LT threshold question

beison

Hey guys, I want to start out by saying, I've read a whole bunch of training articals and know a little bit about what I'm talking about before I post a question for ya.

So I've been training really hard for the past 2 months (about 10-12 hours a week) in anticipation of the collegiate cycling season that's coming up next week at Ohio State. This is my first racing season, and I've been trying to understand endourance training tactics.

I wanted to find out my LT threshold, and so I first found out my max HR, 207bpm, and then a few days later did a 30 minute TT on the trainer and used a HR monitor to record the avg of the last 20 minutes. I got an average HR of 192 bpm for the 20 recorded minutes. If you devide those two numbers, you get 92.75% of my max, and from my understanding, that means my LT threshold is close to 92.75% (as close as you get without an official blood test). I read in an artical, that the guys in the protour are around 85-90% for their LT threshold, and call me crazy, but I just have a feeling they're in better shape than I would be with only my 10 hours of training a week...

I do take some caffine before every workout, including when I did the TT--however, if I found my max HR with caffine in me, race with the caffine in me, and train with caffine in me. So I'd assume it's negligable.

Maybe what I'm curious about, is whether my values seem high or not? Maybe if there are any other road racers out there who've been doing this longer than me, you could throw some perspective my way?

Thanks a bunch!

daveryanwyoming

Well, I spent nearly two decades following the kind of max HR based training advice you just posted. It never worked, my results were all over the map and I paid some very well respected coaches to prescribe training based on those sort of zones you just described.

A couple of years of power based training and after a quarter century of racing I'm finally getting the kind of results I wanted. O.K., a power meter is a big investment for a college student but I've got half a dozen old HR straps lying around and if my PM breaks I still wouldn't use those to guide my training or racing again. If you must use HR to guide your training then at least base it on your HR that represents long full effort time trials, ideally TTs near an hour in length done on a well rested and highly motivated day. There's some decent correlation between HR at LT(or HR at FTP in powerspeak) and training levels derived from that anchor point. HR max isn't really all that useful.

Personally if I had to scrap my power meters for training I'd go back to training on perceived exertion. It's more accurate in many cases than HR, it doesn't suddenly jump up when a car passes too close nor drop if you're unusually fatigued. Overhead power lines don't disrupt perceived exertion either and as a racer it really pays to tune into your body for pacing with or without other instrumentation.

If you want to target Threshold efforts to bring up your sustainable power for road racing and time trials then do efforts at least 10 minutes long and better yet 20 to 60 minutes long at a steady pace that gets you breathing deeply and steadily. It should require concentration and it will creep up on you by the end of the effort but your breathing shouldn't get out of control or ragged and you shouldn't go so hard that you can't finish the effort. It won't take many attempts to figure out how to pace for a given length effort and that attention to your pacing will pay off big time in time trials and if you get into breakaways during races.

This is even more important for short efforts like 3 to 5 minute VO2 Max efforts or minute and a half anaerobic tolerance intervals. HR is all but useless for these short intense efforts because it just won't respond quickly enough. Just find a pace that allows you to complete the desired time with very little left to spare but enough that you can do several more repeats after short rests. Again you'll find out real quickly what you can sustain and what's too hard to finish.

Funny, an older racer first told me to do intervals just like that over 25 years ago. But then HR monitors hit the scene and high tech was the way to go. Now a quarter of a century later power meter data has made it real clear that he was right on target. Choose a time duration to target a specific metabolic process, find a pace that allows you to just complete the target duration with just enough left in the tank for the desired number of repeats. It's not very high tech, but it really does work.

Good luck,
-Dave

beison

Thanks for the advice, that's pretty much how I've been training up until recently, except since I don't have a power meter, I got myself a cadence sensor and using that coupled with the HR monitor it works alright to get a sustained energy intensity, especially since the majority of my workouts have been on the trainer...

But I was still wondering if anyone thought my LT value was high for the amount of training I've done? Possibly any ventures to guess why it's up there, or if anyone had similar problems with the LT threshold test?

__________________
Look out Lance...

Mish

What type of trainer do you use? If Kinetic, you could spend $45 on a Power Computer that works with a road machine. I know it is chintzy and plastic and all that, but it would help you with intervals and such. I don't have a pm but I don't race either. If I raced, even a little, I'd do what it took to get a pm, credit card or whatever. Spend the time wasted on poor training doing something like make money to pay for the pm or study so you can make the big bucks if the racing thing doesn't pay.

rmur17

just to speak to HR for a minute <gasp>: how did you determine your max is truly 207? Did you do a ramp test to failure for example?

