Lactate Testing - Data and Results

Cp is generally higher than ftp for most people, simply because riding at Cp you are spending about half of your time above Cp. It is definitely not lower than ftp, at best they’ll be equal. For most people, tte at Cp is about 30 minutes.

I use an ftp of 275 when my Cp is estimated at 290. Anything above Cp is not a steady state and of limiting capabilities.


Ah, ok my FTP is 270 and CP was 255 but that was in an INSCYD some longer ago. Maybe it is higher…

Are both those numbers from the same inscyd test? Spurious interpretation if so. If they are from two distant tests i can see why they don’t agree.

No certainly not. FTP is derived from WKO and last indoor test. Outdoor FTP is normally 280w…

INSCYD test was in July. Maybe now my CP of higher. But in this period i don’t really Care about my FTP that much. My goal is to become as aerobic as possible for a long Gran fondo with lots of climbing

Had some time left during lunch break so did a quick new lactate test. Start the steps from 195 till 225 with 10w increments every 8min (after gradual warmup 30min).
As you friends already mentioned, it confirmed my LT1 around 220W (visiblee in steps 215-225). But I also tracked the DFA alpha 1 on my garmin and before the 225W step, it was never below 0.75. So…maybe this works for me also ;-).

Have you tried the alphaHRV Garmin IQ app and viewed the result in to see if it does line up with lactate.

I monitored the DFA real-time with the IQ app yes. And only within the 225W it went below 0.75, I can check it also in but for me it lines up pretty well with lactate.

I think we’ve discussed slow vs fast twitch dominant athletes and training. Saw an interesting thread on twitter and wanted to share it:


Hi everyone,
the other day I tried testing my lt1 but I’m not sure how to read the data
I did 6x20’ and measured with lactate pro 2
-120w 116hr 93rpm 1.2mmol/L
-130w 121hr 88rpm 1.3mmol/L
-140w 126hr 86rmp 1.6mmol/L
-150w 135hr 92rpm 2.0mmol/L
-160w 139hr 87rpm 1.4mmol/L
-170w 145hr 92rpm 2.2mmol/L
any suggestion?

Very interesting and relevant!. Specially the considerations to tailor training to myotype. Contrary to what many coaches preach.

This thread is quite valid in the endurance vs durability thread. Looks to me your myotype would have a big influence on your durability.

1 Like

Yeah I remember reading that thread when she first posted it… big reason why im focusing less on trying to get to a set number of hours by a specific timeframe and allowing more days off. My previous training history of the sports i participated in before cycling probably has a large influence on myotype ( my genotype is probably somewhere in the middle, but phenotype pulled it towards slightly more fast dominant through strength training)

1 Like

Thanks for link Brian. Perhaps Dr Lievens will be a guest on a podcast soon.

1 Like

20 min steps are fairly long, but I wouldn’t expect the duration to alter the end result.

Based on the data provided, I would suggest the 160w data point might be contaminated or otherwise inaccurate. If that seems likely based on your FTP estimates, talk test estimates, and other sensations when riding, perhaps set 140w as your LT1 target for a month or so, then come back and re-test.

My general approach, or point of view, is that during physical tests there are often a data point or two that aren’t perfect. You can often spot those anomalies by triangulating to other data and historic information and just discount those points.

I don’t like to suggest over testing just to test, or to try and produce a textbook perfect graph. Real world is a bit messy and a “good enough” estimate to train with is sufficient. Obviously, the more tests you conduct, the more comfortable you’ll be with the data and interpretations.

Good luck and will look forward to your next data post in a month or two!


Thank you for your help!
I did longer steps because I prefer testing during what could be a normal workout rather than doing a standard protocol, I agree with you with the 160w data, I think in that measurement the blood looked more liquid so that could explain the lower concentration.
I’m 21 and I’ve been mostly running all my life with not much volume but I measured 74 vo2max while not really being in good shape.
Since 2017 I’ve only done about 6000 km and 300h cycling, recently got a pm to supplement my running training and realized the longer the duration the worst my watts/kg are.
The sensations during the test were strange because I did it on wheel on turbo and I had to keep lower cadences than usual to maintain correct watts, I think 140w is likely to be my LT1 at the moment giving my lack of training especially on the bike.
Also interesting to notice that due to my lack of training volume and durability, 170w after 2h of testing felt like LT2 (compared to running tests).
I think that I will test MLSS in the next weeks (maybe 190w or 200w), then LT1 again in a couple of months, I’ll keep you updated!

1 Like

By all means, test MLSS if you like. But testing MLSS well is a bit tricky. The typical ten minute step MLSS protocols don’t work very well (or at all) and unless you have a good estimate to bracket your likely MLSS, and do longer tests, then it won’t be helpful information.

Also, at your age, and if that VO2max estimate is close to accurate, you have tremendous potential. Perhaps not worry about numbers and just get on a consistent training regimen, with plenty zone 2 / LT1 work with a small amount of intensity, for 3-4 months. Enjoy the training and your numbers and RPE at different levels of effort will change rapidly.

Rather than testing a lot, might be better to just settle into a good training program for a few months and then test again and see where you are.

Good luck and have fun!

Yes, and the most interesting part is that aside from the extreme phenotypes and experiential success, The coaching process is almost blind to the big levers that can be used for all of us “all rounders” in the middle….so it naturally evolves to trial and error.

How are you measuring the power? If that vo2max figure is correct power seems a bit low.
What is your baseline lactate? If it is 1.2-1.3 then 140w is most probable point for lt1.
Also 20min steps can underestimate your turn points if you just started and have no fitness. But if you are running that translates to cycling as well.
Something does not add up but train for a couple of weeks and you will get more realistic values.

Thanks for all the advice! You’re right I should stop worrying about testing and just train :slight_smile:

1 Like

The power is from 4iiii podium, my only reference is from one time where I used a tacx flux s turbo and power numbers seem about the same.

I’m pretty sure about my VO2 max since I tested 6 times between 2016 and 2022 in a reliable lab and the results were consistent between 70 and 75, I was never in really good shape because I couldn’t decide when to test and I’ve had many injuries so I’ve never done more than 6 hours per week of running consistently.
Also I’m not sure how scientific that is but because of the lack of training at the speed of the last steps of the vo2 max tests that I did running on flat treadmill, I feel like on a zwift race I take more out of my lungs than running fast on a treadmill.

I think the reasons because power is so low is because I weight “only” 58kg, I’ve never done more than 10 hours of mainly aerobic activities per week consistently and I’m just bad at cycling.

I’ve started testing lactate recently so I’m not sure about my baseline but I guess that 1.2 could be the case because at 120w I’m pretty sure I’m in low-mid Z2

In 2023 I’ve done 9h of running 15h of cycling and 15h of skimo, not much but I’m not completely out of shape so I don’t expect to see big improvements in weeks, it will take months of consistent and progressive training and I love doing that :slight_smile:

thanks for your help!