He says that threshold training improves the glycolytic capacity. Doesn’t Sebastián Weber / Olbrect etc say that threshold work decreases the glycolytic capacity?
Thanks !
I will try to incorporate glycolytic work into the endurance sessions.
For example :
3h with 2min glycolytic (zone 5/6) every 15/20 minutes.
Great podcast episode!
I am not sure if I overheared it, but did he say something about lowering Vlamax? He says that improved mitochondrial density improves lactate clearing, but he did actually not say anything about lowering the lactace production rate, right? It even sounded like he likes a bit higher lactacte production rate (Vlamax) to have the necessary punch in the final of a race. So his athletes do no active vlamax lowering training? Or just improve the clearing part as much as possible?
If yes, this sounds like a clear distinction to the likes of Weber, etc…
Or did he say soething about this topic in other podcasts?
IIRC it was along this line:
- Peripheral adaptation is preferred to central adaptation (mitochondrial vs stroke volume).
- More work will be done aerobic. Glycolytic stores are spared (more punch later in the game).
- For better lactate clearance do over unders (later training phase).
1 Like
One of the things I found interesting was that towards the end of the podcast he said that he wasn’t really interested in raising VO2max but preferred working on the lactate side of things. I wondered if that was because he is predominantly working with elites who already have a high VO2max and so don’t really need to work on it. I’m not sure the same could be said about me!
3 Likes
That’s a very interesting point I’d definitely like to get answered at one point. I asked myself the same when Arild Tveiten (Norway Triathlon) said something like they do their intervals around threshold (3mmol) which sounds to me they don’t do any heavy VO2max work. Always suspected it’s because all the norwegians already have a VO2max of >80ml/min/kg but it was never clearly spelt out
I might try asking him on Twitter.
Dr Ferrari was another who did sand the same about the importance of vo2 max. He focused on metabolic side with medium and threshold work.
1 Like
One of the Norwegeans, either AT, KB, or GI, once said they do not train a lot above threshold because it is too taxing in their high volume model. And this is consistent with what you can hear from road pros (see the relevant thread): they don’t train a lot above threshold because the high volume (upper zone 2 and tempo) does not allow the additional stress caused by a lot of high intensity.
And this agrees nicely with the different training models in the various sport disciplines. POL model evolved in XC skiing and so. Strong focus on vo2max work. But this focus does not allow a lot of additional stress. Therefore, the remaining training is really, really easy. In contrast road cycling requires big diesels. Therefore, these pyramidal training models are dominant. With a lot of upper zone 2 and tempo. And only some above threshold to spice up things.
Under high volume you can’t do everything as it appears.
3 Likes
an old presentation by ISMSanMilan-Inigo-Cycling-Physiology-and-Physiological-Testing-compressé.pdf (3.3 MB)
3 Likes
My club has a lactate meter so I tested myself last weekend. I used a modified San-Millan protocol: trainer, 10min steps, 20w increments, sample from the fingertip, test first thing in the morning, no breakfast, drank water, rode z2 the day before.
As expected, the placement of LT1 depends substantially on the methodology of determining it, and my test illustrated this well. Using the Finnish tester consensus guideline aka “lowest recorded value plus 0,3mmol” yielded about 30w lower an LT1 than the “first rise above baseline” guideline. And the formulaic 2mmol = LT1 would put it 40-50w above it.
Yet, judging by RPE, breathing, this season’s data and experience from recent long rides, I “know” that the lowest value is the closest to the mark. The difference is subtle but definitely there. Of course, in the original San Millan lab test RER and other metabolic cart data would be consulted as well, and following his protocol the increment would be 30-35w per step, and they all might alter the picture a bit. Especially the larger increments would make the lower end more murky.
That said, the Finnish guideline is not designed for 10min steps, but I really do not see that being a big issue. And yes, it is almost guaranteed to generate painstakingly low LT1s for beginners and/or those returning to training (such as myself), and would definitely have me ride a notch below “happy hard”. But also above Seiler’s walking up the hills, to use these common references. In other words, tight chain but in a controlled manner, just a bit slower than I would want to go.
So, echoing what SpareCycles said at the beginning of this thread, I guess I am willing to err on the low side here, and this goes from interpreting the test results to excecuting them in training.
3 Likes
The fanboy in me is happy, my second or third twitter post/reply ever gets “royal approval” 
8 Likes
It could be. Test duration matters, especially when comparing 1-5 minute steps with longer ones. (I don’t know what the Finnish guidelines are based on.)
grabbed Pog’s Strava for Dec 2019, not sure if all rides were uploaded. Nice example for zonal distribution vs actual power distribution. So much coasting with these guys. Will be interesting to see how McNulty trains this year. Should be his first base period with ISM as coach.
5 Likes
Is he anywhere hilly? Can’t really help but coast when going downhill.
Interesting, so for you, testing LT1 directly was a game changer, could you elaborate about the difference between these numbers in your personal experience:
Z2 Coggan (55%-75% FTP)
LT1 Selier (80% FTP)
Measured LT1 ??? (What % of FTP did you obtained with this method?)
- Assuming the FTP is well tested.
Thanks
I don’t test for FTP, stopped doing this a long time ago. I have a rough estimate from my interval training but this would not allow me to say if LT1 was at 75 or 80%. Power/HR at LT1 is fairly stable for me, tested it several times know, I don’t see much variation when La picks up above baseline. And it is remarkable how well heart rate can tell you the point. You just need to do a LT1 test once and you’re set for years. I have severla lab tests from years ago. Heart rate at LT1 is remarkable stable, power went up with years.
3 Likes
12/2019 → Slovenia, Monaco, Spain
But this is not unusual, all those Andorra/Girona/Monaco based pros have huge coasting bins in their distributions.
More Pog
January 2020, that’s probably where the serious training starts. Nice to see ISM’s handwriting in this distribution
Most rides in February have no power data
1 Like
By my understanding using shorter steps might push the AeT a bit higher, as the output that triggers a slight increase in net lactate production (a flow variable, if you will) may not last long enough for it to accumulate in blood (a stock variable) in a manner “representative” of the metabolic demand. The meter measures the stock, so a turnpoint may be delayed by one step or so using shorter steps. If the step was longer, a turnpoint might become visible earlier even with a low accumulation rate.
So, practically speaking, using shorter steps might yield a 20w or so higher AeT for me. Not all that crucial in the big picture, IMHO, when you ride around that threshold anyway.
(The guideline is based on literature review and practitioner panel consensus opinion at the national institute of sports.)