# confused about lactate threshold



## SwiftSolo (Jun 7, 2008)

I've seen a number of definitions of lactate threshold and they produce very different numbers. I recently read this in Nutrition and Training "The intensity for these intervals is near and a little below your lactate threshold *(the maximum sustainable intensity you can hold over 8 or more minutes*)."

I previously believed that it was the maximum sustainable intensity over an hour, however, I've also read that it is sometimes thought to be the max over 40K (these may not be too different).

In my case there is at least 11 beats difference between max for 8 minutes and max for 60minutes.

What I'm really trying to find out is if doing five 10 minute intervals with 11 minutes between every third day is a good program for an attempt at a PB for a 1 hour climb. These intervals have an average of 95% of max HR but get to 98% max at the top. Days between consist of a 30 mile recovery ride and a 30 mile 80% max on the other day. 

This program is a natural pair of hills in my area that force me to these levels in my lowest gear because of grade and the resulting low cadence. The 11 minutes between is done at 78% of max.

Any advice would be greatly appreciated.


----------



## iliveonnitro (Feb 19, 2006)

SwiftSolo said:


> I've seen a number of definitions of lactate threshold and they produce very different numbers. I recently read this in Nutrition and Training "The intensity for these intervals is near and a little below your lactate threshold *(the maximum sustainable intensity you can hold over 8 or more minutes*)."
> 
> I previously believed that it was the maximum sustainable intensity over an hour, however, I've also read that it is sometimes thought to be the max over 40K (these may not be too different).
> 
> In my case there is at least 11 beats difference between max for 8 minutes and max for 60minutes.


There are multiple definitions, but the two you stated are not correct. Typically, true lactate threshold is the break point at which blood lactate levels sharply increase. You hold a pace right below your threshold for 3-4+hrs, ~2mmol/L. Typically, though, people prefer to measure the anaerobic threshold at a more simplified 4mmol/L as it is a better indicator of performance.

Anyways, what you are referring to is functional threshold power (FTP) -- which is your 60 minute power, roughly equating to a 40km TT.




SwiftSolo said:


> What I'm really trying to find out is if doing five 10 minute intervals with 11 minutes between every third day is a good program for an attempt at a PB for a 1 hour climb. These intervals have an average of 95% of max HR but get to 98% max at the top. Days between consist of a 30 mile recovery ride and a 30 mile 80% max on the other day.
> 
> This program is a natural pair of hills in my area that force me to these levels in my lowest gear because of grade and the resulting low cadence. The 11 minutes between is done at 78% of max.
> 
> Any advice would be greatly appreciated.


A 1hr climb is going to be your FTP, basically. Thus, you need to work on raising your FTP. With that said, your HR is off. No one I know can hold 10min intervals at 95% of your HRmax. You'd be lucky to hit it at the end of a 5min VO2max interval, but sustaining it is much too hard. 98% is what you'd be lucky to see in a sprint after a hard race.

Work on redefining your zones. Luckily, you don't have to test for max HR, as a 1hr TT (and the average HR for it) will give you the best zones. No going easy -- make it as hard as possible like you were in your race.

Then, work on VO2max intervals, sweet spot training (SST), and other aerobic intervals. It would serve you well to read these websites, even if you do not have a power meter:

http://www.cyclingpeakssoftware.com/power411/
http://www.trainingpeaks.com/trainingwithtechnology/determiningftpace.asp


----------



## SwiftSolo (Jun 7, 2008)

iliveonnitro said:


> There are multiple definitions, but the two you stated are not correct. Typically, true lactate threshold is the break point at which blood lactate levels sharply increase. You hold a pace right below your threshold for 3-4+hrs, ~2mmol/L. Typically, though, people prefer to measure the anaerobic threshold at a more simplified 4mmol/L as it is a better indicator of performance.
> 
> Anyways, what you are referring to is functional threshold power (FTP) -- which is your 60 minute power, roughly equating to a 40km TT.
> 
> ...


You've been really helpful. I'm interested in hiring you if you are availiable. How do I contact you?


