ReL lactate testing / training

"warren" wrote in message

Actually it's the experience and knowledge that shows that "one
size
fits all" is often not the best one can do with the information
and
training plans built around "one-size-fits-all" are not optimal.

You're confusing a scheme for classifying training
intensities/workouts with
a training plan.

No, I'm not. You are using one size fits all approach to setting the
zones based on information that is more limited than can otherwise be
obtained.

Right.........
Of course you respond in this way. You have your own little agenda to
protect.

And what agenda is that? Mine is a strictly volunteer effort - if people at
USAC, the AIS, the (former) Mapei training center, TrainingBible, etc.,
appreciate my efforts, great. If they don't, no skin off of my nose.

If your "one-size-fits-all" approach is truly the best YOU can
come up with then it's another indication of your lack of ability in
this area.

If I'm so lacking in ability in this area, then why is it that I'm the only
one who has formulated a cogent system for classifying workouts based on
power that relies on one simple measurement? Similarly, why is it that -
without knowing a single thing else about you - I have previously been able
to predict your OBLA power based on your normalized power from a criterium?
For that matter, what about Per Elmsater's post earlier in this thread, in
which he correctly estimated the average power you sustain during those 30 s
on, 30 s off intervals, simply from knowing your OBLA power?

How those zones are used is the training plan.

Nonsense. That's like claiming that explaining to a non-English speaker
the
difference between "left" and "right" is equivalent to giving them
directions to their intended destination.

Your version of the semantics, nothing more.

Okay then, wiseguy: without reference to ANYTHING other than the training
levels I've described, tell us in DETAIL how you've been training for
nationals. Again, no cheating by mentioning anything other than the power
level(s) you've been training at.

Less than
optimal zones leads to less than optimal training plans.

I'm afraid you've been hoodwinked, Warren: there is no difference
between
training at, say, a few percent below your LT (or OBLA or whatever other
metric you care to use) and a few percent above. Those that claim that
"there's magic in them zones!" are just making it up.

Right.... The results, lactate levels, and perceived exertion each show
that you're wrong.

And how is that?

Of course, your opinion stated above is just another
attempt to support your one-size-fits-all approach, with its wide
training zones to encompass every possible user-just like CTS tries to
do with it's lower-level training plans.

My opinion is based on spending 25+ years studying the physiology of
exercise - nothing more, nothing less.

His results show that his opinion about this is more accurate than
your
opinion.

"His results"? So Max was the one pedaling the bike, was he? ;-)
Results of his guidance. From Hampsten, Armstrong, and Julich, to some
Motorola, Mapei and US pros, to most recently Dario Cioni, Christine
Thorburn, and myself on a lower scale, these are all examples of riders
who improved significantly while receiving Max's guidance.

I knew that if I baited you that you would result to name-dropping and
appeals-to-authority, just like many others do when they feel like they are
losing a debate. I don't think, though, that you really deserve to list
yourself in the same company as these other riders. ;-)

Even I can see the relationships and changes over time. Power
numbers I see during training give hints about what is changing and
the
test results never bring surprises, just additional information and/or
confirmation. The shape of the curves provides some more insight.

For example, a curve that suddenly slopes upward (sudden increase in
blood lactate at a given range of watts) indicates that type 2b fibers
are now being utilized without an appropriate amount of type 2a fibers
being used first

First, recruitment of motor units occurs in an orderly fashion based on
the
size of the alpha motor neuron, something that is known as the Henneman
size
principle. Thus, it is essentially impossible to recruit type IIb (IIx,
in
the modern vernacular) muscle fibers without also recruiting type IIa
(as
well as type I).

We agree.

It sure doesn't seem that way to me. ;-)

I didn't say that 2b or 2a fibers were being recruited
without any type 1 fibers.

Then what exactly did you mean by "...a curve that suddenly slopes upward
(sudden increase in blood lactate at a given range of watts) indicates that
type 2b fibers are now being utilized without an appropriate amount of type
2a fibers being used first"?

I said the contribution of 2a was not
appropriate, or not enough before 2b was recruited. Certain training
would improve the abilities of 2a fibers so that the use of 2b could be
delayed or essentially not needed until the power was at a higher
level.

"Certain training" would be essentially any endurance training.

Second, anybody who is doing more than a modicum of training won't have
any
type IIb (IIx) fibers to speak of, since all but a few percent will have
been transformed into IIa.

So your opinion is that I'm not using 2b fibers to put out 1300+ watts,
nor is Petacchi at 1600+ watts?

You're using all of your IIb (IIx) fibers, but since you only have 1-5% of
them, their contribution can essentially be ignored, at least when it comes
to discussing the blood lactate-exercise intensity relationship.

(or how ever you choose to define the transition from
slow twitch to fast twitch fibers). As the ability of the 2a fibers is
improved the shape of the curve between near 1 mMol and near 3mMol
will
become more gradual. Without even knowing the lactate or watts numbers
you could look at the shape of the curve and know this.

