Lactate Threshold vs VO2 max (Page 2)
-
No new posts
Moderators: k9car363, alicefoeller | Reply |
|
2014-08-14 10:59 AM in reply to: dmiller5 |
Extreme Veteran 2261 Ridgeland, Mississippi | Subject: RE: Lactate Threshold vs VO2 max Originally posted by dmiller5 Originally posted by msteiner Yeah he's great and you'll learn so much!!! the ben greenfield center for kids who don't run good, and wanna learn to do other stuff good too. I was even nice enough to add two more exclamation points. I'm counting that as my good deed for today. |
|
2014-08-14 11:44 AM in reply to: TriMyBest |
439 nashville, Tennessee | Subject: RE: Lactate Threshold vs VO2 max Haha! Thanks everyone for the input! |
2014-08-14 12:58 PM in reply to: mchadcota2 |
Coach 9167 Stairway to Seven | Subject: RE: Lactate Threshold vs VO2 max Originally posted by mchadcota2 Haha! Thanks everyone for the input! I guess the bottom line is that no one whose been exposed to his previous stuff is going to take the time to read his current book to sort out wheat from chaffe. it may all be valid...he does have many valid ideas. But there are lots of other sources of good training info as well. Enjoy it. then pick up another book and read it too. |
2014-08-14 1:09 PM in reply to: AdventureBear |
439 nashville, Tennessee | Subject: RE: Lactate Threshold vs VO2 max More on the topic of LT. Since LT threshold can be used as a mark of improved fitness, what exactly happens? I would think you would just get faster, produce more power at that same LT number. But does the actual HR increase? If my LT is 174 BPM right now and I work hard over next couple of months would I expect my LT to > 174 assuming I did improve? That doesn't sound right to me. Insight? |
2014-08-14 1:18 PM in reply to: mchadcota2 |
Champion 9407 Montague Gold Mines, Nova Scotia | Subject: RE: Lactate Threshold vs VO2 max What should happen is that the power/pace you can sustain at LT should improve. While HR may vary (generally someone who is new to testing LTHR will see it increase as they get better at testing) depending on testing conditions, amount of rest, hydration status, etc, what you really want is to see power/pace at LT to improve. Shane |
2014-08-14 1:31 PM in reply to: gsmacleod |
Extreme Veteran 2261 Ridgeland, Mississippi | Subject: RE: Lactate Threshold vs VO2 max Why not just do a 5k/10k test and get your paces based on that via VDOT or McMillan? That is way less variable than HR, and it gives you paces for more than just tempo efforts along with a more tangible way to see progress. |
|
2014-08-14 1:47 PM in reply to: msteiner |
439 nashville, Tennessee | Subject: RE: Lactate Threshold vs VO2 max Originally posted by msteiner Why not just do a 5k/10k test and get your paces based on that via VDOT or McMillan? That is way less variable than HR, and it gives you paces for more than just tempo efforts along with a more tangible way to see progress. Exactly my thoughts. I don't really understand the significance of LT tests if you're just looking at increases in power/pace. If I do a 20 min LT test and record my power/pace, seems like the next time I did the test I wouldn't really care about my LT HR as long as my power/pace increased. So I'm a little confused. |
2014-08-14 1:53 PM in reply to: mchadcota2 |
Pro 6582 Melbourne FL | Subject: RE: Lactate Threshold vs VO2 max Originally posted by mchadcota2 If you are training by HR then use the HR zones calculated from it. If training by power or pace use those. No need to start mixing in HR unless you're after data points or want to track "what's wrong with me today, why is my HR so high for the effort" and you end up getting ill the next day.Originally posted by msteiner Exactly my thoughts. I don't really understand the significance of LT tests if you're just looking at increases in power/pace. If I do a 20 min LT test and record my power/pace, seems like the next time I did the test I wouldn't really care about my LT HR as long as my power/pace increased. So I'm a little confused. Why not just do a 5k/10k test and get your paces based on that via VDOT or McMillan? That is way less variable than HR, and it gives you paces for more than just tempo efforts along with a more tangible way to see progress. |
2014-08-14 1:56 PM in reply to: mchadcota2 |
