| Author | Message | ||
     Holman325 Senior Member Username: Holman325 Post Number: 68 Registered: 11-2009 |
For those interested here an intersting graphic from a study this morning at FaCT education course in Hamilton ON and the National Cycling Centre. Training some new people in some ideas what we look for with balance point. Here a classical idea. Juerg can elaborate... he and I discussed idea back in November, and he did back some year agao as an experiment. What did we do here with this idea...  Discussion...? | ||
| Juerg Senior Member Username: Juerg Post Number: 2997 Registered: 04-2006 |
Thanks John , nice numbers and what looks like a "classical " lactate test here with increase in wattage and HR could be done as well without motion what's however. The problem than is , that the HR would be always the same and lactate would change as we see here so we would end up with a y axis line if we take HR vs lactate icon or in this case with the same wattage ( zero performance it would not show up. So the possible answer here could be : 1. real classical lactate test with " Strange" increase in steps. 1. 225 watt HR 115 2 223 ? watt HR 125 3. 225 watt HR 135 4. 245 watt?? HR 145 5. 250 watt HR 150 6. 260 watt ?? HR 155 Interesting is the 2 mmol start ( old school) already at the aerobic threshold and than 4 mmol for the aneraobic threshold. Summary : would be a srtange test, but based on the old school as so many still use, a simple interpretation of the results. 2 aerobic thresholds by 115 HR and 135 HR ( smile) and one Anaerobic threshold HR by 150 and you are up and ready to go. Here my risky take of this numbers John sents here as a nice "test" (Smile ). This person may have done nothing other than got a nice sugar drink ( coke or what ever) Than John did some speculation and after the first few samples 1 2 and 3 got himself a bit nerveous as the lactate numbers did not increase yet. He took samples every few minutes and had the nerves to wait long enough as the example always works and it is a great example to counter any discussion with any Ph.D guy , who still insists that 2 and 4 mmol or any absolute lactate numbers would work. Here we have the great example , how john could show to the coaches, how you can make an aneorobic threshold training by simply watching a movie and drinking a coke. Well let's see, what the results really where and what John's info will give us. Thanks for the brain sport here . | ||
| Andrew Senior Member Username: Andrew Post Number: 449 Registered: 04-2006 |
I agree with Juerg, the printout could represent a number of interventions, and the inclusion of the wattage data on the y-axis, and HR on the x-axis is a bit confusing. For those not accustomed to using the FaCT software, it is important to remember that the lactate data points are corresponded to HR data collected in the "racovery portion" of the FaCT protocol. When entering data into the software, if HR and wattage data is available, the program will create an excellent comparison of recovery to initial performance. In this case, I believe John may have put in lactate data in comparsion to HR data, but only recorded arbitrary HR numbers, as there is no way to place time on the x-axis with this program. If that is in fact what John did, then any carbohydrate rich food could have given a similar lactate response. Whether it was a Tim Horton's donut or as Juerg suggested, a Coke. | ||
| Holman325 Senior Member Username: Holman325 Post Number: 69 Registered: 11-2009 |
It would be nice to hear from the "lurkers" of the forum. More input the better. Let's stimulate some dialogue. Get ready for another injection of new users and posters, along with new critically thinking coaches, and business people (health care professionals). we'll wait a little more...  | ||
| Juerg Senior Member Username: Juerg Post Number: 2998 Registered: 04-2006 |
Well John, you made me thinking and here is another possibility I tried out besides my first sugesstion. Here what it as well could be and it would in fact be an additional bonus point for our ideas on absolute lactate values are a no go. Here what it could be as well. 1. resting HR as the red line comes from far outside ( low HR ) If you put the slope in Herb's soft ware it would be arround a resting HR of 50 - 60 and a resting lactate of 1.5 +- So pretty standard situation. now : 2. Now John load suddently 225 wattage and takes lactate after a certain amount of time. let's say 2/4/6 min or so. Now we have the three HR readings with 115/125/135 as a typical increase in HR over time to a "steady state " HR if the load is low enough and the time is short enough to avoid a HR drift. Than by each HR we can take lactate and in this case we would have out of "luck " or knwowingly reached a relative stable lactate situation of 2 mmol +- 3. Increase load to 250 wattage +- and repeat the same and now we would have again an increase of HR over time but now as well an increase in lactate over time as this may be above LBP intensity. If this was the case, it was an interesting case demo. The small "missfortune" was, that the 250 load was slightly increasing all the time so opposition on this idea would use that as a discussion point. Nice would have been a really stable wattage level the seond time as well. Than , if 250 stable we would have had a great example, how step lenght directly will influence lactate values at the critical load intensities and the idea, where coaches take absolute values based on any fixed step test idea is very strong manipulation of a test and in no way would reflect real lactate trend informations. In this example from John we would have 3 values with one exactly at 4 mmol and one above and one below by the same wattage and the change would be not due to load change but due to step lenght.( time ) Knowing John , he would have not made mistakes as I make, and he would have kept the 250 wattage absolutely perfect and no drift in wattage. So my first choice, great demo of lactate trend with nutritional manipulation still is my best bet. Nevertheless this idea here would be a nice demo idea as well for any critic on our idea of LBP instead of 2 and 4 mmol. Yes let's see, what the coaches from the traditional field of lactate testing come up with and yes an open discussion is always something we all can learn about. | ||
