Anyone see this study?
Does Lactate-Guided Threshold Interval Training within a High-Volume Low-Intensity Approach Represent the “Next Step” in the Evolution of Distance Running Training?
Does this mean we need to use lactate test strips more to better optimize our training?
The objective as I understand it is to optimize recovery to increase volume. True high volume, the volume of elites.
Ha! Well, no. I mean, anybody who has been on the track with pro middle distance runners, watched Lionel Sanders YouTube Channel, seen the Norwegian triathletes training videos, etc, will be able to tell you it’s how modern pro Triathletes and middle distance runners are training.
The number 1 thing this approach allows athletes to do (as I mentioned in my ‘double threshold’ thread) is have an anchor point for sweet spot intensity. Which is perhaps why the method has not caught on more with cyclists. We already have a very good understanding of what sweet spot is & how to use it.
If you look at most blood lactate protocols the number one thing they are doing is making sure the workout is not too intense. For example, the Ingebrigtsen approach is to keep bLa at a two or three handle during ‘double threshold’ workouts. When I read that I thought, ‘Oh. On the bike that is sweet spot.’ For me, at least.
So it sounds like they’re just trying to find the intensity that maximizes adaptation and minimizes recovery time. And based on the times I’m seeing on the track this year, it’s working.
I know we’re repeating ourselves but one of the big unknown is, does it also work for average folks with average VO2max. All these elites are genetic freaks with inherent high vo2max capacities. Perhaps they don’t nee to train above threshold. Perhaps the stimulus by sub-threshold work is already enough to cause supra-threshold adaptions. Which in turn allows a higher volume at relative intensity. Average Joes simply do not have the engines to do the volume at sub-threshold.
And then there are older folks …
Your comment has the implicit suggestion that perhaps one can/should replace volume with intensity to arrive at your personal maximum, given a certain time constrain.
This is already proven to be true.
Nope, did not mean this.
Yes. I’ve been building a bigger engine but my relative is something like 46 and clearly not in the same league as elites. I’ve formed some opinions about the work I’m doing, but no lactate measurements just comparing threshold/SS workout formats and seeing parallels. However unlike above I’m also doing above threshold work.
He said “engine”, not time to train. A shortage of neither has been proven to justify increases in intensity.
I bought a lactate meter and have incorporated it into my training. There is a lot of nuance to it though that in the wrong hands just muddies the waters even more. First is that elites are likely also doing full metabolic testing, so they have HR, Lactate, Fat Ox, Ch Ox, etc. The second is that Lactate is influenced by a lot of factors, and even more befuddling is a concentration measurement. The third is that lactate meters are not super precise. The fourth is that the measurement is prone to error.
In the hands of a knowledgeable user it is a great tool. For the masses, calibrating HR, RPE, and ventilatory markers - along with understanding recovery - is much more productive to focus on.
For you and i, it is sweet spot. But they do not have a standard lactate of 4 at AnT, but around 3. At least for the triathletes.
Their baseline values are < 1 mmol as well… or at least were when arild tveiten was their main coach. They’ve only done tweaks here and there to further optimize their training since but most interviews I’ve heard since says the foundation is the same.
For my own work, 20 minutes at 85% put me at around 4 mmol at this current period (dud this on wed) but that value is heavily influenced by how much tempo or sweet spot training in doing. It has been as high as 6 mmol at times i wasn’t doing any middle zone work.
