Hi!
I do not agree with the fact that for some there is no baseline. There is ALWAYS a baseline even in untrained individuals and even in patients with type II diabetes. If during the lactate test no baseline is noticed, then the first level of this test is too high!
In some sedentary individuals, to observe a baseline, it is necessary to be at very very low watts of the order of approximately 1 w/kg or even less!
All this to say that during your lactate test if you directly observe an inflection in the lactate, it means that your first level is too high.
For indication with my athletes I started at 2w/kg which for these athletes is a pace at which they never ride because it is so low (for their levels).
I am one of those individuals who needs to start a 1w/kg and use 0.1w/kg constant ramp to get good data. I am a sprinter phenotype with an underdeveloped aerobic system. As you see, my LT1 (~170 watts) is quite far from LT2 (~230-240 watts). I should have taken another sample between 220-240 watts, but the data is good enough for Gov’t use.
Here’s my test from June 4. The thresholds are very close to what I see from power-only analyses for lower- and upper-threshold. The lowest Bla concentration at about 135 watts is close to my estimated FatMax using Mader.
Just to throw a wrench in there, my hr at lt1 is only about 70% of my peak hr from the last few years. My endurance rides are at an avg hr of like 110, but i mostly just institute a cap of 120 fir my “easy” rides. Breathing rate is still relatively easy, but has increased from the baseline.
When was the last time you actually tested/achieved HRmax? I was using a number from a ramp test for a while yet I could never reproduce it. Now I hit max a few times a year and feel pretty good about that number.
Then again… it’s all individual, soooo… yeah. Every athlete is different!
Just over 4 weeks ago on a 5 hour ride with a friend. 2 sprints at the end of a 6 min max effort. If that wasn’t my max hr I don’t actually want to find out what is,
My bike hr peak from a ramp is 174, running peak 178. Running one was from the last half mile of a 5k, it was uphill. I’ve typically did about 5 bpm different between cycling and running. 10 years ago it was 175 and 180 for cycling and running.
Also I’m using first inflection around 70%, so baseline + 0.5 mmol is about 72%-75% cycling/ running
For me it is 10 hours or more every week. It’s all relative to what you are used to. I find I don’t see much improvement below 6 hours a week, 8 I see bigger gains, and 10 or more hours the gains keep coming.
none
trying to change my training a bit, it’s all pretty basic intensity, TR intensity. Reading a lot about Seiler and this guy, I can’t remember his name Mr. ISM.
it’s more like not to what you are used to because you can be used to something completly off the chart. it depends on the size of your aerobic engine or better on your mitochondrial capacity how much kJ of work you can absorb with proper fueling & recovery which also brings the activness of your glycolytic capacity into the game.
and then it depends on frequency and the combination of duration & intensity with proper adepted fueling below VT1 or better below your metabolic fiber type switch to get no maybe unwanted side adaptions on your glycolytic system. This part often is determined by all other life demands.
if you can determine all of these factors you can define & plan how a “high volume” week should look like for eliciting certain adaptaions leading to your goals.
you can also listen very good to your body, fuel good, and go loooong & go eeeeeasy.
Switched to “ISM training model” in April after watching the Peter Attia Podcast. I try to do 9-10 hours per week.
N=1, but I have seen significant improvement after being on a plateau of ~240W for… probably around 18 months.
My training throughout that period had all been Trainerroad mid-volume sweet spot base and build. Very good compliance, usually swapping 1 ride per week for outdoors.
Adaptive training came at the wrong time for me - I was just about to give up on TR sweet spot plans but it kept me onboard another 6 months seeing whether I could overcome the plateau. It made no difference.
I am coming around to the view that sweet spot training isn’t optimal. Furthermore, AT doesn’t seem to have a coherent approach for tackling plateaus, it just keeps ramping up too quickly.
Polarized plans are a good step, but AT lacks (I think) the ability to estimate LT1 which would be most useful, for example by using decoupling or DFA Alpha 1.
Alternative hypothesis is just that my body needs different type of stimulation and I will soon plateau on Z2. i.e. block periodization.
I intend to keep going with the ISM model until I find out.
