Make sure you also check out the two Scientific Triathlon podcasts as well. That Olbrecht book is swim-oriented and fairly jargon-filled with Olbrecht specific language. So you have to translate twice in a way. ST podcasts help immensely w/ those “translations”.
1 Like
I don’t know about this INSCYD/Weber stuff. Nice story but given all the uncertainty in exercise physiology I have my doubts this model is capable of representing real world variability (I build models like this for a living). Especially because of studies like this:
Endurance training (ET) was conducted at tempo intensity. No impact on vlamax. In contrast sprint interval training reduced vlamax. Both improved (estimated) MLSS, though.
I don’t know. My humble attempts to measure vlamax on my self were quite discouraging, this is a finicky paramter.
I thought about an INSCYD test myself but I’m too unsure about the reliability of their evaluation. Not willing to spend money on this.
4 Likes
Really interesting study! Especially because the Endurance Group (ET) experienced an even greater bump in MLSS than the SIT group, without lowering vlamax.
In a real world scenario this would mean higher steady state power AND a better punch (because of the higher vlamax) for the ET group. I do not see why one would want to lower vlamax if it can go hand in hand with improved MLSS. 
IMO this study supports the view of Dr. Inigo San Milan: it´s more about the ability to clear lactate than lowering lactate production (vlamax).
2 Likes
And most of the reduced vlamax of SIT group was already seen after 2 weeks out of 6. For the ET group, riding only 60min 3 times/week is maybe not enough to improve your ability to reduce lactate production!? (But then again, why did SIT manage it? 
)
Maybe a bit OT wrt to this thread, but doesn’t ISM have his cyclists train at 1.1-1.3mmol? Even if it’s highly individual, it’s a lot lower than in this study (1.5-2.5).
Yes I agree totally.
What I said is that my plan will probably end up being like POL / Pyramidal just as a end result of my training goals, not because I want to follow a specific philosophy. INCSYD as mentioned specified in my case the weaknesses quite clearly and hopefully makes me train them in the correct zones. I.e. improving Vo2Max and Fatmax is often your typical POL model but in order to blunt the impact on my already high-ish VLaMax I’m going to do less lactate producing intervals i.e. longer intervals in low end of VO2Max / just above threshold or over-unders / Lactate shuttling . Later adding some low cadence tempo when riding outside again to lower the VLaMax but that will take longer so leaving that more for the spring / summer, → Pyramidal.
I hope the test results I got are reasonably accurate but I guess time will tell. I felt a bit stagnated before and definitely couldn’t handle the intensity of the stock TR Plans, with my ramp test FTP anyway. My new zones have all gone down apart from the VO2Max that went up a bit so that should keep the overall intensity in check.
I’m also a bit sceptical but did it anyway as it makes sense to me plus all the pro teams and federations they claim to work with cant be too much off. Their claim that its as good as lactate / lab testing and not just a numeric algorithm / fit but physiological model I’m still trying to wrap my head around…
I think the test it self is a good protocol but you need to know what you can do, otherwise the results of threshold wont be correct, at least in Zwift as the intervals are fixed. VLaMax / Vo2Max is apparently defined from the sprint and 3min test so they are fairly easy to get right.
Personally I don’t put too much trust into what pro teams (supposedly) do. I don’t know how much of their training is really guided by this. Often they just try/test out things. If it is still around in 10 years I’d say it works. However, they probably have better support than the likes of us. I would assume many regular coaches just pass on the automatically generated output. I saw some bad examples of that in other forums where folks posted their results.
In my own testing the sprint is the difficult one. I used La measurements. It is extremely tricky to figure out which part of the peak you have to use. And the shape of the peak can mess up things a lot. Many studies out there used a ergometer where cadence was given. Only by this the huge variability was reduced.
1 Like
I think this is the case also - clearance more important. And the way to boost clearance capacity is to ride a lot at endurance pace to train slow twitch fibers and boost mitochondria (stealing from San Milan here).
Lowering lactate production probably also helps (less to clear), but I’d prefer to have high clearance capacity. This is what LA said about himself - high lactate clearance.
Each year I learn a little more about physiology that helps guide my training - I’ll be doing even more endurance riding this year - which means doing less of other stuff. Which is unfortunate, because I like riding up mountains to earn singletrack descents.
2 Likes
I can n=1 verify that. When I started TR in 2018 I had zero endurance/aerobic miles and my clearance capacity was non-existent — O/U were a nightmare. Last 2 years I’ve logged a decent amount of “endurance pace” hours and no longer feel searing pain from lactate byproducts. I endorse the slow ride!
3 Likes
and adding to the cacophony, though only for German speakers unfortunately: Base training 2.0
(part of a series of webinars to pitch the company … always worthwile to keep this in mind)
Haven’t watched it yet, only looked through the slides. Looks pretty familiar to all the other INSCYD material out there. Always a head turner when Lorang is talking.
