Seeking advice after VO2 Max and Lactate Testing

Training
1

Hello all,

TLDR; Lactate Test gives me an LT2 of 223w from a submax test. Is this my FTP?

Last week I undertook a VO2 Max and Lactate test at the High Performance Unit (a title that flatters my efforts) at the University of Essex, here in the UK.

For background, I am a 54yo male, weight at around 69.5kg (about 2kg over my racing weight), who has been a fairly consistent user of TR since the beta days, but this year for various life related reasons my training has not been as intense as in previous years (not much racing, full-on vocational study, and no overseas trips to train for). TR has me at 245w for my FTP, which I think is probably too high for me. I like to think of myself as a climber so my aim in training is to improve my climbing speed and efficiency.

My aim with the testing was to obtain a baseline so I can build over the winter and retest again around April next year. Due to my age and some family history of heart-related illness, I was unable to undertake the testing to failure so the data I have comes from a Submax test.

These are the headline figures:

image

The chap conducting the test estimates that if the test had continued I’d probably have added maybe another 1.5 pts to my Rel Peak and Absolute had it been a max test. I know I could have pushed on to the next level (315w) for maybe a minute or more. I’m happy with the numbers more or less, but my reason for writing relates to the lactate testing and what it means for my training.

My LT1 and LT2 from the testing are as follows:

image
image710Ă—152 4.57 KB

My lactate curve is as follows:

image
image725Ă—465 34.5 KB

In a follow up call with the tester, they suggested that I reduce my FTP on TR down to my LT2 number of 223w, and then configure my training to longer rides at or just below LT1, with long interval sessions (5 - 20 mins) in the middle of my new z4 (210w - 236w) with rest intervals of a similar duration, to start to push up my LT2.

Maybe it’s my ego, but 223w seems low even though I know my current FTP of 245 is probably a bit too high. Full disclosure, I had been struggling a bit with some of the Over Under sessions lately, and suspect if I had dropped down maybe 5w they would have been more manageable.

Keen to hear views from people on the idea of 223w as my FTP. I’ve paid my money and gotten those numbers, so common sense sort of says I should heed the advice. I’d welcome other perspectives though. I’m actually quite looking forward to the simplicity of longer sub-LT1 rides and perhaps 1 x VO2 Max and 1 x (2 x 20mins) LT2 ride a week (as a supplementary question, would I be over-egging the pudding by doing both harder rides in one week?).

I hope that all makes sense?

Cheers!

Jack.

2

Nobody’s opinion matters. Here’s how you solve this immediately and scientifically.

Warm up and then ride at 245w. Can you make it 45 minutes? Conversely, you could start at 223 and see how it feels. It might take a couple of sessions to suss out your ftp by feel this way.

I would use the Kolie Moore protocol:

Start at your 223 as the baseline and then ramp up a little bit and feel your way through.

Or, trust TrainerRoad. If FTP is slightly optimistic, your levels will be lower and TR will adjust your FTP as you go and it sees more training data.

6 Likes
3

Thank you, I’ll look at that post tonight.

Hmmm, I’m not sure. I’d say probably not. I reckon I could absolutely hold 223w though.

That’s probably not a bad shout tbh. I had forgotten about the KM protocols. It is the kind of test I like so I think I’ll do that and a ramp test next week and see how I fair.

I do trust TR, to a degree, and in fact the AI did drop my FTP down a while back but has since been keeping it pretty static and lowering my levels (Threshold has gradually reduced from around PL6 to PL3).

If I think about it, it seems that as long as I am training my easier rides below LT1, then my LT2+ sessions can be as hard as I can manage for the durations I am aiming at (20 - 30min), providing I ensure I don’t dig myself into a hole in terms of fatigue.

Very helpful, thanks again.

1 Like
4

I would just ditch the ramp test permanently unless, for the sake of scientific discovery, you want to see how close a ramp test is to a KM test.

I do the KM test like once a month. It gives a good snapshot of my Ftp and, in the end, it’s nothing more than a solid threshold workout.

2 Likes
5

Why did you undertake the testing. What were you planning to use the results for?

1 Like
6

Hi there,

A mix of reasons, curiosity regarding VO2 Max, wanting to get a proper idea of my lactate thresholds, and get a baseline for my fitness so I have something to work on (for a retest) over the winter.

Of course, now I have the results I’m curious how best to use the data to make best use of my time.

7

Just a couple of observations…

It appears that 2mmol/l and 4mmol/l were used as your threshold values, which maybe isn’t the best way to interpret the data. But, when you test again, if the power at 2 and 4 mmol/l changes, you can compare easily and see the difference at the fixed values.

It would be nice to have the raw data. The curves looks too smooth. But that’s ok. By drawing some lines over the lactate curve and constructing a trilinear curve, I would guesstimate that your threshold is closer to 235 watts. Maybe even a little lower since the graded exercise test is a dynamic test and there are some transient effects in the lactate response.

Like others have mentioned, it’s probably a good idea to do a long form test. A ramp test with power-only data is not that useful, IMO.

2 Likes
8

Your LT1 is at 76% of your LT2.

Unless you’re on very low volumes, it’s probably best to do your endurance riding well below your LT1.

If it was me, I’d be looking at anything in the 55% to 65% of FTP range for endurance riding. The lower figure if you’re at high volume and vice versa.

1 Like
9

For what it’s worth, I don’t think that a lower FTP number is going to do you much harm, bar the bruised ego! This season, I feel that TR has been overestimating my FTP, especially when my focus is on 10m / 25m TTs - I just couldn’t put the power down for that length of time without either failing to complete or being too tired to do anything else for 3-4 days afterwards.

Kolie Moore talks about this in an empirical cycling podcast - that FTPs based on shorter tests (or AI detection) are inflated, which leads to people struggling on longer intervals. He also says that the “dose” of FTP work is in the length of the interval - and that work done close to FTP works, it doesn’t have to be spot on.