----------



## SwiftSolo (Jun 7, 2008)

iliveonnitro,
Incidentally, I probably really don't know my max HR. The highest I've seen this year is 173-174 and I assumed that to be it. I have several intervals on Garmin training center that stay at or above 164 for 8 minutes or more. The 1 hour climb I've done many times and find I can only carry 153 for the 64 minutes involved. (I'm old)


----------



## Alex_Simmons/RST (Jan 12, 2008)

SwiftSolo said:


> I've seen a number of definitions of lactate threshold and they produce very different numbers. I recently read this in Nutrition and Training "The intensity for these intervals is near and a little below your lactate threshold *(the maximum sustainable intensity you can hold over 8 or more minutes*)."
> 
> I previously believed that it was the maximum sustainable intensity over an hour, however, I've also read that it is sometimes thought to be the max over 40K (these may not be too different).
> 
> ...


Firstly, LT is related to a measure of changes in blood lactate concentrations (usually 1 mmol/L above base line levels or ~ 2.5 mmol/L), and is not about heart rate. As stated, it typically refers to a power level you could sustain for several hours.

4 mmol/L is not an indicator of an "anaerobic threshold" - even if such a thing existed. There is no magic number in terms of BL concentrations that corresponds with performance over say a TT of ~ 1 hour duration.

Determining such power - BL concentration value relationships is protocol dependent and in the end, whether you look at power at 4 mmol/L or at 2.x mmol/L doesn't really matter since they are all highly inter-related and just a measure of metabolic fitness at different work rates.

I would suggest longer intervals - more like 15-20 minutes, ridden at a pace you could maximally sustain for ~ 1hr. Short recovery in between, say up to 5-min but really only as long as you need to go again. Mix in some 45-90 min efforts at a pace you could maximally sustain for ~ 2hrs.

At times, some shorter, harder efforts will help too (at the right time and in the right doses).


----------



## iliveonnitro (Feb 19, 2006)

SwiftSolo - I quit doing paid-coaching last year, but thanks for asking. I'll probably pick it up again in a couple years when I have more time and certifications to go behind my name. I won't give out training plans simply because coaching is a profession and I won't steal anyone's business. I know how it feels when people get free/cheap advice from "coaches" who are actually just good categorized riders. They typically aren't worth the free information. I do highly recommend finding a good coach in your area. Where are you from?

If you can carry 153 for the 64min, that is a great starting point. Work on 2x20s and 3x20s at a HR between 150-160 (the hardest you can do for those two) with 3-5min rest between. If you have 2-3hrs of time to ride, try to hold ~138-145 for that whole time. Do 1-2 VO2max workouts/wk ([email protected]>162HR w/3min rest is a good one) and a group ride if possible. Make sure you taper a little for the event.

When is it?


----------



## Andrea138 (Mar 10, 2008)

Just FYI- 

The way we test for LT in the lab is by giving someone a graded exercise test. We have a stationary cycle that you set for a certain power output and it changes the resistance based on how fast/slow you are pedaling.
-A starting power output is chosen based on the fitness level of the person being tested.
-Every two minutes, the power output is increased by anywhere from 25 to 50 watts (once again, depending on fitness level). 
-During the last 30 seconds of each stage, a blood sample is taken by finger or earlobe prick. The sample is analyzed for lactate level (using a device that works much like a blood glucose tester), and the level is recorded. Heart rate is also recorded.
-When the person reaches exhaustion, a final sample is taken/recorded
-After the test is over, you graph the lactate level for each stage then connect the dots. The point at which the slope of the line gets dramatically steeper is LT. You can also plot this in relation to heart rate, or just look to see what the heart rate was when the LT power was reached. 
-Viola... direct measurement of LT.


----------



## SwiftSolo (Jun 7, 2008)

iliveonnitro said:


> SwiftSolo - I quit doing paid-coaching last year, but thanks for asking. I'll probably pick it up again in a couple years when I have more time and certifications to go behind my name. I won't give out training plans simply because coaching is a profession and I won't steal anyone's business. I know how it feels when people get free/cheap advice from "coaches" who are actually just good categorized riders. They typically aren't worth the free information. I do highly recommend finding a good coach in your area. Where are you from?
> 
> If you can carry 153 for the 64min, that is a great starting point. Work on 2x20s and 3x20s at a HR between 150-160 (the hardest you can do for those two) with 3-5min rest between. If you have 2-3hrs of time to ride, try to hold ~138-145 for that whole time. Do 1-2 VO2max workouts/wk ([email protected]>162HR w/3min rest is a good one) and a group ride if possible. Make sure you taper a little for the event.
> 
> When is it?


I appreciate all of the help. I live in a little town at the base of Mount Rainier (Puyallup)--not far from Seattle. The two climbs I attempt to break personal bests on each years are the two classics on Mount Rainier (Sunrise and Paradise). The are not very steep or long---both roughly 10 miles and 2700 feet of climbing.

