@sryke I don’t think he’s aiming as high as where you have that chart highlighted, above. ie. VT2/RCP at RER = 1.00. In this case, the target I’m pretty sure would be closer to 60% VO2max, based on where Fatmax and LT(2) are indicated. An athlete where VT2/RCP occurs at >80% of VO2max, then the target might be ~75% VO2max.
To the best of my understanding, San-Millán wants his athlete spending lots of time somewhere around Aerobic Threshold/Lactate Threshold 1/Ventilatory Threshold 1/Fatmax, which are all closely related, but not synonymous depending on how they are measured. Seiler defines top-end Zone 1 (3-zone model) at VT1. Coggan defines top-end Zone 2 (5-zone model and ilevels) as a power output that approximates AeT/VT1/LT1/Fatmax.
BLa at this point will be above lactate minimum the minimum observable lactate, ie. that 0.6 mmol number for Pogačar. BLa at LT1 might be anywhere from 1.0-3.0, depending on the athlete and (as always) how it’s being defined.
@tshortt was the quote for 1.3-1.8 mmol BLa the range he wanted his athletes to stay in? Or an inter-individual range at which he typically finds AeT/LT1/VT1/Fatmax to occur? I’ll have to re-listen to his interview with Peter Attia, because I know they talk about this training decisively as ‘Zone 2 training’.
@bbarrera careful when you talk about ‘predominantly fat’. By percentage of total energy production from substrate, maybe. But probably not by absolute volume of substrate combusted. See this figure from San-Millán’s 2018 paper as example. Take note of the units on both axes for CHOox and FATox, respectively.
I could be wrong, but I think the overall intent is still to spend high volume of low-intensity just below AeT/LT1/VT1/Fatmax, and San-Millán uses BLa as a convenient proxy to keep tabs on intensity. I have opinions about BLa, but it still has value. It’s the Dow Jones of exercise physiology, IMO 