Lactic Acid Buildup - Cycling Leg

First, it probably means that you're pushing too hard. Don't listen to your power meter or training to tell you how fast to go. Listen to your body on race day.Second, lactic acid buildup does not cause burn. Lactic acid is used in your muscles as energy and when it breaks down, it leaves lactate and hydrogen ions. The hydrogen is what causes the burn. The solution? MORE, not less lactate. Try Sportslegs. It works like a miracle.

Hi,

Admittedly, I don't know much about biology.  Thanks for the info.  Amazingly, I don't feel this "burn" or tired leg feeling on my runs.  Maybe that is because I'm breathing heavier during my run and that slows me down naturally whereas I've got the lungs to ride faster but not the legs?

No logs so there is not enough info to gauge your training. What are the race distances? It simply sounds like you do not have fitness to hold 21mph.  Jorge's winter cycling plan will solve that problem!

Edited by Donto 2010-10-11 8:53 AM

Hi,

I have done all sprint distance tris & dus this year.  10-12 mile bike legs.

I have also done a lot of solo and group riding ranging from 19 miles to 65 miles at a clip.

What is very odd is during the longer rides, >25 miles, I really don't experience this dead-leg issue.  I feel stronger once I'm a little tired...if that makes any sense at all.

pace or speed is not a good indicator of effort. Effort for 21mph on a flat course with no wind is dramatically different for 21mph on a windy and hilly course...then there is the issue of how much did you burn up during the swim portion...

By the way, once you 'blow-up' and pass your threshold, you're going to find it even more difficult to recover...the goal is to be right at the threshold without going over...but it's hard to measure threshold with speed.  HR is a little bit better but if you listen to your body, you can figure out where that point is as you get more experience.

This will clear up any misconceptions about lactate: http://www.sport-fitness-advisor.com/lactic-acid.html/>
As for the rest of your post, pacing by speed on the bike can be misleading as many variable can affect it hence it will be better if you use perceived exertion plus something like a HR or even better a powermeter. Your are probably just riding too hard for your current fitness level...

Jorge's link should clear up any confusion when it comes to lactic acid, however the link is broken and should be:

http://www.sport-fitness-advisor.com/lactic-acid.html



As the recommendation to try Sportslegs; anyone who is considering it should read this:

http://www.sportsscientists.com/search?q=success+pill

Shane

I missed the post about sportlegs, but Ross/Jonathan post is pure awesomeness. The comments section has some great opinions as to why we sometimes are quick to believe amazing claims with little information at hand to make a rational decision.

I won a bottle of Sportlegs in a raffle and have tried it in a few different situations.  I can't say that it's done anything for me so I would never ever spend my money on it.  Reading that post just confirms it. 

The links to the lactic acid page are dead.

I've never used Sportslegs to give me a performance boost. I use it to prevent the burn. For me, it has worked very well. I've used it approximately 20 times this year and each time, I noticed that familiar climbs hurt less. If it's placebo, fine by me, but it definitely has worked for me. That article is arguing a point that no one is making. Triathletes are not just notoriously gullible, they're also notoriously contrarian. Somewhere in the middle lies the soon to be brainwashed masses. :p

I don't know why BT kills the link when I just cut and paste it here. let's see if this works

people are free to spend their money any way they want but I don't think it is a bad thing presenting readers with different views and info to help them make a better informed decision. If that means to be a contrarian, then I am happy to be one!

I that case, consider switching to Tylenol.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19910336

I agree 100%, but when people such as yourself (respected coaches, professionals in medicine, etc.) present their views, it holds more weight. This is likely a good thing, as most of the time, the collective pulse of the professionals of the sport are correct. When respected people link us to dubious op-ed pieces, it gives that dubious op-ed entirely too much credence.

I'lldefinitely give that a try...certaint cheaper than SL. I've been using Excedrin and Aleve...would the effects be similar?

the proposed mechanism is that dulling the pain response improves performance, so anything that dulls pain should have a similar effect. Clearly, there are risks with this. Pain is present for a reason. I presented the research not so much to recomend using tylenol for a performance boost, but to point out that research has been done on techniques to improve performance by removing the burning sensation you metnioed.

