# my lactate threashold is too high?



## 2ndPlace (Sep 17, 2008)

ok some stats first:

46 years old, 150 lbs, 5'10"
riding on and off for the last 20 years.
very strong on the hills, long distance and in sprints
high metabolism

max heart rate 210(repeatable every interval by doing 4x20, with 3-4 mins in between getting back down to 130 hr)

LT 180

i can sustain 190 hr for about an hour of intense hill climbing, then either boink or come down to about 180 for the next 3-4 hours, then either hide in the pack or keep it to about 160 hr with only a couple of 10 min. all out sprints left.

nutrition is super important as my body needs twice what most riders need to sustain the same power seems like.



are my numbers wrong?


----------



## Andrea138 (Mar 10, 2008)

Probably not. I see similar numbers for myself, though I'm younger and female, which makes such a high MHR slightly more "normal"

You seem to have a good handle on it, so I wouldn't worry.


----------



## Creakyknees (Sep 21, 2003)

Don't worry about what HR your LT sits at. That's highly individual and varies from day to day depending on a lot of factors.

Worry about "how fast can I go" or "how much power can I crank out" at LT.


----------



## M__E (Apr 21, 2006)

that equates to a 'lactate threshold' of 91% MHR which is actually the same as mine at 91% MHR...at altitude I might add, on a 8mile 8% climb...as for riding at 180 for 3-4hrs after? thats were we differ this is my threshold 1hr effort and theres no gas left in tghe tank then.


----------



## Ridewillieride (Jul 15, 2007)

I envy your numbers, especially that max HR. I'm 56 years old, 155lbs, 5' 7". Twice weekly I train with weights, starting with 150lb bench presses, and dumbbell rows at 75lbs. I have instructed aerobics classes for 20 years, currently instructing a step class then a high-low class back to back on Thursday nights, a muscle conditioning class then a step class back to back on Saturdays until spring. During winter I ride a trainer 3 or 4 evenings a week. My resting HR is 46, max around 162. Recently I did the "20 minute test": warm up 15 minutes, TT effort for 30minutes, take average HR for the last 20 as LT. The result was 146. My heart rate dropped from that 146 to 105 after the first minute of my cooldown.

Hills were a weakness 20 years ago, and now the same hills seem steeper and longer, especially riding with guys 20 years my junior. However, I can better a lot of the same guys in a sprint and in a 16 kilometer TT.

Just like you I wonder if my numbers are right. During conversation after group rides my max HR seems really low. I ask myself if I haven't pushed myself to the limit yet, but think I have.



2ndPlace said:


> ok some stats first:
> 
> 46 years old, 150 lbs, 5'10"
> riding on and off for the last 20 years.
> ...


----------



## 2ndPlace (Sep 17, 2008)

Ridewillieride said:


> I envy your numbers, especially that max HR. I'm 56 years old, 155lbs, 5' 7". Twice weekly I train with weights, starting with 150lb bench presses, and dumbbell rows at 75lbs. I have instructed aerobics classes for 20 years, currently instructing a step class then a high-low class back to back on Thursday nights, a muscle conditioning class then a step class back to back on Saturdays until spring. During winter I ride a trainer 3 or 4 evenings a week. My resting HR is 46, max around 162. Recently I did the "20 minute test": warm up 15 minutes, TT effort for 30minutes, take average HR for the last 20 as LT. The result was 146. My heart rate dropped from that 146 to 105 after the first minute of my cooldown.
> 
> Hills were a weakness 20 years ago, and now the same hills seem steeper and longer, especially riding with guys 20 years my junior. However, I can better a lot of the same guys in a sprint and in a 16 kilometer TT.
> 
> Just like you I wonder if my numbers are right. During conversation after group rides my max HR seems really low. I ask myself if I haven't pushed myself to the limit yet, but think I have.



Ridewillieride,

your numbers i think are more representative of what is normal. you got great recovery so your fitness is good. your LT/MAX of 146/162 is where it should be. you can increase your LT just by doing more 30-50 mins intervals at 148-150HR(LT+2-4).

i do these kind of workouts all the time(most of my life). for me having a LT closer to max HR gives me more headroom to play with during racing. 

don't worry where your numbers are at, just what you can do with those numbers. i am a high revving machine. always been. most riders that can keep up with me are way below in HR, but we are putting out the same watts.
it all depends on how long and how hard you are working compared to the watts. fitness is key. and we all have different kinds of bodies and stregnths.

i have most always trained my weknesses. as a sprinter i pushed the hills and endurence for so long now that they are my strengths as well. 




i have found that age is just a number until the age of 50ish. then you either get faster or things just don't repair as fast and max's just start to decline.
i can still beat most guys of any age if my fitness is there. 
cept there is this 12 year old that is beating everybody in the hillclimb races lately. he weighs nothing, really! the perfect balence of weight/strength/youth.
i remember being that kid and that weight once. he will grow up and have to work as hard as the rest of us soon though.


----------



## Alex_Simmons/RST (Jan 12, 2008)

Ridewillieride said:


> I envy your numbers, especially that max HR.


Why? HR (or Max HR) is not a measure of fitness or capability. It's just a measure of how fast your heart beats (or can beat).