In any case, I'm tempted to pile onto Dave's post re HR vs. PE and POWER but I won't!

totally fwiw: when I still wore my HRM strap for a 30-min TT, my HR % of max was typically around 92%. But what does it mean anyway?

__________________
rmur

dc.cyclocross

a few thoughts

1- I would suggest not using the last 20 minutes to estimate AT (since you can exceed AT at the end of the effort)- HR with 5 minutes to go or the average of the 15 minutes before the last 5 would probably be a better indicator.

2- a high % of max is affected in part by muscle fiber composition. it's not just determined by how fit you are. ie marathon runners can sustain a higher % of HR max than 400m specialists. maybe you have a very high % of slow twitch muscle

3- if you base workout zones off of AT (makes more sense to me), it probably doesn't matter much if you have an accurate number for what your HR max is. whether AT is 88 or 94% of max doesn't matter much for planning workouts if AT is the basis for your zones.

Urkiola2

With all due my respect. Let's stop using the term AT (anaerobic threshold). I know for some it is more convenient but it is a little over 30 years old...on top of not being correct.

Cheers.

dc.cyclocross

Training and racing using a power meter: an
introduction, p. 3 Andrew R. Coggan, Ph.D.

"Furthermore, while LT is often defined by sports scientists as the initial non-linear increase in
lactate with increasing exercise intensity (Fig. 2), this intensity tends to be significantly below
that which coaches and athletes tend to associate, on the basis of practical experience, with the
concept of a “threshold” exercise intensity. The latter corresponds more closely to what the
sports science community has termed OBLA (onset of blood lactate accumulation, defined as a
blood lactate concentration of 4 mmol/L), but is really conceptually closest to MLSS (maximal
lactate steady state) or IAT (individual anaerobic threshold), both of which represent the highest
exercise intensity that can be maintained without a continual increase in blood lactate."

I realize you don't stop breathing (or abandon the Kreb's cycle) at higher workout intensities, if that's what you mean...

Urkiola2

Actually ATP generation is provided by aerobic mechanisims (from CHO or FAT mainly) in most exercise situations. Anaerobic ATP generation it is pretty much only used at the onset (start pedaling) of exercise (like when we start out car) and at intensities above 100% of VO2max, like sprinting or extremely high intensity bouts (1-3min). Therefore a change ("threshold") from an aerobic mechanisim to anaerobic mechanism during a, i.e. 30min TT or climbng Le Tourmalet, it is very unlikely to occure because the mechanisisms used during that 30min TT or climb are aerobic. A different situation is the production and accumulation of lactate, which for the most part in cycling (except for sprinting or extremely high-short efforts) has nothing to do with aerobic or anaerobic situation. As a matter of fact most of the lactate produced during cycling is during an aerobic state. So the term "anaerobic threshold" is unapproapiate today in modern physiology and exercise metabolism.

Cheers.

Alex Simmons

I'd suggest Andy only threw the term AT in there as it is, unfortunately, still in common use, or to at least try to equate it with a definition that makes more sense.

And to quote someone:

"The Anaerobic Threshold is neither"

__________________
http://alex-cycle.blogspot.com/
http://www.cyclecoach.com/

Urkiola2

Of course, Andy is one of the best exercise physiologists and experts in exercise metabolism in the world. As I entioned before AT is a term that is convinient and largely used, especially when something is written for people who need to have some easy concepts to understand. However I believe it is time to get rid off that term. It was probably Wasserman in 1964 who 1st called it AT. ..that is 44 years ago...!.

Cheers

acoggan

Completeness was indeed my intent. It also probably worth noting that, despite the similarity of the terms, "anaerobic threshold" (AT) is not the same as the "individual anaerobic threshold" (IAT). Specifically, the former is based on ventilatory measurements, and is thus more properly referred to as simply "ventilatory threshold" (VT). The latter, OTOH, is based on measuring blood lactate during and after an incremental exercise test, with the data then used to estimate the exercise intensity corresponding (conceptually, at least) to the lactate minimum/lactate balance point/maximal lactate steady state. There is still the issue of the fact that muscle is only truly anaerobic at/above 100% of VO2max, but IAT is what it was called by those who developed this test*, and I am not aware of any alternative.

*http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/...Pubmed_RVDocSum

dc.cyclocross

ok... so, what's the new term for the "intensity formerly known as AT"?

The OP was trying to evaluate his estimated threshold (he used 'LT') from heart rate...

he doesn't have a power meter (FTP) and he isn't getting lactate testing done (LT/ OBLA/MLSS). so, what's the term for a heart rate-based estimation of "threshold"- Maximal sustainable heart rate???

Alex Simmons

Average HR for a 1hr TT.

__________________
http://alex-cycle.blogspot.com/
http://www.cyclecoach.com/