I can take a shot at them any time but plan to do it before the 25th of September when I leave for a 6 day tour in the mountains of NE Washington.

The great thing is that I'm retired and ride 5 or 6 days a week now. After Nov 1st I ski 3 or 4 days a week and the riding drops to 1 or 2 days.

One thing that still puzzles me is that it seems like intervals on 12 to 15% grades where the cadence is forced down to 50 or so are much more of a workout that the same time spent spinning at 85 or 90 with the same HR. Is there a difference in the benefit?


----------



## iliveonnitro (Feb 19, 2006)

SwiftSolo said:


> I appreciate all of the help. I live in a little town at the base of Mount Rainier (Puyallup)--not far from Seattle. The two climbs I attempt to break personal bests on each years are the two classics on Mount Rainier (Sunrise and Paradise). The are not very steep or long---both roughly 10 miles and 2700 feet of climbing.
> 
> I can take a shot at them any time but plan to do it before the 25th of September when I leave for a 6 day tour in the mountains of NE Washington.
> 
> ...


Depends. As long as you're working just as hard you are getting the same "benefit." The difference is that the slower cadence more works your fast twitch muscles and requires you to use more force against the pedals for the same power output.

The key is specificity. If you are going to be doing steep hills in Washington, train more on steeper hills. If not, train mostly on the less steep ones. Mix it up either way.

If you really want to rock in NE Washington, I recommend doing 20-25+hrs/wk for the next 2.5wks until the 15th, and then take those 10 days to taper.


----------



## Alex_Simmons/RST (Jan 12, 2008)

SwiftSolo said:


> One thing that still puzzles me is that it seems like intervals on 12 to 15% grades where the cadence is forced down to 50 or so are much more of a workout that the same time spent spinning at 85 or 90 with the same HR. Is there a difference in the benefit?


That's the problem with using HR as a guide to intensity. It is quite possible that you were putting out more power for same HR at the lower cadence (and hence the stress was higher even though HR hadn't changed). Don't read too much into that though.


----------



## SwiftSolo (Jun 7, 2008)

Alex_Simmons/RST said:


> That's the problem with using HR as a guide to intensity. It is quite possible that you were putting out more power for same HR at the lower cadence (and hence the stress was higher even though HR hadn't changed). Don't read too much into that though.


Alex,

Thanks for the info.
I'll be building a new bike this winter after the new groupos come out and I intend to go to a power meter. Couple of problems are: I'm completely sold on tubeless tires and so far that leaves out Power tap. The second being the question of the new shimano dura ace groupo compact crank with the power sensor--I don't know how long it will be till someone gets it done. The third is I like the Garmin and want to tie the new unit into the power system. Seems to still be some issues?

It may be that more tubeless rims will come available that can be laced to the power tap. Specialized is supposed to be working on it as well as campy.

I'd sure like to know how to get around these issues. I'm not in a hurry as I'll ride my current tarmac thru the winter and keep it as a rain bike for furture winters.


----------



## Alex_Simmons/RST (Jan 12, 2008)

SwiftSolo said:


> Alex,
> 
> Thanks for the info.
> I'll be building a new bike this winter after the new groupos come out and I intend to go to a power meter. Couple of problems are: I'm completely sold on tubeless tires and so far that leaves out Power tap. The second being the question of the new shimano dura ace groupo compact crank with the power sensor--I don't know how long it will be till someone gets it done. The third is I like the Garmin and want to tie the new unit into the power system. Seems to still be some issues?
> ...


Not sure the facination of tubeless. They are slow. For off/rough road stuff I can see the application.

SRM make a compact crank version of their power meter. FSA cranks IIRC. The wireless SRM works with the Garmin 705 CPU.

As far as coaching, have a look at our web site and drop Ric Stern or myself a line. I'm pretty full myself at the moment but I'm not the only one.


----------



## Andrea138 (Mar 10, 2008)

SwiftSolo said:


> It may be that more tubeless rims will come available that can be laced to the power tap.


Zipp will build any of their wheels up w/a powertap hub. Click on the link, then under "wheelfinder" in the top right corner of the site, click on Powertap

Zipp Wheels


//edit: nevermind... I just noticed you said tubeless, not tubular... I'm retarded.