Excedrin contains not just one, but three active ingredients, one of them being caffiene which can be a performance enhancer in certain circumstances. It also contains aspirin & tylenol.

Alleve works by a different mechanism and is in the non-steroidal anti-inflammatory category, which also has an action that is very undesireable for endurance athletes...it restricts bloodflow to the kidneys.

Everything has side effects that may be harmless or potentially detrimental, and I don't advocate that my athletes use any OTC performance enhancers at all, rather I advocate smart training, good nutrition, sleep & recovery habits to maximize performance.

FWIW, the "dubious" op-ed piece was written by some PhD's in exercise physiology.  It's still an op-ed, but I give it more credence than most posts on BT.

If it hurts less, wouldn't you be able to go faster?  And therfore it would improve performance?  Also, how are you quantifying hurts less?  And are you correlating that to another metric so you know that you hurt less because you didn't push as hard?



I assume that was directed at me so I will ask, did you read the link Jorge provided on lactate?  And did you read the "op-ed" piece, including the physiological reasoning behind the authors's opinions?

Further, I would not call the work that Jonathan and Ross do dubious, regardless of the fact they have chosen to present some of their work in the form of a blog.  You may discount it on those grounds but I would suggest that, if you want to better understand exercise physiology, doing so is your loss.

Shane

I understand what you're saying. I don't utilize drugs of any kind on a regular basis. Sportslegs was actually my pill of choice and I took it on less than 20 occasions.



I don't see it as an improvement in performance, I see it as a reduction of pain. I suppose that they are one and the same. I'm basing the "hurts less" on the many other times that I climb this particular hill out here is SE Wisconsin. I typically ride it 2-4 times a week and I can tell the difference between a physical gain, as opposed to the enormous loss of burn on the climb. It's night and day. It's about a half mile long climb that really kicks up at the end, so I end up doubling my wattage at the top of the hill, relative to the beginning. On days that I took SL, I barely felt any burn whatsoever, at the same relative wattage (~190/375 watts at the beginning of the year, ~220/400 at the end of the year).




I went back and realized that the link that you copied and pasted was not the same as Jorge's. My apologies! I just read it now and I'm not sure how that argues against using something like SL. If anything, it seems to suggest that a product like that could be useful. It's entirely possible that I'm dense though. If I'm missing it, would you mind pointing it out? That sounds really snarky on the internet, but I intend no snark!

I wouldn't question the work of medical professionals with many years more experience in sport than myself, but an article titled, "As athletes are we really so gullible?" is not good science...it's opinion. They state the need for DB-PC studies and then dismiss it as a bogus product in the next paragraph. Whether they end up being right or wrong at the end of the day does not make this a valid scientific argument for the efficacy of SL.

Arguing how the product works on my particular body is not for me. I have absolutely no idea if it is a physical or psychosomatic effect, but it is there for me. If it is pure coincidence that I have personally felt significantly less burn on the days that I happened to take this stuff...so be it.

It's important for us all to remember that science is a constantly evolving process, not a static set of definitions. Perhaps science has yet to catch up with my body's amazing ability to utilize SL. :p

I think you were right the first time; I tried to repost Jorge's link dealing with lactate (lactic acid) and I also posted the link to the Success in a Pill blog entry.  The biggest issue with a product like this working the way they claim is that lactate is a byproduct of carbohydrate metabolization and the amount of lactate accumulation is primarily related to exercise intensity.

If you dig through the sources they cite on their website, you will see that the bulk of them deal with things like lactate accumulation and the lactate shuttle; I could find nothing that supports their hypothesis that their product works as they claim.



They are not medical professionals but rather exercise physiologists; the article is opinion however their claims are based on exercise physiology.  As for the DB-PC studies; if SportsLegs worked the way the company claims, they would invest in a DB-PC study to prove that it does what they say instead of a bunch of testimonials.



However, I would argue the problem is that you are not seeing a performance benefit (which one would hope that you would see if the product worked) and instead felt less burn during hard efforts.  While this may be interesting, there are many days that athletes will go out and feel great or terrible despite putting out the same wattage without using a product like this.



Science is absolutely constantly evolving, however, when it comes to understanding the evolution, I am going to trust two exercise physiologists over a company that is trying to sell me something.

Shane