That is why i said close to 2 but not 2.0mmol. When host asked him is it 2mmol he said that for cyclist that doesn’t have to be but he didn’t mentioned how he deteriminates LT1 from lactate testing results
Yeah I know and I’m not trying to call you out. But I am calling out his suggestion of how to determine it. It hasn’t been helpful for me and now that I’ve actually measure it a few times over the last year it’s not the same as what I would get using his method.
Truth be told, he probably doesn’t even want to answer the question. But Trevor pushed him maybe LOL.
Right. And what I’m saying is that’s no different than saying “just spitball it”. It’s not helpful. Which leaves us doing what @grawp is about to do: breath and think about it. Like yoga.
If you shorten steps power and start low enough for example 15-20 watt increment every 6min you should be able to spot LT1 as the first rise. Just stick a bit below that watts for your endurance rides.
Why?
Is this directed at me? If so yeah, I recognize that as a protocol to get LT1. I’ve measured LT1 many times now. It’s nice because you don’t have to go to max or worry about the comparatively useless LT2 (you made your point about that @old_but_not_dead_yet, so no need to tell me again). I just use FTP. (and FWIW, MAP or ~5min power for upper range stuff).
The guy who taught me uses a slightly different protocol (dang it, OBNYD’s point again LOL), but no matter. It’s likely close enough.
And I spent a lot of time riding below that, at that, and right above that.
You can prescribe endurance training a number of different ways, e.g., power, pace, perceived exertion, heart rate, etc. Regardless of which you choose, though, why feel the need to stick close to so-called LT1?
Come on, you know why. It has a cool name and it’s science-y.
But seriously, I hear you. It’s a good question/point.
You can see all his rides on Zwift going back for many, many months or maybe even years. I don’t think he rides outdoors so his Zwift profile has his routine. Even if your Zwift account is expired you can still view his rides.
Just curious. Was your time on the bike the same for both approaches?
Interesting discussion - maybe as obndy pointed out mostly theoretical or of limiting use - but I’ll give you my perspective and another way approaching it:
I want an intensity for a long workout that 1) I can recover from fast but 2) at the same time giving me some stimulus. Minimum effective dose.
And as proxy I’m using aerobic decoupling. Pick a long enough duration…let’s say 3 hours…then I’m trying to keep aerobic decoupling flat at least until 30min before end of ride (heard something along this in some podcast recently).
If you ride long and constant at 195 watt or 235 watt…how does HR curve or aerobic decoupling compare? After how long in the ride starts the decoupling?
Answers to these questions might give you some hints for what to use in your training instead of focusing on some unknown LT1.
Yep, I’m with you.
I think Trevor Connor, but I could be wrong. No matter, I’ve heard similar. Question though would be why?
So you would have to do some benchmarking. Not an all out “what’s my 3hr power” benchmark, but “when does power move away from HR” at a certain effort.
What I like:
- Simple
- I like riding my bike this way anyway, so the “benchmarking” isn’t really like a test/assessment and can be a natural part of your training. Certainly not a max effort, as is common for PDC feeding
What I’m not sure about:
- I think the 30mins could be a general recommendation, but based on what? Fatigue management? Still a bit of experimenting you’d have to do
- How much decoupling is “starts decoupling”. Friel’s 5% is a coaching thing he did to assess “base fitness” and not applicable here, IMO
- The obvious, which is all the shortcomings of using HR (hydration, heat, etc). We don’t have a way to measure stroke volume (and therefore cardiac output) and that’s what we really want
Fun (maybe) side note. I was watching a Phil Gaimon video (one w/ cameo from Froome) and he said something to the same effect. “[At the end of a long ride], when you start to see power and HR move away from each other it’s time to call it a day and go eat pizza” (paraphrasing, but I definitely got the pizza part right).
How often were the tempo rides? I see you referenced the VO2 and OU sessions below.
What percent of FTP did you use as a cap for the rest of the (S1) days? What test did you base your FTP on?
What kind of tempo rides did you do?
You may have stated it previously and if so I missed it. but are you still using the same coach / methodology? If not why did you stop?
Thanks for the excellent feedback.
I regularly do some small surges every 5’ or so on most endurance rides, or just get out of the saddle for 20s and then change cadence for the next 5’ stretch. Lots of 5’ intervals go by much faster than a 2 hour trainer S1 ride.
I am with you on the 300 watts. My FTP is about 295 right now and I usually target 190-210 indoors. I really enjoy the outdoor rides of 4-5 hours like this.
Thanks! That’s Really helpful
I’m doing 1 vo2max or threshold session every week. I just wondering if it’s too much and thanks to your feedback I think I’m going to reduce the z3 session.
I have this idea of doing 1 sweet spot session and 1 vo2max/threshold session for a week beside the z1 sessions for the next block of training, but I think I’ll drop this idea.
Or not.
Think about it. Why would the amount of cardiac drift tell you anything about muscular fatigue and recovery?
Which is a better predictor of marathon or ultramarathon performance - VO2max, a.k.a. cardiovascular fitness, or LT?
The answer, of course, is LT.
It therefore follows that you’d better off regulating those endurance sessions - which are supposed to be 80% of all workouts - relative to some marker of muscular fitness, e.g., FTP, than a cardiovascular measurement, i.e., HR.
For the VO2max sessions, pick a duration, pick a number of repetitions, and let 'er rip. If you go too hard, you won’t be able to complete the workout “in style”, whereas if you don’t go hard enough, you can, or at least should, go harder next time.
Since the big driver of improvements in the polarized approach are those intense interval sessions, and you can’t train really, really hard if you’re too tired, I would argue that effective polarized training is at least, if not more, dependent on having an adequate handle on your FTP than alternatives.
See you contributing in other threads I follow and think I cannot offer more to you than you know already (WKO extensive aerobic…).
I’m with you overall.
For me I’ve seen it when HR curve was turning from flatish (or very slight rising) to pointing a bit more upwards…so it became decoupled. You can see it here in the last third:
Maybe it’s overthinking too much and unfortunately it’s not always as clear but I have some indication now and feel way more confident in my training (using some WKO principles and my own planning and conservative FTP instead of standard TR plans).
I’m sure you know the obvious answers…there is a thread here
One take (assuming heat and hydration is dialed) is that muscular fatigue leads to more muscular recruitment leads to more oxygen demand leads to cardiac drift.
Another take from here (https://www.peakendurancesport.com/endurance-training/training-structure-and-planning/discontinuous-training-master-stroke-endurance-athletes/) is:
“Another explanation is that CV-Drift occurs as a result of the release of a hormone called catecholamine, which is released as part of the body’s ‘fight or flight’ responses to physical stress”
(Appl. Physiol. 1999;86:799–805)
Not sure how much of this is tapping into the unknown.
Would be interested on your take.
How would you solve this for me?