----------



## SwiftSolo (Jun 7, 2008)

Alex_Simmons/RST said:


> Not sure the facination of tubeless. They are slow. For off/rough road stuff I can see the application.
> 
> SRM make a compact crank version of their power meter. FSA cranks IIRC. The wireless SRM works with the Garmin 705 CPU.
> 
> As far as coaching, have a look at our web site and drop Ric Stern or myself a line. I'm pretty full myself at the moment but I'm not the only one.


Alex,

Thanks, I'll check out your site.
Regarding tubeless, the facination is 3700 miles will zero riding flats after three years of averaging maybe 400 miles max between flats on various popular clincher tires and tubes. 3100 miles was on a single set before the thread was showing. One of my flats was a helmet busting crash following a blowout in a high speed curve (may have been a tube pinch--mounting error, but I had a number of rides on it). Pretty convinced that tubeless are faster than clinchers / tubes. Having a aramid ply running across the entire tire is likely the reason for the durability but apparently they can't afford to do that (weight wise) in tires without chucking the tube.

I'm pretty much a Shimano or campy fan and like the shifting on Shimano chain rings best. I've not tried FSA or Red but still have a bad taste left from the Grip **** days on mountain bikes. I'm thinking / hoping that all of this will be solved anyway within a few months.

I'll get back to you after I look at your site.

Thanks again.


----------



## Bocephus Jones II (Oct 7, 2004)

Andrea138 said:


> Just FYI-
> 
> The way we test for LT in the lab is by giving someone a graded exercise test. We have a stationary cycle that you set for a certain power output and it changes the resistance based on how fast/slow you are pedaling.
> -A starting power output is chosen based on the fitness level of the person being tested.
> ...


that is the most accurate way for sure, but you can do a timed test where you graph the HR every 5 minutes and then look for a "deflection point" where the HR spikes..usually right around your AT/LT. I believe it's called Conconi's test.


----------



## SwiftSolo (Jun 7, 2008)

Bocephus Jones II said:


> that is the most accurate way for sure, but you can do a timed test where you graph the HR every 5 minutes and then look for a "deflection point" where the HR spikes..usually right around your AT/LT. I believe it's called Conconi's test.


Am I wrong in thinking that the problem comes from not having a common language? Arn't most coaching workouts based on % of LT instead of percentage of Max HR? While I'm unsure of my LT, I think I can find my max HR (not entirely sure about that). It seems to me that a common performance standard that can be set/measured outside of a medical center should be possible?

The problem may be I'm beginning to suspect that old guys may have different physiology than young guys. The reason is that I have a number of training center workouts that show that I can go for 9 minutes within 2 beats of 165 (163-167) but that I never go above 174--no matter how brutal/painful and short the climb. I recently read a post from another old guy asking about the same kind of thing. What am I missing?


----------



## Bocephus Jones II (Oct 7, 2004)

SwiftSolo said:


> Am I wrong in thinking that the problem comes from not having a common language? Arn't most coaching workouts based on % of LT instead of percentage of Max HR? While I'm unsure of my LT, I think I can find my max HR (not entirely sure about that). It seems to me that a common performance standard that can be set/measured outside of a medical center should be possible?
> 
> The problem may be I'm beginning to suspect that old guys may have different physiology than young guys. The reason is that I have a number of training center workouts that show that I can go for 9 minutes within 2 beats of 165 (163-167) but that I never go above 174--no matter how brutal/painful and short the climb. I recently read a post from another old guy asking about the same kind of thing. What am I missing?


You can base your workouts on either--LT/AT varies as you get in better shape (it gets higher) while max HR is relatively constant for most and is largely genetic--nto a lot you can do to change it. Max HR is usually underestimated by many. The 220-age formula assumes a sedentary individual. No reason an active person will lose a beat a year by simply aging though eventually your max will get lower as you age--just not as fast. A true max HR is a very hard effort. You will be on the verge of puking and then probably add a couple of beats to be sure.


----------



## Andrea138 (Mar 10, 2008)

Most active people will still see a decline in Max HR as they age, though it tends to be much smaller than the decline of a sedentary person. 

Of course, just like with everything else in physiology- there are outliers. I have ridden with a guy that's 46 and has a max hr just over 200.


----------



## TurboTurtle (Feb 4, 2004)

SwiftSolo said:


> Am I wrong in thinking that the problem comes from not having a common language? Arn't most coaching workouts based on % of LT instead of percentage of Max HR? While I'm unsure of my LT, I think I can find my max HR (not entirely sure about that). It seems to me that a common performance standard that can be set/measured outside of a medical center should be possible?
> 
> The problem may be I'm beginning to suspect that old guys may have different physiology than young guys. The reason is that I have a number of training center workouts that show that I can go for 9 minutes within 2 beats of 165 (163-167) but that I never go above 174--no matter how brutal/painful and short the climb. I recently read a post from another old guy asking about the same kind of thing. What am I missing?


