# Q - How VO2 max relates to Lactate Threshold?



## AdamM (Jul 9, 2008)

Question - what's the relationship of VO2 max to lactate threshold? The reason I ask is that I've read studies regarding the training effect of Tabata type intervals (20 seconds on /10 off x 8) and if they're to be believed, it appears they are very effective at raising VO2 max. Also, I think I recall Wiggins crediting a Tabata type work out for his jump in fitness too. However, for a typcial uscf wekend warrier, does raising VO2 max necessarily translate into improved performance real world or could someone have a high VO2 max not matched with a high lactate threshold? In that case, I'm assuming lactate threshold becomes the limiter to performance, not VO2 max, but perhaps I'm wrong. 

As it relates to training, if a rider has set aside two days a week for intensity/intertval work would that time be better invested doing the standard 2x20's twice a week or perhaps 2 days of Tabata/HIIT intervals or doing one day per week of each? 

Your thoughts are appreciated.


----------



## gonzaleziam (May 14, 2007)

Good question. Come on Alex, KI, Nitro. We are waiting.


----------



## kbiker3111 (Nov 7, 2006)

AdamM said:


> Question - what's the relationship of VO2 max to lactate threshold? The reason I ask is that I've read studies regarding the training effect of Tabata type intervals (20 seconds on /10 off x 8) and if they're to be believed, it appears they are very effective at raising VO2 max. Also, I think I recall Wiggins crediting a Tabata type work out for his jump in fitness too. However, for a typcial uscf wekend warrier, does raising VO2 max necessarily translate into improved performance real world or could someone have a high VO2 max not matched with a high lactate threshold? In that case, I'm assuming lactate threshold becomes the limiter to performance, not VO2 max, but perhaps I'm wrong.


I don't know anything about Tabatas effectiveness or whatever. I do them sometimes, but usually as preparation for some crit racing. 

As far as VO2, Lactate/FTP go, theres a few things to keep in mind. Your actual VO2 max is pretty hard to train. After a while it is what it is. Power at VO2 max is less hard to train, I think, but still genetically limited. The real key to training is training your power produced at lactate threshold to be as close to power produced at VO2 max. Somtimes riders (even experienced riders) have excellent VO2 max values and power, but haven't done enough training at threshold to take advantage of their genetic gifts. You want to work on pushing your body hard enough that it can sustain output near your VO2 max. Of course, there is no way to know what these values are without expensive testing, but thats why we have FTP and specific intervals for working on VO2 max and threhold.



> As it relates to training, if a rider has set aside two days a week for intensity/intertval work would that time be better invested doing the standard 2x20's twice a week or perhaps 2 days of Tabata/HIIT intervals or doing one day per week of each?


Yes.

There isn't one magical interval you should always be doing. Work on your limiters, train for the fitness you need to be competitive in a race. I've heard of Tabata-type negative recovery intervals being used in hour record training, but it was because the rider had trouble pushing at or near his FTP for full 20-30 minute intervals. If you're really worried about FTP, though, you probably need to be focusing on longer intervals or, if you're doing Tabatas, keeping the 'recovery' portion near a difficult pace.

Now how about someone come along and correct me.


----------



## iliveonnitro (Feb 19, 2006)

8x20s at maximal effort with 10s rest between intervals. So basically it is a mixture of anaerobic intervals that average a VO2max power over the 4 minutes.

From what I've read in discussions, they sound great to use in the lead-up before peaking for a crit. If you have the time (which everyone racing should have) to do proper sprints at either a higher AWC as well as VO2max intervals for longer durations, why spend the effort on a Tabata interval?


----------



## Guest (Aug 25, 2009)

iliveonnitro said:


> 8x20s at maximal effort with 10s rest between intervals. So basically it is a mixture of anaerobic intervals that average a VO2max power over the 4 minutes.



That's where I usually end up, the avg power for the Tabata is roughly equivalent to what I would set as a goal for VO2max intervals.


----------



## stevesbike (Jun 3, 2002)

what you are raising isn't Vo2max (which is typically reached after 18 months of training). What you are increasing is the percentage of VO2max that you can attain at threshold. Two people may have the same V02max - one might have poor form and be capable of attaining only say 50% of their V02max at threshold, while the other might be capable of attaining 80% at threshold. Both identical Vo2max but big differences in performance - one reason why V02max isn't a good predictor of performance.

By the way the original Tabata protocol was to do them 5 times/week, which is a lot more frequent than most people do.


----------



## Alex_Simmons/RST (Jan 12, 2008)

AdamM said:


> Question - what's the relationship of VO2 max to lactate threshold?


Riders typically vary between being able to sustain 70% - 90% of VO2 Max at Functional Threshold (long TT power).

LT is lower but closely related to FT.


----------



## aussiebullet (Sep 26, 2005)

Alex_Simmons/RST said:


> Riders typically vary between being able to sustain 70% - 90% of VO2 Max at Functional Threshold (long TT power).
> 
> LT is lower but closely related to FT.


