Lactic Acid Update

I think its a great article - but hardly devalues the purpose of lactate threshold testing. Clearly, it has been shown to be an excellent indicator of performance in endurance events (there really isn't any need to justify its worth). Of course its not the only one and any researcher would openly admit this fact. Regarding the difference in terminology, I think others are trying to hold exercise/sport scientists to a higher standards than others. Do ALL coaches refer to the different phases and workouts of a training program with the same terminology? I don't think so. The differences in terminology LT/AT/VT/OBLA, etc. are simply the result of various researchers trying to more accurately describe the underlying physiological mechanisms.

You only have to read a few papers by Billat to recognize that she has her own particular mindset...

"When scientists cannot agree upon a concept's definition, let alone the appropriate label to use, as well as the appropriate method/protocol of assessment, then the practical use of the "general implications" of the concept is foundationally prohibited. Until this situation is clarified and discrepancies removed, field testing for "lactate-threshold" should be avoided."

This quote is ludicrous. If one athlete is repeatedly tested (using an identical protocol each time) over the course of a single season, or even years, then there is a huge amount of worthwhile information that can be garnered. Why would that athlete care what other scientists and other athletes are doing, or not doing? That such a runner should cease all testing because of differences in terminology between scientists is beyond absurd.

you are one bitter person :(

Are you nuts?

Lactate is quick energy...much quicker than glucose.

True it is energy, hence the name Lactate Energy System. Its just not as efficient as aerobic energy. But it still is quick energy nonetheless.

As you say, I dont see differences in terminology being a big problem provided that you use an identical protocol each time.

The bigger problem seems to be that any blood lactate measure just gives an idea of whole body lactate balance (concentration being production - elimination). Therefore if you see a shift in an athletes profile you cannot know if it is due to decreased production by the active skeletal muscle, or increased 'mopping up' by less active tissue. One of the important points the article seems to be getting across is that some exercise intensities may actually require high rates of anaerobic energy supply in the active tissues, but may not result in much change in whole body lactate balance because the increased production is matched by increased elimination. Simply reporting whole body changes therefore do not really tell you much about what is really happening.

The most important question raised is the final one - how did the US boat get slower despite ever increasing 'fitness' of the rowers? While such measures of fitness may correlate relatively well with performance in heterogenous groups, they do not seem to correlate at all with performance in more homogenous groups. If this is the case then is there any value in measuring them?

Antonio,

I agree 100% with your last post. There is no way in my mind that "aerobic capacity" training requires "days" of recovery time before more hard training can occur. Thus, I can't see how "aerobic power" training hurts one's overall aerobic development.

I think Balance has contributed a lot to this thread (really, I do. Thanks Balance for the posts). But, Antonio, I must also add something else:

It seemed that one of your main "issues"/"problems" with some runner/coaches is that too many people are obsessed with the Anaerobic Threshold(they "overemphasize it" as you said), and lactic acid measurements, and also people are getting too bogged down with scientific terminology that they may not even understand, instead of just simply running based on effort, and volume, and running paces based on previous and goal races.....isn't that some of your arguments on this board?

Well, it seems that Balance agreed with you somewhat, especially about the Anaerobic threshold/lactic acid issues (he said he agreed they may be overemphasized). BUT.......what has Balance given in replacement of the anaerobic threshold obsession?? Anaerobic capacity, Anaerobic power, Aerobic capacity, Aerobic threshold, Aerobic power, glyocolitic capacity, etc, etc terminology and training concepts!

Well, we lost one term, and we gained 10 others! Is that what you were looking for?

In ways, I am more confused than ever. :-)

On another issue, Balance, do you know that your question to Antonio about interval training and the "German method" inspired him (at my request) to start a new thread on the subject? Well, it true! You should check it out, since your questions/comments are what got the thread going, and Antonio has put a lot of work into it (it is a quite interesting series of "articles" that he is producing on that thread).

(the thread is entitled: "Important moments and concepts in the history and development of Intermittent training. " Check it out. )

There is a Double Whammy thread that was boppin' around the board about 2 weeks ago. Discusses (and answers) the very question you raise (by quoting Olbrecht).

He showed that there were (at least) 13 ways of interpreting changes in the LT curve, and why these best-correlated with performance. His exposition more closely matches performance than the old (curve shift to left is worse, and to right is better), which (as you point out) did not always match performance results.

Have a search for the thread and read it thru. Pretty sure you'll find what you want.