928 | Subject: RE: Lactate Threshold vs VO2 max Originally posted by mchadcota2 Originally posted by msteiner Why not just do a 5k/10k test and get your paces based on that via VDOT or McMillan? That is way less variable than HR, and it gives you paces for more than just tempo efforts along with a more tangible way to see progress. Exactly my thoughts. I don't really understand the significance of LT tests if you're just looking at increases in power/pace. If I do a 20 min LT test and record my power/pace, seems like the next time I did the test I wouldn't really care about my LT HR as long as my power/pace increased. So I'm a little confused. If you truly know your LT heart rate then you can use that number to modulate the effort of your workouts and also your paces in races. For example, if you spend too much time over LT in a marathon, you will hit the pace wall and have to slow down. You can figure out what HR levels to maintain certain efforts in other races too. However, you're right that it is somewhat of a moving target, and you would have to retest frequently to figure out the exact numbers. Training strictly by pace (a la Daniels vDot or McMillan) isn't perfect either, though, because pace vs. effort can vary based on terrain, how much you sleep, how hard you worked the day before, etc. So in some ways it works well to use both, while also getting in tune with how the different zones and effort levels feel. |
2014-08-14 2:01 PM in reply to: jennifer_runs |
Extreme Veteran 2261 Ridgeland, Mississippi | Subject: RE: Lactate Threshold vs VO2 max Originally posted by jennifer_runs Originally posted by mchadcota2 If you truly know your LT heart rate then you can use that number to modulate the effort of your workouts and also your paces in races. For example, if you spend too much time over LT in a marathon, you will hit the pace wall and have to slow down. You can figure out what HR levels to maintain certain efforts in other races too. However, you're right that it is somewhat of a moving target, and you would have to retest frequently to figure out the exact numbers. Training strictly by pace (a la Daniels vDot or McMillan) isn't perfect either, though, because pace vs. effort can vary based on terrain, how much you sleep, how hard you worked the day before, etc. So in some ways it works well to use both, while also getting in tune with how the different zones and effort levels feel. Originally posted by msteiner Exactly my thoughts. I don't really understand the significance of LT tests if you're just looking at increases in power/pace. If I do a 20 min LT test and record my power/pace, seems like the next time I did the test I wouldn't really care about my LT HR as long as my power/pace increased. So I'm a little confused. Why not just do a 5k/10k test and get your paces based on that via VDOT or McMillan? That is way less variable than HR, and it gives you paces for more than just tempo efforts along with a more tangible way to see progress. Those things affect HR as well if not more so. If you read Jack Daniels' Racing Formula he has ways of accounting terrain and heat in your paces. I will stand by VDOT being absolutely superior to HR training for running. |
2014-08-14 2:13 PM in reply to: mchadcota2 |
Sensei Sin City | Subject: RE: Lactate Threshold vs VO2 max Just my few thoughts (and I may be muddying the waters more so feel free to disregard all of it). I agree there could be some variance in your HR during testing due to physical and environment factors, but if you test in similar conditions, you might be surprised at how little the results vary. I have done MANY LT field tests, and they are not fun. I basically play a game for those 30 minutes that my house is burning down and I HAVE to get home to saved pets or loved ones - so I'm going all out. Sure enough, regardless of the pace (faster mid season, slower at the start of the season), my HR for that effort (for running) is 183... ALSO, keep in mind that number is used to set your training zones. If you plug in 183, or 181, or 185, your ZONES are almost exactly the same (maybe 1 bpm +/-). If you are trying to train in the middle of that zone, does it REALLY make a difference if you are 1 bpm off on the upper/lower end? I also did a V02 max test for grins a while ago (and I'm going from memory), but it wasn't the actual V02 max that I cared about, but the point when O2 and CO2 "crossed" each other (and at what HR). Maybe it was coincidence, but what the Vo2 max test gave me was a AeT and AT that matched very closely to My LT and the top of my Zone2 as determined from LT testing). All of which seemed to give me comfort I was working were I needed to work. I could care less if My VO2 max was 35 ml/kg/min or 45. I'm more concerned with pace vs effort. I could also raise my VO2 max by simply losing weight and not making any fitness gains apparently (OR I could get younger!).