So without getting a V02 test measured in a lab is there a way to estimate ftp potential based on power at V02 and what duration would one use as there is a "massive" difference in the power l can sustain from 4min - 5min.


----------



## Alex_Simmons/RST (Jan 12, 2008)

aussiebullet said:


> So without getting a V02 test measured in a lab is there a way to estimate ftp potential based on power at V02 and what duration would one use as there is a "massive" difference in the power l can sustain from 4min - 5min.


Well as you note, "power at VO2 Max" is not one single number for starters. VO2 Max can be induced by riding at quite a large range of power outputs.

You could, for instance, take a VO2 Max value and make some assumptions about gross efficiency and the % of VO2 Max you might be able to sustain at threshold, but they are pretty big ifs.

As for the relationship between 4-min or 5-min power to FTP, well that is quite an individual thing and will fall within a range of values typically but will be heavily influenced by your anaerobic capacity as much as your VO2 Max.

If you want to know your FTP, then test for your FTP. If you've done a 4 or 5 min test, then in a couple of days time do a 20-25 min effort and plug those two numbers into the Critical Power model by Monod & Scherrer. The CP value will be a pretty good estimate of FTP. Of course you could always go and do a 1 hour TT.

That's the whole point of the power meter. It enables you to measure what's important, the power you can actually produce (over given time durations).


----------



## iliveonnitro (Feb 19, 2006)

Alex_Simmons/RST said:


> Well as you note, "power at VO2 Max" is not one single number for starters. VO2 Max can be induced by riding at quite a large range of power outputs.
> 
> You could, for instance, take a VO2 Max value and make some assumptions about gross efficiency and the % of VO2 Max you might be able to sustain at threshold, but they are pretty big ifs.
> 
> ...


In addition, there are guys in the pro peloton with the same VO2max as me who currently have a FTP power equal to my VO2max power.


----------



## aussiebullet (Sep 26, 2005)

Ok thanks for the replys.

I have a really good handle on my FTP "training is testing" "testing is training" as the saying goes, 
I was really trying to workout (out of curiosity) if one can estimate their genetic FTP potential from a max 4min effort as l remember reading an interesting artical on Bradly Wiggans after the tour, how he new what he could get his FTP to based on his 4min power but for all l know it could have been a bunch of bull.
I guess there too many if's and I could set myself up for disapointment if l never reach a specific goal. Still it's fun to do the numbers just for the sake of it.

Let's say my max recorded 4min effort is 420w - 2% for variables in pt acuracy x 70% =292w min.
So far so good I'm already above that. Now 420w - 2% x 90% = 370w Ooh that would be nice! but not likely.
So ruff guess 292w - 370w potential FTP, at 68kg that would be 5.44w/kg

Think l'll just keep doing what l'm doing it seems to be working well, nice to dream though!


----------



## Alex_Simmons/RST (Jan 12, 2008)

aussiebullet said:


> Ok thanks for the replys.
> 
> I have a really good handle on my FTP "training is testing" "testing is training" as the saying goes,
> I was really trying to workout (out of curiosity) if one can estimate their genetic FTP potential from a max 4min effort as l remember reading an interesting artical on Bradly Wiggans after the tour, how he new what he could get his FTP to based on his 4min power but for all l know it could have been a bunch of bull.
> ...


As a rough guide, using Maximal Aerobic Power as defined by the protocol used by RST and British Cycling (mean max 1-min power from a ramp test to exhaustion at a 20W/min or 25W/min ramp rate depending on category), FTP typically falls withing the range of 72%-77% of MAP. It can be outside of that range (but not typically*).

I tend to find riders can sustain MAP for ~ 3-min max.

4-5 minutes pursuits are typically done at 88-91% of MAP although higher is possible.

So by rights, 4-min power would be lower than MAP (not necessarily but in general) and hence I would expect the ratio of FTP to 4-min power to be higher than the 72-77% range, probably more like 80-85%. But that's just a rough idea.

* ironically, I have been at either end of that range.
Pre-accident I had an FTP:MAP ratio of 315W:399W = 79%
Currently I am at 280W:410W = 68% (just tested last week)


----------



## aussiebullet (Sep 26, 2005)

Thanks buddy :thumbsup: 
I do alot of work at 105 -108% of ftp in the 12-15min range leading up to a taper before a big event and might replace one of these sessions with a map test as l'm well rested before doing any work above 100%,
As it is an all out test do you feel up to any tempo/SST after the test or call it quits for the day?


----------



## Alex_Simmons/RST (Jan 12, 2008)

aussiebullet said:


> Thanks buddy :thumbsup:
> I do alot of work at 105 -108% of ftp in the 12-15min range leading up to a taper before a big event and might replace one of these sessions with a map test as l'm well rested before doing any work above 100%,
> As it is an all out test do you feel up to any tempo/SST after the test or call it quits for the day?