First, it's very doubtful that you found your MaxHR by just one, "...brutal/painful and short...climb." It is very hard to do and requires rested, multiple, short, maximal efforts.

But most important is to find a system and stick to it. When someone sets up a system (zones or whatever), it is based on the numbers they get with the testing they require. You have to do their testing to have a meaningful system.

TF


----------



## Bocephus Jones II (Oct 7, 2004)

TurboTurtle said:


> First, it's very doubtful that you found your MaxHR by just one, "...brutal/painful and short...climb." It is very hard to do and requires rested, multiple, short, maximal efforts.
> 
> But most important is to find a system and stick to it. When someone sets up a system (zones or whatever), it is based on the numbers they get with the testing they require. You have to do their testing to have a meaningful system.
> 
> TF


and for someone older probably not advisable at all without the supervision of a physician to monitor the heart.


----------



## iliveonnitro (Feb 19, 2006)

Bocephus Jones II said:


> and for someone older probably not advisable at all without the supervision of a physician to monitor the heart.


A stress test is good for this reason. Bruce treadmill test is hard and not fun.

The reason I suggested using your HRavg from a previous 64min climb is because you already have that number and it is fairly easy to generate. No need to kill yourself in a hilly crit with a hilltop finish to get your max HR.


----------



## SwiftSolo (Jun 7, 2008)

You guys have really been helpful.. I've been reading Joe Friel books (the Bible and Cycling past 50). With the help you've provided, I convinced I'll reach my goals for this season before the snow flies on these two climbs.

I'll be 65 next season and recently had to give up my first passion--high performance skiff racing (sailing). Too much stress on my hands. I may want to do some bike racing next year to fill the void, but in any case, I'll be trying again to beat my personal bests and that will likely require coaching. By then I'll have the new bike together with one of the power measurement systems.

Thanks again for the explainations.


----------



## Alex_Simmons/RST (Jan 12, 2008)

Bocephus Jones II said:


> I believe it's called Conconi's test.


The Conconi test is bunkum. There are no repeatable results to show such a deflection point exists, nor can any firm conclusions be drawn from it. IOW one cannot use this test with any reliability assess LT nor a HR value related to it.

The best quote I have seen on this is:
_
"I think that the consensus is that a Conconi test is a very useful tool for prediciting how well one will perform in a Conconi test."

-Rob Coapman_


----------



## Alex_Simmons/RST (Jan 12, 2008)

SwiftSolo said:


> Am I wrong in thinking that the problem comes from not having a common language?


Not at all. Unfortunately it is very common for poor or incorrect nomenclature to enter the parlance of sports talk and there is little wonder that people get confused or are led to believe something that has no basis in fact.

Some examples are:
- Friel's use of the term "Critical Power" as in CP20, CP6 etc, when the term already has a precise meaning defined in the late 60's

- "Anaerobic Threshold" (it's neither), it would probably be better to refer to OBLA (Onset of Blood Lactate Accumulation)

- The frequent misunderstanding of the term Lactate Threshold

And so on it goes.

As far as the use of different training "schema" (for want of a better term), in essence all they do is choose an anchor point and define training intensities as a percentage or a range of percentages around that anchor point (be it power, HR or speed/pace/effort).

Most of the better ones pretty much overlap in one way or another, typically broadly defining training intensities into:
- recovery level
- aerobic endurance
- "threshold" / hard aerobic
- maximal aerobic
- supra maximal / anaerobic
- neuromuscular

In some instances, HR is an ineffective measure of intensity, since by definition you can't measure past Max HR (which for instance can be invoked during maximal aerobic work) even though you are quite capable of generating power well beyond that level. In such cases, it is usually better to rely on other means of gauging intensity.


----------



## Shaggybx (Feb 2, 2008)

Hey guys 
I've been recently working on raising my LT.I'm doing my 2x20 min at or below my AT twice a week.
I have a couple of questions.
How long does it usually take to see a jump in your LT?
I know it takes years of training.
How long should I take to get into my HR zone.ease into it or ASAP?
Thanks guys.
Appreciate all the good info you guys give.:thumbsup:


----------



## SwiftSolo (Jun 7, 2008)

I wonder if these methods may overlook the importance of temperature/cooling? After thinking about doing intervals at a HR of165---steep climbing verses flats--- I think that the perception of suffering is likely more apparent on the steep climbing intervals because of the inability to shed heat as effectively--especially apparent on hot days. Cooling wind blowing at 24 MPH across your body may produce different results than wind at 5 mph?

