confused about lactate threshold
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 46
  1. #1
    banned
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    7,744

    confused about lactate threshold

    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.

  2. #2
    Impulse Athletic Coaching
    Reputation: iliveonnitro's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    5,576
    Quote Originally Posted by SwiftSolo
    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.


    Quote Originally Posted by SwiftSolo
    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/trainin...ningftpace.asp

  3. #3
    banned
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    7,744
    Quote Originally Posted by iliveonnitro
    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.




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

  4. #4
    banned
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    7,744
    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)

  5. #5
    Cycling Coach
    Reputation: Alex_Simmons/RST's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    1,734
    Quote Originally Posted by SwiftSolo
    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.
    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).

  6. #6
    Impulse Athletic Coaching
    Reputation: iliveonnitro's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    5,576
    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?

  7. #7
    Anti-Hero
    Reputation: Andrea138's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    10,342
    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.
    No turkey unless it's a club sandwich
    Brickhouse Blog

  8. #8
    banned
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    7,744
    Quote Originally Posted by iliveonnitro
    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?

  9. #9
    Impulse Athletic Coaching
    Reputation: iliveonnitro's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    5,576
    Quote Originally Posted by SwiftSolo
    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?
    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.

  10. #10
    Cycling Coach
    Reputation: Alex_Simmons/RST's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    1,734
    Quote Originally Posted by SwiftSolo
    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.

  11. #11
    banned
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    7,744
    Quote Originally Posted by Alex_Simmons/RST
    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.

  12. #12
    Cycling Coach
    Reputation: Alex_Simmons/RST's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    1,734
    Quote Originally Posted by SwiftSolo
    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.
    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.

  13. #13
    Anti-Hero
    Reputation: Andrea138's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    10,342
    Quote Originally Posted by SwiftSolo
    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.
    No turkey unless it's a club sandwich
    Brickhouse Blog

  14. #14
    banned
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    7,744
    Quote Originally Posted by Alex_Simmons/RST
    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.

  15. #15
    Shirtcocker
    Reputation: Bocephus Jones II's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    60,639
    Quote Originally Posted by Andrea138
    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.
    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.
    "I regard the brain as a computer which will stop working when its components fail. There is no heaven or afterlife for broken down computers; that is a fairy story for people afraid of the dark." -S. Hawking

  16. #16
    banned
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    7,744
    Quote Originally Posted by Bocephus Jones II
    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?

  17. #17
    Shirtcocker
    Reputation: Bocephus Jones II's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    60,639
    Quote Originally Posted by SwiftSolo
    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.
    "I regard the brain as a computer which will stop working when its components fail. There is no heaven or afterlife for broken down computers; that is a fairy story for people afraid of the dark." -S. Hawking

  18. #18
    Anti-Hero
    Reputation: Andrea138's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    10,342
    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.
    No turkey unless it's a club sandwich
    Brickhouse Blog

  19. #19
    NeoRetroGrouch
    Reputation: TurboTurtle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    6,491
    Quote Originally Posted by SwiftSolo
    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
    "Don't those guys know they're old?!!"
    Me, off the back, at my first 50+ road race.

  20. #20
    Shirtcocker
    Reputation: Bocephus Jones II's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    60,639
    Quote Originally Posted by TurboTurtle
    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.
    "I regard the brain as a computer which will stop working when its components fail. There is no heaven or afterlife for broken down computers; that is a fairy story for people afraid of the dark." -S. Hawking

  21. #21
    Impulse Athletic Coaching
    Reputation: iliveonnitro's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    5,576
    Quote Originally Posted by Bocephus Jones II
    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.

  22. #22
    banned
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    7,744
    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.

  23. #23
    Cycling Coach
    Reputation: Alex_Simmons/RST's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    1,734
    Quote Originally Posted by Bocephus Jones II
    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

  24. #24
    Cycling Coach
    Reputation: Alex_Simmons/RST's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    1,734
    Quote Originally Posted by SwiftSolo
    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.

  25. #25
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation: Shaggybx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    146
    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.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

THE SITE

ABOUT ROADBIKEREVIEW

VISIT US AT

© Copyright 2020 VerticalScope Inc. All rights reserved.