Generally light riding only afterwards. It's short but brutal.
easy 2 days before, one easy, one rest day.

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


----------



## rchung (Apr 19, 2009)

AdamM said:


> Question - what's the relationship of VO2 max to lactate threshold?


----------



## Alex_Simmons/RST (Jan 12, 2008)

Picture Perfect Pith.

IOW, for those that sort screw their faces up at charts - there isn't much of a relationship between VO2 Max and VO2 at threshold, 1hr TT power or 40km TT times.

But VO2 at threshold, 1hr TT power and 40km TT times all have pretty good correlation with each other.


----------



## PhatTalc (Jul 21, 2004)

*Those charts*



Alex_Simmons/RST said:


> Picture Perfect Pith.
> 
> IOW, for those that sort screw their faces up at charts - there isn't much of a relationship between VO2 Max and VO2 at threshold, 1hr TT power or 40km TT times.
> 
> But VO2 at threshold, 1hr TT power and 40km TT times all have pretty good correlation with each other.


Firstly: considering that 40 km TT and 1hr TT power are basically the same thing, there had better be some correlation.
Secondly: they have used absolute VO2 at lactate threshold, and then relative VO2 max (i.e divided by athlete's mass). Considering that those TT times look like they are for flat courses where mass is much less important that power, it would be more instructive to see the absolute VO2 maxes.


----------



## rchung (Apr 19, 2009)

PhatTalc said:


> it would be more instructive to see the absolute VO2 maxes.


Hmmm. How's this for instructive? The paper is here. You want Table 3 on page 98.


----------



## PhatTalc (Jul 21, 2004)

Thanks for the details. There is a correlation between VO2 Max (absolute) and 1hr power, 40Km TT performance - if you plot them you'll see a linear relationship, with some scatter. I'm not gonna analyse this though!


----------



## rchung (Apr 19, 2009)

PhatTalc said:


> Thanks for the details. There is a correlation between VO2 Max (absolute) and 1hr power, 40Km TT performance - if you plot them you'll see a linear relationship, with some scatter. I'm not gonna analyse this though!


Of course there is, but it would have been more instructive had you done the analysis. Perhaps then you would have understood why exercise physiologists normalize VO2Max by body mass: VO2LT (in l/min) tends to be correlated with body mass so bigger guys tend to use more O2. Thats what the bottom left panel in that previous plot showed. A common approach is to "factor out" the thing that the variable of interest varies by. That's why VO2Max is generally quoted in terms of ml/kg/min: it's been mass standardized. The problem with this can be seen in that lower right panel: mass-standardized VO2Max *still* depends on mass, but now in the opposite direction. Dividing by mass overcorrects. This is why VO2Max, measured in ml/kg/min, is so poorly correlated with hour power. As you were trying to point out, *not* normalizing VO2Max by mass is more highly correlated to VO2LT and thus makes it more closely related to 1-hour power. Here's a plot that (sort of) shows this though rather than not normalize VO2Max by mass, it shows the opposite thing: VO2LT was normalized similarly to the way that VO2Max usually is. 










There's a reasonable correlation between VO2Max and watts/kg, particularly if you don't have any other measurement around, but it still leaves about half of the variance in watts/kg unexplained. VO2LT when normalized by weight (so it has the same units as VO2Max) explains much more of the variance: around three-quarters. So, VO2Max doesn't correlate particularly well with any of the usual metrics of cycling performance; the performance measurement it does the least lousy job of correlating with is watts/kg, and even there it's not as good as VO2LT.

Alex: this is why I usually prefer pith. [Edit:] It's why everyone who reads this stuff should prefer it, too.


----------



## PhatTalc (Jul 21, 2004)

*rchung: Are you pissed off?*



rchung said:


> ... but it would have been more instructive had you done the analysis. Perhaps then you would have understood why exercise physiologists normalize VO2Max by body mass:


That was patronising.



rchung said:


> As you were trying to point out ...


As was that.



rchung said:


> VO2LT (in l/min) tends to be correlated with body mass so bigger guys tend to use more O2. Thats what the bottom left panel in that previous plot showed


You think that plot shows that?


----------



## rchung (Apr 19, 2009)

PhatTalc said:


> That was patronising.


Good to know I can still successfully communicate nuance. 


> You think that plot shows that?


Ooops, no. I somehow thought I had also included this plot, which I believe does show that.


----------



## PhatTalc (Jul 21, 2004)

That was a long winded way of saying "yes, it is instructive to show absolute VO2 max", only to not do it. You really should explain what the red lines in your plot mean, otherwise they are useless (I'm assuming they actually need inclusion).


----------



## rchung (Apr 19, 2009)

PhatTalc said:


> That was a long winded way of saying "yes, it is instructive to show absolute VO2 max", only to not do it. You really should explain what the red lines in your plot mean, otherwise they are useless (I'm assuming they actually need inclusion).


I've pointed to the data. Since you find my comments insufficient, please let your next post to this thread show your own analysis.


----------

