I’ve just been to the university lab and completed a VO2 max test, an FTP test, and both LT1 and LT2 assessments. I’ll receive all the data shortly by email, and I’m now wondering how to use that information effectively within TrainerRoad to make sure my training is properly aligned with the lab results.
I also realise I’m an edge case and not everyone does this so I understand if the answer is do nothing
How would you expect any of that data to influence how you train?
I don’t want to come across rude but do you know what and LT1 and LT2 zones are and how to use them. As your response seems to indicate you don’t.
I am well aware of what they are lol.
I am asking how you expect a one off batch of lab testing to adjust your training.
I don’t think I would use it too much within the TR ecosystem. It would be interesting, and I’d make sure to note how LT1 and LT2 felt because I’m guessing they’ll be different in a couple months if your training is effective and you get fitter.
It’s a cool thing to know, and interesting to use as a benchmark for RPE, but I’m not sure it would change much within TR for me.
Yeah, i was wondering if anyone else had done this and how they had or i could use the data within the TR ecosystem as it’s a nice moment in time set of data points to work with alongside or something with the workouts TR is prescribing.
I had a dive around the settings but couldn’t find a way to manually set the top end of Z2 or the start of Z4, but it’ll be interesting to compare the TR data in Intervals.icu and see what the comparison is like.
You can adjust how aggressively each zone progresses in the training approach area, so if your Z2 is too high in TR, you can dial it back a bit for example. Not 100% correct, but I’m guessing it will be a good work around to get you close to your lab levels.
Personally - the only one I’d maybe use is LT1, to keep your Z2 Training below. But, It’s also going to change as you train more and get more fit.
For the rest, they’re not needed other than having a good estimate of FTP. In fact, Coggan has said something to the effect of - I have a lab cart at my disposal in the next room and never use it, I train by power…
Another thing to keep in mind, there is potentially as much or more error in measuring lactate as there is in measuring FTP, so there’s that. And, VO2 Max is pretty much a vanity metric that isn’t needed.
Exactly, most lactate monitors have fairly large error bars, add to that testing quality and the protocol used, as well as it being indoors in a lab setting compared to outside, also add in nutrition having an impact and you start to realize lactate testing is very difficult to glean reliably and actionable data from.
Also unless one is testing during their rides how will they know they are actually in the “correct” zone?
It’s possible to go full on with lactate testing but it’s a lot more of a hassle than many people think to make sure you are getting reliably accurate data. One could argue that power + RPE gives you the same information, more accurately with less hassle 
Sure, but using the lab data to self correct what specific zones should feel like is a totally valid option.
If there is a big delta between lt2 and tr ftp i personally would manually adjust the tr ftp. those workouts were designed with specific targets in mind based on your physiological response, pl3 at the wrong power could easily be the wrong workout.
Unless the lab data turns out to be not that accurate (which is a risk) in which case it just has you chasing your tail. There’s a risk of false precision is the problem.
Best route - Just do a long form test (e.g. Kolie Moore FTP Progression) to determine your FTP. Get used to what working below/at/above FTP feels like and how RPE, Breathing, HR react for you. Start maybe 2-5% below your AIFTP and work up. It’s a really, really good skill to develop anyways.
Then, do the same around the top of your endurance zone.
You can keep your measured LT1/LT2 in the back of your mind, but they may be less accurate than the power based metrics you already have.
Add to that the uncertainty of defining exactly where the inflection point is and the (typically) small number of measurements, and you increase the error bars even further.
If you use TR AI, then I don’t think this is necessary. As long as you get doable workouts, there is no need to twiddle with your FTP.
this is only true if all you do is use TR. If you’re using your FTP for ANYTHING outside TR, there are lots of reasons to want to ensure it’s accurate outside the TR ecosystem.
A workout can still be suboptimal even when it’s “doable”. If your workouts are a function of FTP and it’s not set correctly, you run the risk of driving different physiological adaptations and different types of stress.
If getting vo2max data, you’re most likely also getting vt1, vt2 results as well.
Within device variability of lactate meters is generally quite low, many of them having a standard deviation of zero when measuring the same sample repeatedly in a study i just looked up. Any of the error is also the bias, which for most individuals won’t impact the trends. The bias is fairly constant until readings go above 15mmol, which should only be the final point in the test.
Most errors in lactate testing are typically minimized when performed by someone else who can help ensure they’re minimal sweat contamination. The test format may bias the results, but it’s still a good idea to raise a flag of there’s a big delta.
Kollie’s test is good to verify, which is why power alone isn’t necessarily the best answer, but how you’re reacting to that power. Then you can use that rpe to validate adjustments to ftp after fitness improvements.
In this case, if the op took the time to take a full test, at least humor it for a bit to see if it helps you out. Otherwise it was a waste of time if you’re just going to ignore it.
I personally don’t find LT data or VO2max data useful to guide training at all.
Training is based off what you can do in real life.
It’s not based off a one-time measured value of a small sample of what’s happening with your total body physiology during exercise.
There is no better measurement for what your real life capabilities are than your documented real-life capabilities.
If a test said your LT2 was 20w higher than what you thought your FTP was… but now you can’t do workouts successfully anymore, that’s not helpful. If a test said your LT2 was 20w lower than what you thought your FTP was and now your workouts are too easy… that’s not helpful.
If your LT1 ends up being in what you thought was tempo, and now you’re so fatigued from your “z2” workouts that you’re bailing on your intervals, that’s not helpful. If your LT1 ends up being way below what you thought your z2 was, so now you’re just noodling around in z1 all the time, that’s not helpful either.
It can be fun for vanity or personal curiosity purposes, but the results aren’t that helpful to guide training.
What you can do in real life is always going to trump a surrogate partial-physiological marker you measured in a lab.
You say this in a lot of places, but I Disagree - dependent on the user and how accurate AIFTP is. For me - it’s off enough that I don’t even use it. Thus, my suggestion.
This is not new and there may be additional, other relevant factors, e. g. indoor vs. outdoor FTP or FTP in a specific body position (think TT bike vs. road bike or mountain bike).
Within the context of structured training with TR, I’d still say stick to AI FTP recommendations and it is very likely you will get the right workouts that target the right energy systems.
In principle, this is correct. But in my months using TR AI (starting with the private beta), this has not been the case for me or other beta testers.
TR’s team has shared statistics, and (taking them at face value) your suggestion goes against the trend they have observed, namely that in the vast majority of athletes, AI FTP v2.0 (= the one released alongside TR AI) has suggested a lower FTP to most athletes.
And TR’s statistics say that AI FTP v2.0 is, again for the vast majority of athletes, a significant improvement if you look at success rates of workouts. I can dig up the post if you’d like.
This assumes the lab testing is done well (what protocol was used to test?) and dependant on how the data is interpreted.
TR’s latest aiFTP is also not really something you can say that it should be the same as the original definition of FTP. It might be the same for some people but not for others, in the TR ecosystem it is a number to assign workouts, not a reflection of one’s maximal metabolic steady state.
Please don’t. Not again. In fact, it’d be great if you didn’t turn this into a other one of those threads borderline coming after people where the number is off and it doesn’t work for them.