@abalakov - the 2 second lactate rest figure, is that standard or user specific?
Cheers,
Dave
But the combination of intensity and time wouldnât be a rate, would it? It would be a capacity, and if the floor is VO2max, then it would be the maximal accumulated oxygen deficit (MAOD). Are you
saying that INSCYD has just taken that classic concept and renamed it VLaMax?
VLamax is an old and particularly dumb concept the way itâs applied by mader/heck/inscyd. Blood lactate dynamics do not determine anything about the capacity of the electron transport chain, and relating the two misses a lot of, frankly, very basic regulatory issues with metabolism.
1 Like
I saw the tweetstorm by Coggan that led to that reply - wasnât his claim that lactate production isnât limited by enzyme activity?
Iâm 100% certain they use the mader/heck model, and then Jeukendreupâs on top of that. Weber likes to hint they have made advancements but if you look at the outputs, they havenât. Iâve exchanged words with him privately and get the same runaround. Coggan is an actual scientist with things to do, Weber is a salesman. But I read that exchange before Cogganâs twitter was deleted, and I can tell you for a certainty that neither of them are biochemists.
Coggan actually is correct that lactate production isnât solely limited by enzyme capacity, but what he didnât say is that at some points it can be. His point is that itâs reactive, and heâs right about that.
Iâm wondering then how it is that Weber et al. get good and rational results from applying this model to at least some of their athletes. I guess there is always the chance that for those athletes, the flawed model matches up with reality (and maybe thatâs why other peopleâs incsyd test results sometimes dontâ seem to make any sense).
I guess thereâs also the possibility that a coach identifies a training intervention that produces results, even if their understanding of the how and why is incorrect. Eg., had a rowing coach who prescribed âpeak powerâ sprints and maximum drag factor. Leaving aside that this is peak force and not necessarily peak power, his rationale was that if you can raise up your peak power, your 2k pace is a smaller percentage of it, ergo itâs easier. I think the intervention improved a lot of our 2k times but i donât think that was the reason . . .
I thought Coggan said that he majored in biochemistry?
If Coggan did biochem, then heâs not up on the lit. The last couple studies heâs posted didnât show what he thought they did, the same way his study with Coyle on ftp % of vo2max doesnât show what it apparently does.
Which studies are those?
My ladyâs rowing workouts are the same way, including âpeak powerâ stuff thatâs really not even peak force or power.
Weber will always mention that you can input actual lab data into the model, and that theyâve never been just about power data (even though thatâs exactly how it was sold to me when he gave a talk in Boston a few years ago). But of course even with lab data youâre not going to get the right outputs. Stopped clocks, etc, a lot like other fudge factor tests. Anyway. If what they do actually works for someone, thatâs fine, but Iâm sure itâs not as correct as it could be, and when you base everything in your world around lactate, youâre gonna come up with some funny ideas. Iâll have a comprehensive podcast and probably TP article on the actual metabolic control points at some point in the next few months.
2 Likes
Excuse the generalisation & naivety of what Iâm about to ask â would this mean that World Tour-level pro riders perhaps arenât doing/shouldnât do classic â5min@120%â VO2max training but perhaps mostly things like Seilerâs 8min@108%?
(Not introducing Seiler for criticism, but just as a point of compare & contrast.)
Always appreciate your contributions. 
No, Seilerâs approach would be like a lot of approaches and only get between âmehâ results and good results. One of the purposes of the last couple vo2max podcasts is to establish the idea that vo2max power is not tied to power, itâs tied to demand for oxygen.
My preference is for a training regimen that is guaranteed to produce adaptation and not make someone potentially waste a couple weeks or months only to find out that we have no result. The drawback to my approach is that recovery periods vary athlete to athlete. You can rest and test after a week or two and see no result (because residual fatigue is still there), but a month or two down the road youâll see the improvements you were expecting. Itâs why Iâve seen a lot of guys race a grand tour, then rest for a month and test some huge new vo2max value. Would be nice if it was there before the vuelta, right? But without the vuelta you wouldnât have those adaptations.
1 Like
Could you expand a little?
Thanks!
1 Like
One study we looked at in depth here: Watts Doc #11: FTP vs VO2max - Empirical Cycling It supposedly shows that people with a higher FTP as % of vo2max will have better endurance, but it does not. It just shows that you can ride at a % of your vo2max longer if youâre at or below threshold.
4 Likes
2 Likes
Thanks @stevemz - after skimming the papers linked in show notes, I (sort of) get it now though need to dig in a little more.
Have you actually read the study? It shows a strong, linear relationship between % of threshold and time to fatigue. Your interpretation would only be correct if there were no such correlation, but there was still a difference between groups on average.
Have you actually listened to the episode where we have an extremely detailed breakdown of the methods and conclusions? Nevermind, I know the answer.
5 Likes
Looking forward to listen to your podcast, @empiricalcycling
1 Like
So, checking my RER from last Vo2 lab test (from last year - FTP is up a fair bit since then), gives an efficiency of 27% at FTP (going on the calculations detailed in the Watts Doc episode above) - FTP O2 (3.7L/min) falling at 74% of VO2 Max 02 (5.0 L/min).
Correlating that with the figures stated in the paper given in the show notes, gives approx 90% Type I fiber.
Iâm a TTâerâŠthankfully.