Darn, this thread just reminded me of the 3 packs of test strips lying around in the basement. Expiration date 06/2023. Never got around to using them up.
2 Likes
Most podcasts have either implicit or explicit biases, KM is definitely in the explicit camp 
Love it, and would rather have explicit biases stated, versus having to read between the lines for implicit biases.
The part I thought was interesting was pushing volume at low intensities, lower than lt1 but not too low. Endurance sports are not a limbo dance LOL, you can’t get fitness sitting on the couch 
And the ever so brief anecdotes of rpe vs measuredLT1.
1 Like
Heh. Our (D1) men’s track team recently put out feelers about doing lactate testing. The message I (indirectly) relayed back to them was, “don’t waste your time”.
1 Like
What I would like is for you, and all the others with no interest in lactate testing as a tool, to not ruin this thread. Start a different one and feel free to preach to your hearts content.
3 Likes
Because your first two post were snarky, confrontational and purposefully rhetorical. Which is not how people communicate when they wish to positively interact, share information and contribute. You know this because you are a smart enough guy to then make an excellent post with insights which do contribute. If you had started with the positive dialog and contribution there would have been no negative connotation at all.
Also, if you go back and read my response and what you quoted, we are in near agreement. I said: “where you start to see an accumulation” and then added “up to about 1 mMol” change from baseline and added additional interpretation. The reason for looking at multiple points (as you know) is there can be measurement error. To be somewhat confident in approximating first accumulation point, want to observe the later points also continue the trend. Your red curve shows that perfectly.
For what it’s worth, and this will be contentious to some, the reason I think this LT1 stuff is sometimes useful is that riders want to know how to ride “endurance”. In quotes because am conveying a theme not a nomenclature or definition to debate. Many riders today are dependent on their power meter to guide their rides. Telling them to ride by RPE, by feel, etc etc doesn’t work because they want a power target. Even more important for folks riding indoors in erg mode. Having a power target (and duration of time) to ride to is helpful for these riders.
I found that riding endurance time around LT1 was a pretty good way to build fitness. It was not too easy and was not too hard and seemed to work well. That is anecdote so Brian will be angry with me (lol), but others have observed similar. Of course there are other ways to determine a power target to ride endurance at, and lactate is imperfect (as are all the other methods). But for folks that have decided to use lactate as a tool, it’s helpful for them to see what others have done and the results they have.
I sincerely thank you for your last post as it contributes. I personally find it interesting and hope others do as well. Sharing that type of information and learnings was the purpose of the thread.
Please do keep contributing.
-Mark
3 Likes
You know that’s how Ed Coyle has always determined LT, don’t you? (Although he uses a subjectively-determined “exercise baseline”, not the resting value as the reference point.)
The post was always like that. You likely read past the detail because the1 mMol point stood out and you wanted to respond. Which I completely understand because we all have things that fire us up.
Anyway, I have not much to contribute
I disagree!! You made a thoughtful contribution, made fair points and shared your data and experience. I appreciate that very much on a personal level because it takes time to share information and personal experiences.
In the end, most of the people here are in this for fun. Simply looking for ways to improve doing something they enjoy.
All the best,
Mark
1 Like
FYI
Of course, if it is actually of any relevance to stay < LT1/VT1 in a session is a whole different story.
1 Like
So don’t use Power to keep below LT1 then?
1 Like
For me (n=1) it was pretty ok. During my last LT1 diy test I also tracked dfa a1. From a lactate point of view my LT1 was around 215-225. And dfa a1 tracked during the ride on my garmin (and also in wko5 afterwards) gave me a result around 223W. So for me it was pretty comparable. For my next test (pretty soon) I will track dfa a1 again).
I use this on my Garmin
It uses the a ratio of RR/DFA1 which seems to amplify the increase in Respiration Rate at your Aerobic Threshold. I’ve found it quite consistent with regards Heart Rate but variable with Power depending on my fatigue levels which would seem to correlate with the article in sryke’s post above
1 Like
Step test fatox at tempo intensity: 300W → 1.07 g Fat/min
Actual race conditions (fed with 100 g carbs/hr, tempo intensity) : 306 W → ~0.65 g Fat/min
So prolonged exercise that substantially reduces your glycogen stores results in a reduction in carbohydrate oxidation and an increase in fat oxidation, even when ingesting carbohydrate at a high rate. Are you surprised by these results? (You shouldn’t be.)
Hmm I had a question about that this morning, my first read of the charts was that “FO Post” represented fat oxidation AFTER/post intervals. Based on that interpretation I saw lower fat oxidation, and higher carb oxidation, after the intervals and glycogen depletion. Which seemed wrong. Followed the Source 1 and it was in German. But its been a busy day at work and I didn’t follow up.
Sorry, it seems that I didn’t read the legend, and simply ass u me d.
Still, I don’t know what is supposed to be new or novel about the plot. Two opposing influencers on the balance of fat and carbohydrate oxidation (i.e., exercise duration/glycogen depletion vs. carbohydrate oxidation), which take turns dominating each other…so what? This is ex fizz 101-type stuff, yet is at best only ancillarily related to training (pro/elite or not).
Again, why is this even worthy of investigating? Of course your ventilatory parameters change as a function of exercise duration… that’s why it is best referred to as a quasi-metabolic steady state, not an absolute metabolic steady state
Next someone will be tweeting - X-ing? - that they have “discovered” that VO2 drifts upwards even during sub-MLSS exercise (oh, wait…that already happened).
Firstly, the two posts show charts from different sessions. The 4h ride in the second post was not an interval session but an endurance ride at ~220-230W.
This is a guy who shares a little about his prep for the Ötztaler marathon, one of the most prominent Alpine fondos. He came in 5th this year. He’s a cat 1 rider. So it’s always interesting to see how guys like this actually train. And apparently he has access to this spiro equipment and plays around with it. That’s all.
For me the two posts illustrate nicely how substrate utilisation can differ massively. And how useless a regular test conducted fresh and potentially fasted can be when compared to more ecological conditions. Is this brand new advanced science? Of course not. Who said so? However, I still enjoyed seeing this guys journey to a very good result in a race format in which I’m very interested in.
And once again, it’s a nice reminder to be sceptical when certain vocal twitter experts make claims about the importance of testing.
7 Likes
Whenever I read certain coaches that are against testing, it just feels like they aren’t able to interpret the data + don’t have access to the tools (metabolic carts etc), so they just go out and say “its not useful”.
It makes me wonder how much HR & Power at LT1 vary on a daily basis depending on fatigue, sleep quality, hydration, nutrition, previous nights alcohol consumption, life stress etc etc.
I’m beginning to think that testing under as near identical circumstances as you can is only useful for measuring progress and giving a guide so you can calibrate your brain to the correct intensity to ride at and after that, ride as @empiricalcycling says to your RPE and have fun.