|
|
2014-08-14 2:20 PM in reply to: mchadcota2 |
Champion 9407 Montague Gold Mines, Nova Scotia | Subject: RE: Lactate Threshold vs VO2 max Originally posted by mchadcota2 Exactly my thoughts. I don't really understand the significance of LT tests if you're just looking at increases in power/pace. If I do a 20 min LT test and record my power/pace, seems like the next time I did the test I wouldn't really care about my LT HR as long as my power/pace increased. So I'm a little confused. If you are testing LTHR, it is to set training zones using HR. You would use those zones to train at the appropriate levels for a period of time and then retest. If you tested well the first time, it is likely you won't see much of a change in your LTHR but you should see an improvement in power or pace so you know training is effective (or not). If you want to train by pace, such as Daniels' VDot which I use with most of my athletes, then you just run a race, get your paces and train accordingly. However, this typical requires an athlete with a good idea of effort as when terrain or conditions change, you need to be able to adjust your pace accordingly. So if M pace was 7:30/mile and suddenly you are doing a bunch of climbing or it is 100F with 95% humidity, you want to be able to keep your effort at 7:30/mile while your pace drops. Shane |
2014-08-14 2:21 PM in reply to: msteiner |
Pro 6582 Melbourne FL | Subject: RE: Lactate Threshold vs VO2 max Originally posted by msteiner Blah, nothing magical about VDOT either. My VDOT paces line up with my LT HR zones and McMillian pace zones, maybe I'm a lucky one who knows. OP, just use what works for you and stick with it.Originally posted by jennifer_runs Originally posted by mchadcota2 If you truly know your LT heart rate then you can use that number to modulate the effort of your workouts and also your paces in races. For example, if you spend too much time over LT in a marathon, you will hit the pace wall and have to slow down. You can figure out what HR levels to maintain certain efforts in other races too. However, you're right that it is somewhat of a moving target, and you would have to retest frequently to figure out the exact numbers. Training strictly by pace (a la Daniels vDot or McMillan) isn't perfect either, though, because pace vs. effort can vary based on terrain, how much you sleep, how hard you worked the day before, etc. So in some ways it works well to use both, while also getting in tune with how the different zones and effort levels feel. Originally posted by msteiner Exactly my thoughts. I don't really understand the significance of LT tests if you're just looking at increases in power/pace. If I do a 20 min LT test and record my power/pace, seems like the next time I did the test I wouldn't really care about my LT HR as long as my power/pace increased. So I'm a little confused. Why not just do a 5k/10k test and get your paces based on that via VDOT or McMillan? That is way less variable than HR, and it gives you paces for more than just tempo efforts along with a more tangible way to see progress. Those things affect HR as well if not more so. If you read Jack Daniels' Racing Formula he has ways of accounting terrain and heat in your paces. I will stand by VDOT being absolutely superior to HR training for running. After my 1st run & bike LT tests which were a learning experiences, my run LT has only had a 3 bpm window. I've had a bit more variability on the bike depending on my bike fitness at the time. I now train by pace/RPE on the run and RPE/HR on bike outdoors and virtual power on the trainer. I race by the chase RPE! |
2014-08-14 2:22 PM in reply to: msteiner |
439 nashville, Tennessee | Subject: RE: Lactate Threshold vs VO2 max I'm speaking just in regard to measuring progress. I see that LT is essential in determining HR training zones, but retesting LT periodically to assess improvement doesn't really make sense to me. |
2014-08-14 2:30 PM in reply to: mchadcota2 |
Champion 9407 Montague Gold Mines, Nova Scotia | Subject: RE: Lactate Threshold vs VO2 max Originally posted by mchadcota2 I'm speaking just in regard to measuring progress. I see that LT is essential in determining HR training zones, but retesting LT periodically to assess improvement doesn't really make sense to me. Two main reasons: 1) To determine if training is effective 2) Testing is training (and an LTHR is a very solid training session) Shane |
2014-08-14 2:38 PM in reply to: gsmacleod |
Pro 6582 Melbourne FL | Subject: RE: Lactate Threshold vs VO2 max Originally posted by gsmacleod Like.Originally posted by mchadcota2 I'm speaking just in regard to measuring progress. I see that LT is essential in determining HR training zones, but retesting LT periodically to assess improvement doesn't really make sense to me. Two main reasons: 1) To determine if training is effective 2) Testing is training (and an LTHR is a very solid training session) Shane Well said coach Shane! |