How Is the ability to produce power (in watts) for sustained efforts affected by temperature? If it is affected, shouldn't it be a consideration in evaluating a training effort?


----------



## Bocephus Jones II (Oct 7, 2004)

Alex_Simmons/RST said:


> The Conconi test is bunkum. There are no repeatable results to show such a deflection point exists, nor can any firm conclusions be drawn from it. IOW one cannot use this test with any reliability assess LT nor a HR value related to it.
> 
> The best quote I have seen on this is:
> _
> ...


Interesting...so it's basically blood test or don't bother?


----------



## Alex_Simmons/RST (Jan 12, 2008)

Here's two examples of aerobic power workouts showing power and HR:

2x20:









7x4:


----------



## iliveonnitro (Feb 19, 2006)

Shaggybx said:


> How long does it usually take to see a jump in your LT?


Depends. I'm assuming you mean a jump in your power at LT. How new are you, what is your current power "at LT," how much training have you done and can you do, what kind of workouts, etc? Your question is similar to asking, "how long until I lose weight while riding." Well, it depends on your daily dose of riding and other factors.

Pros are lucky to see a 1-2% increase per year. Someone starting out fresh can increase 20% or more in one year.



Shaggybx said:


> How long should I take to get into my HR zone.ease into it or ASAP?


Which HR zone? You need to warmup before any intense effort. After that, it depends what zone you are aiming for. Some neuromuscular and anaerobic efforts will never net the HR you are aiming for because of the delayed response. Sometimes you are suppose to ease into an effort and hit your target HR for a time trial within, say, 5 minutes.

If we are assuming your 2x20's, I would say probably within 2 minutes at a steady ramped increase. If you hit it too quick, there's a good chance you went over.

This is why coaches and riders are understanding the importance of power meters. There is less of a need to rely on a less accurate HR monitor.


----------



## Shaggybx (Feb 2, 2008)

iliveonnitro said:


> Depends. I'm assuming you mean a jump in your power at LT. How new are you, what is your current power "at LT," how much training have you done and can you do, what kind of workouts, etc? Your question is similar to asking, "how long until I lose weight while riding." Well, it depends on your daily dose of riding and other factors.
> 
> Pros are lucky to see a 1-2% increase per year. Someone starting out fresh can increase 20% or more in one year.
> 
> ...


Thanks for the response Nitro.
I've been training strictly for a year now.I'm 40 years old.My LT is around 165.
I do 2 intense days during the week,intervals 2x20 or 3x10 etc for about an 1hr 1/2 ,before work.Always warm up first for 20 min,then cool down after
Other 2 days I'll spin ez for 1 hr.
On the weekends ,one day long endurance ride 3 or 4 hours.Endurance pace.
Next day fast tempo 2 hr ride.
I'm just a recreational ride looking to get in better shape.
Unfortunately I don't have a power monitor.In the future I would like to get one.
What I meant to say was, when will I be able to hold a higher heart rate over a longer period.
Like when time trialing,so I can set a faster time.
Thanks again


----------



## iliveonnitro (Feb 19, 2006)

SwiftSolo said:


> I wonder if these methods may overlook the importance of temperature/cooling? After thinking about doing intervals at a HR of165---steep climbing verses flats--- I think that the perception of suffering is likely more apparent on the steep climbing intervals because of the inability to shed heat as effectively--especially apparent on hot days. Cooling wind blowing at 24 MPH across your body may produce different results than wind at 5 mph?
> 
> How Is the ability to produce power (in watts) for sustained efforts affected by temperature? If it is affected, shouldn't it be a consideration in evaluating a training effort?


HR does. Alex posted 2 pics of a training workout and you can see the variation in HR at, presumably, the same power output. It's easier to spot in the first one. Like most intervals, the later ones will hurt more than the first ones.

Yes, your ability to produce power (in any measurement) is reduced in hot conditions. More blood flows to the skin to cool your body down which means less for your muscles. Among other reasons, dehydration increases the viscosity of blood, effectively slowing its flow while causing more strain on the heart. I think I read a paper once that mentioned 60 degrees (F) was the best weather to perform endurance exercise, as measured in marathon runners. That's pretty friggen cold; about as cold as I can go w/o wearing arm/leg warmers for the whole ride.