Objection, your Honor: ASSuming facts not in evidence! ;-)

Drawing such a conclusion is going WAY beyond what can be reasonably
inferred from such data .

This is funny to me. It's so easy to see on the graphs. I've seen other
people's tests too and often see the same graph shapes and reasons for
those shapes.

Again, you are drawing conclusions that go far beyond the data: just because
somebody's blood lactate-power curve has been flattened in the mid/lower
portion of the curve does not necessarily mean that they've increased the
respiratory capacity of their type II fibers.

But then again, that's not surprising given the
difference between coaches/athletes and scientists: the former are often
casting wildly about for ANYTHING that they THINK might provide an edge,
and
their standard of proof for what works and what doesn't is
all-too-frequently abysmally low. Scientists, OTOH, are raised in a
culture
that discourages excessive speculation and the drawing of unsupportable
conclusions, such as the one you make above.
Amazing arrogance on your part. Something that is so easy for even me
to see during a test, and then confirmed by looking briefly at the
graphs and accurately predicting the subject's ability and history, and
you say this is not reasonable...

Yes, very arrogant of me to declare what I don't know, and can't possibly
know without additional measurements.

There
are many, many things other than fitness that influence the absolute
blood
lactate concentration at a particular exercise intensity, e.g.,
blood
sampling site/method, glycogen stores, nutritional state, etc.

None of these factors has entered into the results I've been seeing in
my tests. It's quite easy to account for these things anyway.

Dream on: even if you have somebody do their last couple of workouts on
an
ergometer at controlled intensities and feed them precisely measured
amounts
of carbohydrate, you'd be lucky to keep glycogen stores in a +/- 10%
range.
To think that you can control them adequately outside of laboratory so
as to
be able to draw the sorts of conclusions you wish to draw is
preposterous.

Again, so easy to see and account for, even for me. The results of the
tests I've seen don't show the kind of abnormalities you suggest. You
must be letting all those red herrings get in your way of seeing what's
easily seen by others. Perhaps you're reading too much (for this
application) into small increments or small differences in measured
lactate.

Au contrai it is you (and/or your coach) who is apparently reading too
much into small, quite possibly random differences in measured lactate
concentrations, and then using the data to based decisions about training
upon. Me, I say screw the lactate and focus on what really counts: actual
function (performance).

Always
the earlobe,

Is SaO2 measured to be certain that the degree of hyperemia isn't
influencing the results? (Doubtful.)

No influence, or so small as not to matter.

A rather bold statement from someone who apparently has no idea what I'm
getting at, don't you think? ;-)

Blood lactate concentration varies slightly but significantly between
arterial, venous, and/or arterialized venous blood, even when sampled from
an inactive limb or bodypart. Thus, to avoid random variation from
influencing the results it is necessary to assure an equivalent degree of
oxygenation in all samples. To dismiss the issue out-of-hand is therefore
simply ignorant.

always rested, several days after a long ride, normal
meals before training or racing, etc.

Morever, even if you could the only way you could execute a training
plan
based on such information with the requisite precision would be if
you did
all of your training on an ergometer (which would be sub-optimal for
other
reasons).

It's really not that difficult. Knowing what is going on with the
ability of type 1 fibers, type 2a, and type 2b fibers indivdually and
together allows for training that can be implemented to address
specific needs. Less wasted effort.

Or so you claim. But as I've stated, you can't interpret the blood lactate
data the way you have, so yours is really just a pie-in-the-sky theory.

First, see above: neither you nor I nor anybody else riding more than
100
miles/week really has any IIb (IIx) fibers to worry about.

So my 1300+ watts is done with 2a fibers only?

Type I and type IIa, since you have only 1-5% type IIb fibers left (unless
you've been a real slacker lately). But the point isn't really what fibers
you are recruiting, but the fact that you don't know enough about the
physiology of exercise to know that you don't have any significant quantity
of type IIb (IIx) fibers left. So why should anyone believe you when you
start theorizing about what changes in the shape of the lactate-exercise
intensity curve really mean, and how this information can be used to guide
training?

Oh well, you can call
those fibers what ever you want. The training is affecting some fibers
in ways that allow for the very high power. It seems to me that those
fibers, whatever you want to call them, produce a lot of lactate and a
lot of power during short periods.
Second, as I
indicated previously, there are many more factors influencing blood
lactate
levels than just fiber type/fiber type recruitment.
Yes, and these other factors, at least in my own tests and the ones
I've observed, were either accounted for or not important enough to
affect the results.

And you know that how?

It's important to consider not just the measured
amounts of lactate but the shape of the lactate curve graphed with HR
and power.

How else would you analyze such data, except graphically?

This will help lessen the distractions resulting from
insignificant increments in blood lactate being caused by the small
factors you've mentioned previously.

Those "insignificant increments caused by small factors" can easily be as
large as the training-induced changes that occur, at least in an athlete who
has trained to the point of being anywhere close to the limits of their
potential. That's why direct measurement of actual function, i.e., power
output, is so much better.

Andy Coggan