@sryke I have done two INSCYD tests in the last two years. They were 6 months apart. The very first one gave me a VLamax of .28 (forgot units but you know that is low). Despite the low VLamax, I decided to continue doing endurance + tempo instead of the recommendation, which was mid-Zone 2 endurance + VO2max intervals (because “your limiter isn’t VLamax, it’s VO2max…so you should work on that”). For reasons that are not important here (met a coach), I kept riding endurance + tempo. Fast forward to the next (last) test. After six months of endurance and long low-mid tempo (.80-.84 IF ballpark), my VLamax was .31 (so effectively, no change). I had a slight bump in VO2max and lost 2kg. That slight weight loss and the change in VO2max DOES NOT explain my performance improvement over that six months.
@Tim_87. @TheFatSagan. @sryke
If I understand you guys correctly, your main point of skepticism around INSCYD test is VLamax itself, and my experience and improvement from the first test to the last one supports that skepticism. There was not change. I did not drive it down and increase VO2max and then see an increase in threshold.
And perhaps to throw a cat among the pigeons, other than HR and power numbers as I went along, the only metric that tracked my improvement during this six months was this thing called lactate balance point (I won’t talk about it much because I’ve already brought it up in other contexts and the forum generally dismisses it).
Could be, but I’m not sure of the need to train right at LT1, as ISM prescribes and @sryke has been experimenting with. My tempo was about 15W above LT1, and the intensity of that tempo increased with training (so further away from LT1). But maybe right at LT1 is better? Interesting stuff.
He does but be careful with that 1.1-1.3mmol number. There was a fairly generous standard deviation on that value for pros and recreational alike (for recreational SD was like +/-.9mmol). So lots of variability there. The more important thing for ISM isn’t the value. It is that the value is LT1. Now knowing my lactate numbers a bit better I would say I was always riding tempo + endurance lower than 2mmol, so I could tell all the cool kids I was training polarized :-). 100% / 0 intensity distro.
@Skeggis Sounds like you are further along than most on the forums (the participants in this thread notwithstanding) 
Most riders are just haphazardly throwing POL or SST against the wall with nothing more than “this one is better than that one, science says so”, which was my original point and an approach I think videos like Dylan’s encourage (although at least he’s doing it in an entertaining way).
IMO, the good news for you @Skeggis is that if it turns out to be more about improving lactate clearance as opposed to lowering VLamax, the prescription for doing either of those things is very similar: tempo. So even if the model is flawed, I had good success with their zones and the carb/fat consumption table at various intensities was useful.
I believe there is quite a bit to learn from the Olbrecht, Weber school, even if it turns out to be off in some ways.
2 Likes
Still, 0.2-2.0mmol…all values land in POL Z1:
Recreational/amateur athletes are still so far from their genetic potential that simply doing more in that POL Z1, regardless of lactate level (or training model) will be of benefit. Seiler thinks so, ISM thinks so…
2 Likes
@Captain_Doughnutman Yep, totally agree with you, hence my comment ^^^^^. My intensity distribution during that 6 months had no (ZERO, my man!) efforts above mid-tempo.
Not saying that’s always the way to train and n=1 and all that. In my clumsy way I was trying to point out exactly what you’re saying.
Addendum: but just to add this. I think what has gotten lost in the discussion is that it doesn’t have to be JUST mid Zone-2 (Coggan) for low intensity part. Intensities up to and including 2mmol can put some fatigue in the legs.
And, as a coincidental aside, low tempo/“no efforts above mid-tempo” seem to coincide with MAF HR. Don’t want to make too much of that but I can see how doing 6 months of MAF could lead to big improvements of certain physiological features.
3 Likes
Oh dude, tell me about it. Drives me absolutely bonkers! Hahahah…all this testing and lactates and FTP tests and the OTHER type of FTP test and frickin’ this and that…and this whole time I could’ve just used a max heart and age calculation and been on my way. My high school gym teacher even knew about MAF HR. He really got lucky with that because it is spot on for me.
2 Likes
Not specifically directed at the argument to this subject specifically. But I do think laymen/normal people should put faith in peer reviewed credible science, rather than try to come up with their own conclusions. Just look at the society today with all the fake news/alternate facts etc. People believing the earth is flat, global warming is a hoax etc.
And what is wrong about pointing to knowledge, and conclusions from credible research which might help someone?
Yeah, MAF HR is right at my Z2/Z3 point (coggin zones).
1 Like
All you guys high-fiving on MAF HR, mine is upper Z1 power (Coggan classic levels).
1 Like
@bbarrera I deleted my previous post because I thought it’s off-topic but I guess I better risk it.
Is that MAF heart rate calculation actually a thing? Mine would be 180-32+5 (or 10). So 153 bpm which equals my Z4 heart rate.
MAF running and MAF cycling put me in completely different pace/power zones. MAF is prioritizing health over fitness and can still do wonders if you put in the volume like a pro. I think he’s even said just because you can run a 2:10 marathon does not mean you’re healthy.
3 Likes