Temperature has a lot to do with your HR -- moreso than power. But, to get the proper training benefit, you have to do the work. This means suffering more sometimes. But, a kilojoule is a kilojoule, no matter the temperature.



Shaggybx said:


> Thanks for the response Nitro.
> I've been training strictly for a year now.I'm 40 years old.My LT is around 165.
> I do 2 intense days during the week,intervals 2x20 or 3x10 etc for about an 1hr 1/2 ,before work.Always warm up first for 20 min,then cool down after
> Other 2 days I'll spin ez for 1 hr.
> ...


You can improve that a lot. I would start by skipping the one of the 2x20/3x10 workouts and make it just an "sweet spot" session for as long as time will allow. This would be ~at your uphill TT HR, give or take a few beats.



Bocephus Jones II said:


> Interesting...so it's basically blood test or don't bother?


It's basically the most accurate. We would always do a graded exercise test and draw blood every 2 min, graph it, and find your zones for power and HR from it. Sort of a waste of time to do otherwise, especially when the equipment is available.


----------



## Alex_Simmons/RST (Jan 12, 2008)

Bocephus Jones II said:


> Interesting...so it's basically blood test or don't bother?


Or save the money from the tests and get a power meter so you can test yourself on your bike any time you ride.

If you use a power meter, testing for blood lactate changes is essentially a redundant activity.


----------



## Overhill (Oct 7, 2002)

SwiftSolo: Good questions. I am about your age, trying to stay very fit with time trials, and have many of the same questions. I did get a power meter, and strongly suggest you do the same. You are working at a high enough level to really benefit your efforts--pretty impressive heart rates for age 64.

Alex Simmons: As usual, many good observations. Question about training zones: I see no "tempo" in your list. In most "zone" listings I have seen something like 1-Active Recovery; 2- Endurance Recovery; 3-Tempo; 4-
Threshold; etc, etc. Where would Tempo fall into your zones?
Thank you.


----------



## Alex_Simmons/RST (Jan 12, 2008)

Overhill said:


> SwiftSolo: Good questions. I am about your age, trying to stay very fit with time trials, and have many of the same questions. I did get a power meter, and strongly suggest you do the same. You are working at a high enough level to really benefit your efforts--pretty impressive heart rates for age 64.
> 
> Alex Simmons: As usual, many good observations. Question about training zones: I see no "tempo" in your list. In most "zone" listings I have seen something like 1-Active Recovery; 2- Endurance Recovery; 3-Tempo; 4-
> Threshold; etc, etc. Where would Tempo fall into your zones?
> Thank you.


Well I was generalising about lots of various schema and lumped everything between recovery and near threshold work as aerobic endurance.

Tempo would be the upper end of aerobic endurance. In that generalised schema, aerobic endurance is a fairly broad range but typically covering a range of intensities you could maximally sustain from ~ 2 - 6 hrs.

Personally I use more zones which are based on using Maximal Aerobic Power as the anchor point. Indeed aerobic endurance is split into three levels and the threshold work is split into two levels. However, I should also note that such zones actually overlap to some degree.

How such zones or levels are defined is a balance between practicality (not too many to make it unweildy) and ensuring there is sufficient distinction between the primary physiological adaptations that occur when training at that level.

You can read about the levels I use in coaching here:

http://www.cyclecoach.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=70&Itemid=112

In fact there is a nice graphic there I created a while back which compares the RST training zones based on MAP with the Coggan training levels based on FTP as well as showing the physiological adaptations. It also shows the "sweet spot".


As far as age goes, well my oldest client is 65. He recently won the State TT championship for his category. He has been racing for 2 years. Although to be fair, he has been riding for a long time just never put a number on his back.


----------



## moab63 (Aug 7, 2006)

*Alex great read as always intelligent answers*

I have a question do you have a good estimate(files) about TSS for a xc mtb race, 50 or so k by a u23 top 5. I know thats a loaded question , I have a PT on the road bike. I read that the IF is some where araound 1.5.

My son is usually pretty hammered after an xc race, but feel ok after a 100k road race(hilly). So I'm guessing that the TSS is way up there.:thumbsup:


----------



## bianchi77 (Jul 15, 2008)

Well how can I know if my lactate is so high in my blood ?
Feeling so exhausted ? No power to pedalling ?