From the Double Whammy thread I mentioned:

http://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=149651&page=5

The old thinking on LT was that if your LT occurred at a faster running pace than previously, then your performance (in races) would (automatically) improve.

Olbrecht tells us that many coaches found this was not always true in practice. The lactate curve could shift to the right (suggesting improved aerobic capacity in the athlete), yet the performance could worsen. There could be no shift in the lactate curve, yet the athlete's performance could improve... Olbrecht's believes the old interpretation of the lactate curve resulted in misleading evaluation of the athlete's actual condition, and could've led to incorrect advice on training.

He sums up the old thinking:

A shift to the right (in the lactate curve) = a better aerobic capacity

A shift to the left = a worse aerobic capacity

No shift in curve = aerobic capacity unchanged

Olbrecht outlines the new thinking (which now considers both aerobic AND anaerobic capacities before interpreting the shifts in the lactate curve). This explanation, that both aerobic and anaerobic capacities define the position of the lactate curve, has proved (he says) to be much more in line with the athlete's actual progress and achievements in training an competition.

A shift to the left in the lactate curve COULD be caused by:

1. poorer aerobic capacity combined with unchanged anaerobic capacity

2. poorer aerobic capacity combined with improved anaerobic capacity

3. much poorer aerobic capacity combined with poorer anaerobic capacity

4. unchanged aerobic capacity combined with improved anaerobic capacity

5. improved aerobic capacity combined with much improved anaerobic capacity

No shift in the lactate curve COULD be caused by:

6. poorer aerobic capacity combined with poorer anaerobic capacity

7. unchanged aerobic capacity combined with unchanged anaerobic capacity

8. improved aerobic capacity combined with improved anaerobic capacity

A shift to the right in the lactate curve COULD be caused by:

9. improved aerobic capacity combined with unchanged anaerobic capacity

10. improved aerobic capacity combined with poorer anaerobic capacity

11. much improved aerobic capacity combined with improved anaerobic capacity

12. unchanged aerobic capacity combined with poorer anaerobic capacity

13. poorer aerobic capacity combined with much poorer anaerobic capacity

A simple way of considering the aerobic and anaerobic capacities within the lactate curve might be to see each of them as forces acting against each other. The aerobic pushing from the left and the anaerobic pushing from the right. The definition of the curve is caused by the degree of push acting upon it from both sides.

Examples:

The aerobic capacity pushes harder (improves) but the anaerobic capacity pushes harder too (also improves). Nothing happens to the curve (see (8) above), but in reality the athlete is now much fitter and can be expected to perform better than before (this was not explained by the old thinking).

The aerobic capacity pushes the same (unchanged) but the anaerobic capacity pushes harder (improves). The curve shifts to the left (see (4) above). The old interpretation was that the athlete's aerobic capacity had worsened and performances could be expected to also worsen. Instead, what it might now be interpreted to mean is that the athlete has simply developed a powerful finishing kick without compromising his/her aerobic capacity. Performance might actually improve.

The degree of importance for aerobic and anaerobic capacity will depend on the type of athlete and the particular event.

A shift to the left in the lactate curve of a miler (at the start of competition season) USED to be interpreted as the athlete suddenly having a poorer aerobic capacity. Now it might (more correctly) signify that the athlete's aerobic capacity has actually improved, AND that he has also developed a mean finishing kick to go with it (improved anaerobic capacity — see (5) above).

Sir Lance-alot,

I never said that aerobic capacity training required days of recovery time. I said aerobic power workouts did.

I believe aerobic power workouts have the potential to hurt overall aerobic development if the athlete does too much of it. I never said that they could not do any, or how much too much would be. That is determined by the athlete (by how well they recover).

I don't like to throw training terms out there either because they have the potential of confusing us all. There are so many different names for the same workouts. We have to have some way to refer to them though. It probably doesn't matter what we call them as long as the athlete knows what their coach is referring to. That way they can do the workouts the coach prescribes.

I refer to aerobic capacity training, but this is mostly just easy long running anywhere from 50% of VO2max to about 75% of VO2max. This is makes up the majority of the weekly mileage. It is not that intense but it contributes greatly to overall development. More intense training can also be considered aerobic capacity training, but I would usually refer to it as aerobic power training.

Aerobic power running is basically just training done at goal race pace with short recoveries.

I refer to anaerobic capacity training, but this is basically just sprints with full recovery in between.

I refer to anaerobic power training, but this is basically just short sprints or very fast running with short recoveries in between.