So I’ve lowered my FTP and focused on increasing length and recovery, and I’ve had much more success in holding a decent power on TT efforts.

3 Likes
10

I’m also going through this. Got my results with LT1 being around 120w and LT2 being 180w with like a suggested FTP of 185. TR had me at like 233, then I went on a 4 week hiatus (vacation + getting sick). Come back, do this test and it’s disheartening to see this mega watt loss effectively setting me back the entire summer.

The one positive that this does do for me is confirm that I’ve generally been setting my training zones too high. I think my Z2’s have flirted with Z3, Sweet Spot is more threshold etc.
So I’m going back to the grind and try to actually do stay on the lower end of zones for longer instead. I’ll report back

2 Likes
11

Did you do any rides for those 4 weeks leading up to your test, or did you jump right into the test?

12

Once you get over the dent to your ego you’ll find your training will be much more effective. FTP has no bearing on your worth as a person.

1 Like
13

You have the tools at your disposal to easily do an FTP test. Take a day off, then count the FTP test as a high intensity/interval workout.

The difference between 220 & 240 is pretty huge regarding the amount of time you’re going to dedicate for a training program. Don’t you want that time to be best utilized?

I did my own FTP test before doing the high volume polarized session early summer (as a pretty inexperienced rider) and I was able to complete all the workouts. Many were soul crushing, but having faith in your FTP and the program goes a long ways. I just started a medium volume plan and am going based on FTP detection (3 watts higher than the FTP test I completed the aforementioned high volume plan in June) so we’ll see how it goes. I’ve been training reasonably decent between the programs, and as a newer rider, I would’ve guessed I’d be about -8/+5 of my last test. I’ll do another test after the program ends.

1 Like
14

The irony of paying for a VO2 Max/Lactate test protocol only to be told to do FTP test for $0 :joy:

2 Likes
15

:joy: I don’t think that the testing wasn’t of value. It certainly gave some good metrics. It’s just - if you want to know what your actual FTP test is, then do an FTP test.

It’s like being a 5k racer and going to a lab and running 400m and then having them predict what your 5k time might be. Why not just… run a 5k?

I see value in getting your lactate threshold and VO2 max as metrics to build on and measure performance gains. I’ve considered doing similar testing as I like getting in the weeds on metrics. I would just have absolutely no expectation for them to tell me what my FTP is, any more accurately than doing the actual test and knowing what I’m capable of.

Now - if I sucked at pacing/testing (something I believe should be worked on), then it could add value, although I’d probably argue TR’s AI FTP would be more accurate.

What would really frustrate me is if they calculated my FTP at 230 watts, and then I immediately went out and did a test at 250 watts.

2 Likes
16

I’ve no faith in a lactate test as a predictor of much, especially if you only ever do 1. I’m with you otherwise - if you want to know your FTP, do a long form FTP test and be done with it. Simple, free, and effective.

2 Likes
17

Yeah when I was on vacation I probably got like 4 cycling workouts in on a stationary gym bike. Like 2x for the first 2 weeks.

Once I got back and mostly recovered from my cold, I got a Z2, and a Vo2 Max workout (Date) in.

1 Like
18

I did lab testing a few years ago when I was in my early 50’s and my LT2 was much more pronounced (an obvious lactate ramp, not smooth like yours). I honestly don’t know what that means, but I’m not sure I’d trust that LT2 number when it’s sitting on such a linear curve.

If you are just concerned about using the right FTP for training, I’m in the camp of “it doesn’t matter that much, it’s just a starting point”. If you are using TR with adaptive training and progression levels, the workouts should right-size themselves. If you set it too high and fail some workouts, progression levels and/or FTP will be adjusted accordingly. Conversely, if set too low, adaptive training will quickly ramp the workouts/FTP up to make them appropriate.

If you are using FTP for more specific/tactical purposes like pacing a TT, that’s where you better know a real number. But that number should be dialed in with field testing, not a ramp test or lab test. If you have to do a ~1 hour TT and need to figure out the wattage target, the best way to get that is to go out and do some ~45 minute or so efforts to see what is sustainable (as close to race conditions as possible).

I did the lab testing at the local university for much the same reasons you stated. It was reasonably cheap and you get to see real metrics and bounce training ideas and get ideas on improvement with high level professionals that deal with elite athletes all the time. Some of the metrics that were particularly interesting were comparisons of threshold power as a percentage of vo2max. I took my first test when I was decently fit, but I focused heavily on volume for about a year before taking another test. While my v02max only increased slightly (both absolute and based on weight), my power at v02max jumped up a bit (at a lower hr and ventilation rate). I was also able to significantly improve my threshold power, pushing my o2 consumption at threshold up to almost 90% of my v02max consumption (up from only ~80% the year prior). This was good and bad news. The folks doing the test were pretty impressed with the increase in only a year for an old fart like me, but they also said I probably didn’t have much more ceiling to grow my FTP based on that percentage of vo2max. And my FTP hasn’t really gone any higher since then despite continuing to ramp volume, but my durability has increased significantly. For those questioning the value of lab testing, I can’t disagree. I probably could have gotten the same gains with smart training. But cycling is my primary hobby and I like the science side of it, so it was a bit of a treat to get some real numbers and get some training advice from real experts.

6 Likes
19

What does wko5 suggest as your FTP? (It’s expensive but if it does model your ftp correctly you could skip future testing, though the model ldoes require a few hard efforts)

20

AIUI lab testing becomes useful when done regularly and frequently.

Whilst the data is interesting and perhaps even useful to put with other data, I am not convinced that a single set of tests at that one moment in time has a huge amount of value.

Am I way off the mark with that view?

1 Like