If his power output at LT was at a higher watts per kg, then you'd have something to be envious of.


----------



## 2ndPlace (Sep 17, 2008)

maybe you might want to read the post a little better.

thats what i said. its not the HR, but what you are putting out(watts if you like to call it) what matters.

HR is important in that without fitness one million watts make no difference if you can only sustain it for only a short time.

having a higher LT reletive to your theoretical max HR gives you the ability to run higher output and recover faster if you dip lower than that higher LT.


----------



## Alex_Simmons/RST (Jan 12, 2008)

2ndPlace said:


> maybe you might want to read the post a little better.
> 
> thats what i said. its not the HR, but what you are putting out(watts if you like to call it) what matters.
> 
> ...


Well it wasn't your post I was commenting on. Have a look at who I was quoting.

HR is not a measure of fitness and does not tell you how much power you are putting out. It's how much power you can sustain that matters, since that is what determines your performance. I'm not talking about instantaneous power. I'm talking about sustainable power, over an hour for instance.

HR is OK as a general guide to the intensity of your rides, maybe a check of resting pulse in the morning to see if it's unusually elevated, but that's about it. Ascribing anything more to it is just reading tea leaves.


----------



## iliveonnitro (Feb 19, 2006)

Alex_Simmons/RST said:


> Well it wasn't your post I was commenting on. Have a look at who I was quoting.
> 
> HR is not a measure of fitness and does not tell you how much power you are putting out. It's how much power you can sustain that matters, since that is what determines your performance. I'm not talking about instantaneous power. I'm talking about sustainable power, over an hour for instance.
> 
> HR is OK as a general guide to the intensity of your rides, maybe a check of resting pulse in the morning to see if it's unusually elevated, but that's about it. Ascribing anything more to it is just reading tea leaves.


I think you over exaggerate the negatives of a HR monitor. Compared to nothing, I would still choose the HR monitor any day. At least you can be reasonably close to a target workload with steady-state efforts.


----------



## Alex_Simmons/RST (Jan 12, 2008)

iliveonnitro said:


> I think you over exaggerate the negatives of a HR monitor. Compared to nothing, I would still choose the HR monitor any day. At least you can be reasonably close to a target workload with steady-state efforts.


Er - that's what I said isn't it? - it's good for guiding the general intensity of your rides.

Certainly I provide HR based guidelines in training when that is what the athlete has (and I would prefer that combined with PE than nothing).

My point is people try to read too much else into HR. Better to understand it's limitations and know what it is good for, than looking for magic that's just not there.


----------



## stevesbike (Jun 3, 2002)

I agree completely - if you are interested in 'metrics' then get a power meter.


----------



## 2ndPlace (Sep 17, 2008)

using a power meter for me only helped me to overtrain. i have no problem pushing myself too far. 350 watts can be at 160, 180 or 200 HR. 

using a heart meter(and compensating for lag) and P.E. i can keep a tighter control on my training rides and progress faster. 
if i am training my LT for the day i want to be more exact than just output, i want to be just above LT for the duration of the interval. using a watt number i could be just below or too high my LT.


----------



## Alex_Simmons/RST (Jan 12, 2008)

2ndPlace said:


> using a power meter for me only helped me to overtrain. i have no problem pushing myself too far. 350 watts can be at 160, 180 or 200 HR.
> 
> using a heart meter(and compensating for lag) and P.E. i can keep a tighter control on my training rides and progress faster.
> if i am training my LT for the day i want to be more exact than just output, i want to be just above LT for the duration of the interval. using a watt number i could be just below or too high my LT.


You had the power meter (and associated data) and you are blaming it for overtraining? WTF? If you _really _mean overtraining, then that's your, or your coach's fault.

What could be more exact than power?

How do you know whether you are at/above/below LT when riding? Are you measuring blood lactate concentration as you go along?


----------



## Ridewillieride (Jul 15, 2007)

Alex_Simmons/RST said:


> Why? HR (or Max HR) is not a measure of fitness or capability. It's just a measure of how fast your heart beats (or can beat).
> 
> If his power output at LT was at a higher watts per kg, then you'd have something to be envious of.


Alex,
I thought at the same stroke volume a higher HR would supply more oxygen to my muscles. 
regards,
Bill


----------



## Alex_Simmons/RST (Jan 12, 2008)

Ridewillieride said:


> Alex,
> I thought at the same stroke volume a higher HR would supply more oxygen to my muscles.
> regards,
> Bill


So? Still doesn't tell you how fit you are.


----------



## CFBlue (Jun 28, 1999)

i agree HR is for runners not cyclists, training with the lag of HR is stupid.


----------



## Alex_Simmons/RST (Jan 12, 2008)

kenyonCycleist said:


> i agree HR is for runners not cyclists, training with the lag of HR is stupid.


I don't consider training with HR stupid. It can be quite a helpful general guide to training, where the most important element is the intensity at which you are riding and you have no other guide than PE.

Just recognise its limitations (such as the lag you mention plus understand the many other factors that affect HR response besides how hard we are pedalling) and one can make good use of HR for guiding training and know when not to use HR as a guide (such as for short hard efforts).


----------