This is not all that complex really. We have to have names for workouts and I happened to adopt Olbrecht's terminology, because it is actually very simple. Theer are realy only four workout types not 10. I am not sure why you are confused. I sometimes throw around other terms but they are basically the changes that occur from the four types of training I described. There is the simple version and then the more complicated physiological description. I know it can get a little bit ridiculous. Really it should come down to either running short and fast, or long and slow, with different variations of both, and with either long recoveries or short recoveries. That pretty much makes up a training program.

Thanks for the tip on the interval training thread. I was unaware it existed. I will enjoy reading it.

Antonio,

I believe you misunderstand me. I believe you can train the way you suggest during the precompetition and competition phases of training. I only was suggesting that the athlete may not be able to sustain a program with such intense training for very long. Eventually they will break down, and performances will get worse. When this happens athletes need to rest and regenerate. This usually consists of no running at first and then easy gentle running until the athlete is ready to train hard again for another competitive track season or marathon. The precompetition phase can not be too long or the runner will be wasting their efforts training when they should be racing. The racing season can't be too long or the athlete will eventually either, burn out, or loose aerobic fitness. I definatly believe intense training and racing will lead to decreased fitness and over training. If this were not true why would an athlete ever end their track season.

This requires and leaves a lot of time to do much more volumous but gentler training. This training provides a good training stimulus for overall fitness and aerobic capacity without the added risk of possible injury. Of course there is always the risk of overuse injury with too much volume, but runners do not often become injured during their base phase of training. It is usually early on in the precompetition phase. This is usually because the athlete has not eased into more intense training. Incorporating a little bit of more intense training during the base phase will always make the transition easier, and prevent the likelihood of injury.

Hope this makes my position more clear.

Thanks, that makes perfect sense.

So presumably in order to be able to interpret changes in the curve you also need some measure of peak lactate as well.

I've always thought there was a need for some performance element to the typical submaximal protocol anyway, simply because the overtrained athlete typically shows a shift to the right of the curve anyway which is usually taken to show that 'fitness' has improved. This doesnt necessarily become obvious untill we find the athlete is slower in the maximal test.

I'll read through the other thread.

Balance

Right, i simply asks you about that check tests, what you considers that - anaerobic, aerobic. I did assume that you would understand that the check tests aren´t routine training, but once, twice before the target goal performance.

But let me profit to express my point of view and following Renfree Lance-a-lot, Mountaneer and Hareward and yours last posts.

Here at this point we may discriminate to issues.

If you are training and you elaborate a training plan with one purpose (your distance event), od course that obviously you need to be aware what´s are your strong and weak points of your physic condition - what needs to be improved, in what are you may insist - aerobic, lactate threshold, anaerobic, VO2 etc, and what´s the best training format that makes you improve that physical quality as to say. In this training improvement, and the knowledge of your condition and improvement, the coach may use all physiology data he can afford that makes him understand that question. But each data only tell us about a "confined department" and since running is a holistic process, that all elements/parts of the process takes intervention, not separate, but all together we will never know in what percent each one contributes for a performance.

Another look, is the look chrono check tests - previous to the competition. This time that´s quite irrelevant to know what´s the contribution of your aerobic condition, or the contribution of the anaerobic condition or your VO2, whatever for the Check test result, and eventually for the race result you are training for.

This may sound simplistic, but let me express my opinion.

Why we run faster ? Why someone does 13:07 and not 16:40 in 5000m ? What are the qualities that a top runner he had when he did that WR or PB ? In what percents the aerobic or anaerobic condition interfere in that performance, in what percents the aerobic condition versus aerobic power interfere in that individual case/that one runner? In a holistic perspective we will never know, despite by the read of the training schedule and the physiologic data we try to understand. If i´m not right, the simple analysis of the data, will show a equivalent improvement in the running capacity and will have a equivalent improvement in the competition, but we all know that´s not so clear as that or so linear. This, not considering external factors as physiologic etc - only physical.

But if that runner did 14:07 in a check test alone (!) that´s not unbelievable that from the physical estimation, he will be able to repeat that effort and that performance in a real run. Of course he will have the need for the recover after that check test.

This makes more confident about the pace estimation in the competition. The runner did 13:55 in the run.

Next season he does the same check test but in 13:59. Of course that i estimate that he may run a bit faster than the 13:55 that he did in his last run.

This is simply to have some light in the darkness or to say that a run result have some unknown margin.