| Hourerg Senior Member Username: Hourerg Post Number: 41 Registered: 08-2009 |
Lurker here. I suspect this was a classical step test increasing intensity but prescribing HR. Here is how I see the numbers after an initial sample taken at resting HR not shown: HR Lactate 115 2.1 125 1.7 135 1.9 145 3.6 150 4.0 155 4.5 What would this illustrate then? That your "lactate threshold" is somewhere between 125-145. Don't shoot me for the term LT, just my suspicion on how this was presented. | ||
| Holman325 Senior Member Username: Holman325 Post Number: 70 Registered: 11-2009 |
So what I will propose now is that one of the keen participants from the FaCT Educations course will reply here with an answer. Only thing would be that they would have to register with Herb first. No worries about "LT" Rob, we all know it's just like the tooth fairy!  Let's see what pariticpant will respond to this posting. I'm not giving anything away, i would like for them to hop in here. Come on in , the water is great! | ||
| Holman325 Senior Member Username: Holman325 Post Number: 71 Registered: 11-2009 |
Better yet a different view as some were wondering about basline resting La and discussion on the y-axis.  Any other ideas now? | ||
| Juerg Senior Member Username: Juerg Post Number: 2999 Registered: 04-2006 |
well as not too many like to plunch into the nice water here some additional thougts. 1.In the first printour we had, there where different wattages. ??? Why ? either wattage had nothing to do with the test and John only needed a way to produce the lactate line ??. If this is YES, than my first suggestion - nutritional manipulation still stands. 2. The second suggestion on fixed wattage to show change in lactate trend in different step lenght would be with this wattage level out the door. Why ??? well you think now and I will tell you at the end , after you thought that through. But. It interestingly opens another game we played as well. No or really nearly no resistance and than just working with RPM and you will see really nice increase in HR.( some restriction apply ) Problem with this idea here is, that the lactate levels are surprisingly high for this idea, as the limitation is the coordination and in this case it would be hard with 50 watts and a very high RPM to seee this high lactate levels as a sign of involvement of O2 independent activity. It is possible when you have a top sprinter who is able to go 200 - 250 RPM easy so that 180 RPM is "slow ". He has to be TOO FAST to be able to go THAT SLOW. ( For your brain to figure this one out )You acn go for a ride with a very fast guy and you will be too fast for him, becauseif you do the same has him you will go nowhere ( exceptions it is all downhill. Smile . Reminds me on a demo in Mallorca ( Alcudia) many many yeasr back with one of the worlds top sprinters. So the likely hopod that John had a coordination "genius " there seems to me slim and I would not put the money on this idea. The idea from hourerg makes sense as to go for a step based on HR. Opinion: This would have been a far to simple question from John and he would have fooled us all. And hourerg would be the winner ( Smile ) It looked very likely as hourerg could be right by simply taking what we see. Now with the new printout and the new watts I think the HR based steps are out. There is another reason why I do not think that the steps wherre based on HR. Why: John is a practical coach and therefor the likly hood, that you can bike with this accurate 5 and 10 steps increase practically is possible but very unlikly. We only see this results in" studies" with statistical maniplulations rather than in real world physiological testing. A few accurate steps yes, but not every single one. Well let's sleep over it and see what is next . ( I like this idea, as it shows us how and why we have to think and asses. Why a "hypothesis " is great, but it needs, as Karl pointed out, some accouning and vice verca. Have a nice evening Juerg here the reason why I do not thing it was RPM. Try 25 watts and even 50 watts witha normal fit person and the little resistance simply will not challange the HR that high, that you where riding for that long of a time. Ture if John used more thna one lactet pro the whole idea could have been done very fast but if he used one analyzer it was at least a 7 min long test. Assuming that the first one was a resting lactate before the " manipulation" and some "pressure to really show the lactate trend than john may have waited about 5 min after the first reading and thna possibly took lactate every time after 1 min and when he had the next result. So 12 minute long test. The beauty if he used this idea ( as we most often do ) we would have a lactate trend curve in 12 minute with doing nothing and on the other side we may have a VO2 max test done in 12 minute or a classical conconi test done in 12 minute or any other test and we would have many questions on the interpretation of the lactate numbers. True the question is the lvel of the lactate with 4.5 . The "Old schoo " will argue , that in a conconi test or a VO2 max test the lactate levels have to be much higher. If they are not higher than the  ld school : will interpolate it. I remember a marathon runner ( Fukuoka winner in 2.11 just before the LA games, ( who never had lactate higher than 4 mmol even in intervalls over 400 m. Or what we "prepared" for very intense discussion. We "manipulated a carb free diat on one client we would test in two days to compare with the nutritional idea and he simply could not produce that much lactate. We never ever ended the discussion as the Pro's there never had any decent explanation for the lactate trends. |