| Author | Message | ||
     Juerg Senior Member Username: Juerg Post Number: 626 Registered: 04-2006 |
We still are getting very regular " critical " question , why we throw a perfect system like 2 and 4 mmol over board. This is one of this Questions from Marco ( Italy /Sardinia , where we had camps over 15 years ) This is for all othe3r "users" of 2 and 4 mmol as well. 1. Most people , once I contacted them never actually studied the basic research on 2 and 4 mmol. So here the original paper: Justification of the 4 mmol/L lactate threshold. Heck. H. Mader A. Hess G. Muecke S. Mueller R. and Hollmann W. Department of Cardiology and Sports Medicine of the German Sports University Cologne (Federal Republic of Germany . Int. J. Sports Med. 6 (1985) 117 - 130. Now once you take some time to study this papaer you will see, that in the paper itself is the answer , why it does not work at all and that it is just a nice statistical idea set up by a very special protocol . I like to give you some Table form the original work to get you started. Tab 2. Check the changes in lactate after 3 min steps and after 5 min steps at the same speed by the same person. Now take in consideration the fact , that lactate has no sudden increase when you would take it every 15 - 30 sec. Take your time at this list :  Now check this comparison out of the same work. Step length from 31/2 /51/2 and 71/2 min on Fig 6. What is the correct step length. and try to explain why the lactate is higher by a longer step length . Fig 8 below lactate numbers by the same work load , but different surface. And Fig. 9 Changes in lactate under different inclines . Have fun and rethink , why we in FaCT use lactate trends in combination with some additional BIO markers . Summary : 1 good work with interesting data collection and 16 runners later a 30 years domination and still going strong on 2 and 4 mmol. Lactate os a great Bio marker and you will see over the next few month where and why we can use lactate to control and understand training intensities during testing but even on the field once in a while to test and see . Enjoy the Fig.  | ||
| Juerg Senior Member Username: Juerg Post Number: 630 Registered: 04-2006 |
Where did we got our idea on lactate testing. Thanks for this question. Well if you have 25 - 30 years time to see how we developed and still trying to develop a good or acceptable way of assessing progress and physiological limitation we can make a summary. Here a very brief summary. 1985. See the work of "justification of 4 mmol. That's was the actually "beginning" of a cook book " time and for us the start of some critical review Here 2 for me most impressive examples during my time in St. Moritz. I had the privilege to "test " actually collect blood samples for many different national teams up there, as they used our test equipment 9 YSI) but every nation had their own idea on how and what they were looking for.. Thanks to all of that it was pretty clear from te beginning, that there was no common "understanding " on how to apply the lactate values at all. The german school was just simply the best organized school and had the most educational seminars all over the place for credits for a very good sport medical [program( and still have). The problem with education is discussed on this forum to death already. So here , where we got the first idea or direction on where we might go. The trigger of our testing idea or better assessment idea was a part of Mader 4 mmol justification. They checked lactate curves by pre-load for 5 min with different intensities. Than they rested 5 min and started an actual step test with 3 min intervals. They could see an increase in lactate and all the values were close to 4 mmol as they started to increase. What was different , and now we know why , is the level of lactate due to the energy supply over glucose metabolic situation. . If you take the "highest " line you can actually see the FaCT line as it developed. The main problem at the time and still in many similar attempts is the fact , that they take wattage as the values in the second part. Because wattage is wattage but physiologically it is not the same intensity we have the well know situation. 1. If you push very hard in the first part ( all out) to lets' say 400 watt, than 200 watt will feel hard compared to : you push only to 360 watt and drop to 200 watt. Therefor the post - stress lactate in the second part will have a different dynamic by using watt to establish the lactate trend. If we use HR and drop the heart rate to a certain level, than the wattage you will push to drop to 140 HR after 185 max heart rate is much lower, than if you stop the first part by 170 HR and drop to 140. So the "physiological" adjustment will regulate the situation much better, than the physical calculation over wattage. Important is to use, once you established an individual protocol the same idea as soon you re-test , so you see actuall trends over time. Example: You decide to stop by 170 - 175 HR and you drop to 135 - 140 in the second part of the test you keep that for the next little while, as you can see what is changes . It may be , that you change Stroke volume due to the training you try to do and the CO ( cardiac output will change as well and with this the VO2 and possibly the physical performance in wattage. Okay true we got lost as usual. Here the original print out of the 4 mmol justification and you see from where we started to "branch " out from the classical idea. Have fun to study . Juerg  |