The main goal of the check tests are to preview/estimate what´s the runner is able to do in a competition, not to determine the training needs or an evaluation of the training process.

In the check tests context that´s quite irrelevant, or a non-sense to try to justify that performance, in the training analysis that´s correct - ex: ok he did a good performance because he did train that workouts, that mil eage, that weight training etc etc.

But in the context of the run Check Tests, this is irrelevant. So, te answer to me question: why did he run 13:07 ? that´s an easy answer - because he is able to do that.

It doesn´t matter what are the physical qualities.

I don´t take no training or conclusion about the "run workout check tests". That would be wrong. The check test that´s simply to estimate the Race Pace that the runner is able to perform - of course with a margin of inaccuracy - but less accuracy (or accurate)than any machine test data, or any test analysis talked from your body use.

About Renfree use of the Billat article to deny the interest of threshold analysis.

I see the point, and I agree that acid lactic concentration or anaerobic threshold is inaccurate to estimate the running shape condition and the consequences in a competition.

But I wouldn´t believe in Billat, knowing as know Madame Billat work. Simply by the fact that she isn´t an independent researcher. She have an outdoor VO2 machine, and she lives her life making money with that VO2 machine test apparatus – she is payed to do so. So, that´s not har to think that his physiologic research goes in one single direction – to make us believe that VO2 that´s te best estimate, and that all VO2 theories around that – max.VO2, vVO2 pace, VVO2 workouts etc – are the best way to improve your running. Of course that while follow this commercial, profit condition, she is not a independent scientist – but a fraude. Someone that tries to deny the interst of threshold tests because he wanst to put up, VO2 tests, and all that stuff concepts.

We need to separate what´s is independent reaserch from what´s advertising or publicity or propaganda with profit goals. The same with some scientists that they say that´s the lactic acid tests meters – that´s marvellous – as Ph. Mader is one – but they those opinions simply because they are payed for a company to follow private investigation which the “scientific conclusion” shall be – that the product they sells that´s the best.

About Mader engagement to a product read this site.

http://www.sportdiagnostik.de

and also this article

2ffitness%2findex.html

The need for lacatate training management in the marathon training and longer distance events.

http://www.sportdiagnostik.de/fitness/laufen.html

free lanslation to the english language

http://world.altavista.com/babelfish/trurl_pagecontent?lp=de_en&trurl=http%3a%2f%2fwww.sportdiagnostik.de%2ffitness%2flaufen.html

Good man. Olbrecht suggests (runners) might finish the lactate test with (something like) an all-out 600m to see max lactate. If it drops (compared to previous tests), then you have to understand and interpret what effect that will have had on the curve. If it rises, then the same thing: you need to interpret its effect on the curve. If it stays the same; again, interpret its effect.

For example, the US swimmers in the boat saw the curve shift to the right and (knee-jerk) interpreted this as improvement in fitness. But (in retrospect) we can now see that if they had checked, they probably would've found that the lactate max had dropped (which allowed / encouraged the curve to shift right). But this rightward shift did NOT signify an improvement in aerobic capacity, but instead actually signified a drop in anaerobic capacity. Which the coaches failed to catch.

As they found out, performance (in their event) dropped accordingly (as this new interpretation predicted). If the athletes had been marathon runners, a shift to the right of the curve coupled with a drop in max lactate might have resulted in a PR, but not in their event (what was it? 2000m?). So they were not optimally trained to race their event, and their interpretation of the test was too simplistic and did not alert them to this.

As you know, if you train a 1500m guy to have the lactate curve of a marathoner, he will not race the 1500m well if he has simultaneously lost his ability to generate high lactate on demand. (But the curve will definitely have moved to the right.)

Olbrecht's new interpretations of all aspects which can impact on the curve means that lacate testing now more closely matches reality and makes it a very powerful tool for the coach and runner. I recommend you buy his book "The Science of Winning".

PS: put on the sceptic specs when you read anything by Billat. Always assume she has an agenda.

Thanks Hereward, that is how I see it. Until I became familiar with Olbrecht's method of lactate testing, I had no use for a lactate meter. It was quite a useless tool.

Antonio,

Could you please provide more information about your tests, and how you interpret the results. It is not quite clear how the repetition runs with long recoveries are going to provide you with an estimation of the runners ability to run the entire race distance without rest breaks.

Bump

Dear Balance: Do you have contact info for Jan Olbrecht? I emailed him at West Consultancy awhile back but have not gotten a reply. Thanks!

Peter