|
2014-08-14 3:31 PM in reply to: msteiner |
Master 10208 Northern IL | Subject: RE: Lactate Threshold vs VO2 max Originally posted by msteiner Originally posted by jennifer_runs Originally posted by mchadcota2 If you truly know your LT heart rate then you can use that number to modulate the effort of your workouts and also your paces in races. For example, if you spend too much time over LT in a marathon, you will hit the pace wall and have to slow down. You can figure out what HR levels to maintain certain efforts in other races too. However, you're right that it is somewhat of a moving target, and you would have to retest frequently to figure out the exact numbers. Training strictly by pace (a la Daniels vDot or McMillan) isn't perfect either, though, because pace vs. effort can vary based on terrain, how much you sleep, how hard you worked the day before, etc. So in some ways it works well to use both, while also getting in tune with how the different zones and effort levels feel. Originally posted by msteiner Exactly my thoughts. I don't really understand the significance of LT tests if you're just looking at increases in power/pace. If I do a 20 min LT test and record my power/pace, seems like the next time I did the test I wouldn't really care about my LT HR as long as my power/pace increased. So I'm a little confused. Why not just do a 5k/10k test and get your paces based on that via VDOT or McMillan? That is way less variable than HR, and it gives you paces for more than just tempo efforts along with a more tangible way to see progress. Those things affect HR as well if not more so. If you read Jack Daniels' Racing Formula he has ways of accounting terrain and heat in your paces. I will stand by VDOT being absolutely superior to HR training for running. Don't know why that seems to be getting offensive? I've had superior results giving more weight to the "inferior" method simply because all the small but frequent variation in terrain around here make going by pace more difficult. There is not a one-size fits all for this and it's up to the individual to understand and utilize which works best for them. |
2014-08-14 4:46 PM in reply to: brigby1 |
928 | Subject: RE: Lactate Threshold vs VO2 max I agree- this wasn't meant to be a HR vs pace argument- just to show there are limitations to both methods especially if you look at numbers in an absolute sense. I'm actually a strong believer in Daniels vDot for running and I've read his books. But when you train for longer distances like marathons and mix in cycling in long triathlons, having a handle on HR is really helpful. As for tracking improvement- race times. What else really matters anyway? |
2014-08-14 9:33 PM in reply to: #5038923 |
439 nashville, Tennessee | Subject: RE: Lactate Threshold vs VO2 max Ok for some reason no one has made this clear for me yet. I did a LT run test the other day. My avg HR for the test was 174. So my LTHR is 174. I will use that to calculate my training zones. Now from what I've read in the past, you should do periodic LT tests to assess fitness level. So what would be a sign of improved fitness? Faster pace, increased power, etc. But the LTHR doesn't factor into the improvement right? If each time I do the 30 min all out test I'm improving speed, power, etc, then I'm making progress and the HR is irrelevant right? But let's say I do another LT test 2 months later and my LTHR is 180. I would use that to adjust training zones but the increased avg HR wouldn't be a sign of improved fitness would it? So I guess to sum up my rambling, does a change in LTHR represent a change in fitness? I wouldn't think so. |
2014-08-14 10:05 PM in reply to: mchadcota2 |
Champion 9407 Montague Gold Mines, Nova Scotia | Subject: RE: Lactate Threshold vs VO2 max It may indicate an increase in fitness but it could also indicate that the athlete has become better at tolerating the discomfort at high intensity so therefore tested better. Shane |
2014-08-14 11:01 PM in reply to: msteiner |
