009$Qu5.916@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>, Andy
Coggan <acoggan@earthlink.net> wrote: > Scroll down for a couple of points of clarification. > > In article <MhWHc.4729$dx3.37463@newsb.telia.net>, Per > Elmsäter <perDOTelmsater@telia.com> wrote: > > >> warren wrote: > >Yes, but unfortunately power levels don't fall along a > >smooth, straight line when plotted against things like > >lactate and HR and the appropriate training levels are > >not necessarily a certain percentage of your LT power. > > I'm not sure what you mean by "a smooth, straight line", > but you can in fact predict how much power somebody can > sustain for a few minutes to many hours based on just one > metric, i.e., their LT. That in turn makes it quite > possible to put forth training levels based on that power, > and have what is practically a "one size fits all" system. > The only trick is 1) understanding the science that makes > this possible, and 2) having the the experience necessary > to place the divisions appropriately. Actually it's the experience and knowledge that shows that "one size fits all" is often not the best one can do with the information and training plans built around "one-size-fits- all" are not optimal. For example, one can see increases in the watts at the 1mMol level that indicate the need for more or less training at certain low intensities, and this can happen (has for me) even though the watts at 4mMol has only increased slightly. I've had tests where the % increase in watts at 1 or 2mMol was nearly twice what it was at 4mMol. This is the kind of change you would probably want to see during periods with lots of training well below LT. The amount of change will also indicate if there is more room for improvement in this range (e.g. 1mMol, or 4mMol, etc.) or if the rider should just be doing maintenance training for this power range. The shape of the line plotted between 1, 2, 3, and 4mMol with watts can also change shape (e.g. from a steep curve in a certain lactate range to a more gradual slope upwards) and this is useful information too. Or the curve can just remain the same basic shape but shift to the right (higher power at all levels), which is what you are relying on with your method of calculating the "one-size-fits- all power training zones, but as I've mentioned here it's not the best for everyone because the shift to the right of the same shaped curve is not what always happens. However, for nearly anyone who wants to learn about their power-based zones from public information your method isn't perfect but I think it is the best available, which will help a lot of riders...if they'd only read it and use it. -WG |
|
|
|
|
#14 |
|
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
"warren" <warren@usvhremove.com> wrote in message
news:120720040900193678%warren@usvhremove.com... > In article > <eCwIc.1009$Qu5.916@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>, > Andy Coggan <acoggan@earthlink.net> wrote: > > > Scroll down for a couple of points of clarification. > > > > In article <MhWHc.4729$dx3.37463@newsb.telia.net>, Per > > Elmsäter <perDOTelmsater@telia.com> wrote: > > > > >> warren wrote: > > > >Yes, but unfortunately power levels don't fall along a > > >smooth, straight line when plotted against things like > > >lactate and HR and the appropriate training levels are > > >not necessarily a certain percentage of your LT power. > > > > I'm not sure what you mean by "a smooth, straight line", > > but you can in fact > > predict how much power somebody can sustain for a few > > minutes to many hours > > based on just one metric, i.e., their LT. That in turn > > makes it quite possible to put forth training levels > > based on that power, and have what is > > practically a "one size fits all" system. The only > > trick is 1) understanding > > the science that makes this possible, and 2) having the > > the experience necessary to place the divisions > > appropriately. > > Actually it's the experience and knowledge that shows that > "one size fits all" is often not the best one can do with > the information and training plans built around "one-size-fits- > all" are not optimal. You're confusing a scheme for classifying training intensities/workouts with a training plan. I would never advocate a 'one-size-fits-all' approach for the latter, which is why I try my best to avoid giving training advice over the web. That doesn't mean, though, that you can't provide an accurate descriptive framework for power outputs for different training levels based on a single number. > For example, one can see increases in the watts at the > 1mMol level that indicate the need for more or less > training at certain low intensities, and this can happen > (has for me) even though the watts at 4mMol has only > increased slightly. I've had tests where the % increase in > watts at 1 or 2mMol was nearly twice what it was at 4mMol. > This is the kind of change you would probably want to see > during periods with lots of training well below LT. > > The amount of change will also indicate if there is more > room for improvement in this range (e.g. 1mMol, or 4mMol, > etc.) or if the rider should just be doing maintenance > training for this power range. > > The shape of the line plotted between 1, 2, 3, and 4mMol > with watts can also change shape (e.g. from a steep curve > in a certain lactate range to a more gradual slope > upwards) and this is useful information too. > As I've said before, IMO you (and/or your coach) are reading FAR too much into the shape of the blood lactate-exercise intensity relationship. There are many, many things other than fitness that influence the absolute blood lactate concentration at a particular exercise intensity, e.g., blood sampling site/method, glycogen stores, nutritional state, etc. Consequently, you can't interpret the results as literally as you are trying to do. Morever, even if you could the only way you could execute a training plan based on such information with the requisite precision would be if you did all of your training on an ergometer (which would be sub-optimal for other reasons). > Or the curve can just remain the same basic shape but > shift to the right (higher power at all levels), which is > what you are relying on with your method of calculating > the "one-size-fits-all power training zones, but as I've > mentioned here it's not the best for everyone because the > shift to the right of the same shaped curve is not what > always happens. The training levels I've proposed do not rely upon making ANY assumptions with regards to training-induced changes in blood lactate concentration - in fact, what happens to blood lactate is totally irrelevant. Andy Coggan |
|
|