----------



## Alex_Simmons/RST (Jan 12, 2008)

moab63 said:


> I have a question do you have a good estimate(files) about TSS for a xc mtb race, 50 or so k by a u23 top 5. I know thats a loaded question , I have a PT on the road bike. I read that the IF is some where araound 1.5.
> 
> My son is usually pretty hammered after an xc race, but feel ok after a 100k road race(hilly). So I'm guessing that the TSS is way up there.:thumbsup:


I don't coach XC riders and have no such files, however it would be unusual for an aerobic endurance event of more than 45-minutes to have an IF > 1.05.

If someone is quoting an IF of 1.5, then their FTP is incorrectly set far too low.

Remember, an IF = 1 = riding at the equivalent stress of riding at FTP (which you can sustain for about an hour). If the race is much longer than an hour, then by definition IF < 1. How much less depends.

TSS = IF^2 x hours x 100


All I can think of is that you are confusing Variability Index* with Intensity Factor. In a XC MTB race, I can certainly believe a high VI approaching 1.5.

* ratio of Normalised Power to Average Power, which by definition must be >= 1


----------



## iliveonnitro (Feb 19, 2006)

Alex_Simmons/RST said:


> I don't coach XC riders and have no such files, however it would be unusual for an aerobic endurance event of more than 45-minutes to have an IF > 1.05.
> 
> If someone is quoting an IF of 1.5, then their FTP is incorrectly set far too low.
> 
> ...


Right.

Also, I'm sure this has something to do with feeling more fatigued (under "Weight bearing is best"): http://www.velonews.com/article/13527


----------



## moab63 (Aug 7, 2006)

*Thanks for the reply*

my son is a mtb racer first road second. He also lifts weights and the nutrition is also monitored. I understand the IF is 100 or 1 as the max but I just don't have any number from xc to see.

We'll keep working at it.


----------



## DrAndy (Aug 30, 2006)

FWIW the correct definitions (very much along the lines of Alex's comments) are:

Lactate (originally anaerobic) threshold - The intensity/power output/oxygen uptake at which blood lactate concentrations begin to rise above resting levels. This intensity will be sustainable for several hours.

Onset of blood lactate accumulation (OBLA)/Maximal lactate steady-state (MLSS)/Critical Power (the proper CP not the Friel version) - The intensity/power output/oxygen uptake above which blood lactate levels no longer reach a steady-value despite the intensity being held constant. This isn't the correct definition of critical power but it is the same intensity as OBLA/MLSS. The is what most 'coaching' literature refers to as LT.

FTP isn't a physiological threshold it's just the power you can sustain for an hour - that doesn't mean it isn't useful. By physiological threshold I mean that the physiological responses below LT, between LT and OBLA and above OBLA all differ from each other but are broadly similar in each 'zone'.

Alex is also right your best investment probably isn't physiological testing (that's me speaking as an exercise physiologist) it's a power meter.

Andy.


----------



## moab63 (Aug 7, 2006)

*Alex are you using the science of winning book*

by Jan Olbrecht, some of your descriptions sound familiar. Also do you du lactate testing or just power.

thanks:thumbsup:


----------



## Alex_Simmons/RST (Jan 12, 2008)

moab63 said:


> by Jan Olbrecht, some of your descriptions sound familiar. Also do you du lactate testing or just power.
> 
> thanks:thumbsup:


No. Indeed I'm not familiar with that book.
I don't test for BL, just use power. When using power meters, lactate tests essentially become redundant from a practical coaching perspective.


----------



## moab63 (Aug 7, 2006)

*Oh cool is a swimming book, is all*

about lactate based training. Keep up the good work.


----------



## SwiftSolo (Jun 7, 2008)

I really want to thank you coachs for your help. You guys and Freil's books have made my past two months of riding magical. My six day ride was over the top. I've never felt so good.

I still failed to beat my personal bests on the two 1 hour climbs on Mt Rainier (one of my goals for this season). 

I'll have a power meter soon and will do some indoor training this winter for the first time to avoid the short day weight gain that has always been a problem with me (skiing just doesn't keep the weight off anymore). I'm already looking forward to next season and will be looking to hire a coach to ensure those PBs fall.

Thanks again.


----------



## Shaggybx (Feb 2, 2008)

That's awesome:thumbsup:


----------



## bianchi77 (Jul 15, 2008)

What kind of training for me to make my lactate treshold better ?


----------