Coach 9167 Stairway to Seven | Subject: RE: Lactate Threshold vs VO2 max whenever you do a LTHR session, you should be measuring not only HR but also pace or distance traveled in that time. HR will change a bit as shane has described. Pace should change more! (you should get faster). but after time off, or injury it will get slower and yoru LT HR may lower as well if you are not recruiting as many muscle groups. There's little reason not to test unless you are racing often i which you can use your HR & paces for 5k/10k to set training paces as well (plus you'l also see progress with those race times). VDot is a nice way to have a standardized number that you can quickly assess across many race distaces to see a) if you're improving and b) is your endurance performance on par across different distances. ie you can get a vdot of 55 for a 5k and a vdot of 45 for a half marathon if you're not training properly, or if your unique physiology is a little skewed towards more endurance or mroe fast twitch. Bobby McGee who is a well known run coach and the current high performance director for the US Olympic training squad has all the ITU athletes train primarily by HR. Why? Because he does a ton of their run training on softer more giving surfaces like trail or crushed gravel. Because the terrain is more giving and has less "grip" , achieving the same pace as calculated by a race performance is more work than on the same surface as a race (asphalt for example). So by varying training surfaces but using HR for training he ensures taht they are stayign within prescribed zones. Within all of this however, the athletes constantly monitor their RPE and that becomes the best barometer. To say one metric is superior than another is leaving out possibilities. |
|
2014-08-15 7:29 AM in reply to: #5039697 |
439 nashville, Tennessee | Subject: RE: Lactate Threshold vs VO2 max So what it sounds like is the actual LTHR or change thereof is no indication of fitness, only an instrument to determine training zones. Saying one should do periodic LT tests basically means do 30 min Time trials or 30 min run races periodically to see if you're getting faster. |
2014-08-15 9:00 AM in reply to: mchadcota2 |
Pro 15655 | Subject: RE: Lactate Threshold vs VO2 max Originally posted by mchadcota2 So what it sounds like is the actual LTHR or change thereof is no indication of fitness, only an instrument to determine training zones. Saying one should do periodic LT tests basically means do 30 min Time trials or 30 min run races periodically to see if you're getting faster. The best way to get faster is to race a lot. |
2014-08-15 10:13 AM in reply to: mchadcota2 |
Oakville | Subject: RE: Lactate Threshold vs VO2 max Originally posted by mchadcota2 Ok for some reason no one has made this clear for me yet. I did a LT run test the other day. My avg HR for the test was 174. So my LTHR is 174. I will use that to calculate my training zones. Now from what I've read in the past, you should do periodic LT tests to assess fitness level. So what would be a sign of improved fitness? Faster pace, increased power, etc. But the LTHR doesn't factor into the improvement right? If each time I do the 30 min all out test I'm improving speed, power, etc, then I'm making progress and the HR is irrelevant right? But let's say I do another LT test 2 months later and my LTHR is 180. I would use that to adjust training zones but the increased avg HR wouldn't be a sign of improved fitness would it? So I guess to sum up my rambling, does a change in LTHR represent a change in fitness? I wouldn't think so. I struggled with this as well, but what I noticed over time is that my pace for a particular zone improved as I became "fitter". When I first started running, I had a 5 km course that I would run in my area. My pace in zone 2 (Joe Friel's zone 2) averaged about 5:00 to 5:10 min/km. A few years later, for that same course, my zone 2 pace is about 4:35 to 4:45 min/km, and so the lower and upper HR for "my" zone 2 hasn't changed, but I have become more efficient/faster in that zone. Now I haven't done a lab test to confirm my LTHR, but the field tests generally show that there has been no change to my LTHR over the years. While LTHR may change slightly by a few beats from time to time, I chalk that up to the inaccuracy of the field test and, as Kido stated above, I'm not too concerned with a precise number, just accurate enough to ballpark my zones. |
2014-08-16 9:31 AM in reply to: gsmacleod |
Pro 6011 Camp Hill, Pennsylvania | Subject: RE: Lactate Threshold vs VO2 max Originally posted by gsmacleod It may indicate an increase in fitness but it could also indicate that the athlete has become better at tolerating the discomfort at high intensity so therefore tested better. Shane ^^^This^^^ Also, in less experienced athletes, it can simply indicate that they are getting better at executing the test. For example, most people go too hard or too easy in the early minutes of the test the first few times they do it, which results in significant changes in pace and/or HR in the middle of it, because they are either able to increase their effort & pace, or they blow up and have to slow down. After a few times executing it, their HR and pace hold more steady throughout. That combined with Shane's point about becoming better at tolerating the discomfort of it results in more accurate data.
|
|
| ||||
|
| |||
|
| |||
|
|