hjdghjdghjfhj wrote:
I don't know what you are expecting from the testing? The only precise data that really matters is how well you race, and the best indicator of condtioning is your training.
Sorry to point out the obvious, but lactate testing isn't going to make you a better runner. Training and racing is. Sports science can be very interesting, but it can also reduce your focus on running by feel, which far outperforms anything any sports scientist can give you.
What I'm expecting.. well I wouldn't mind learning more about my aerobic threshold (I know it's not an exact threshold but there's something to it).
I know very well how paces and heart rates etc feel like but I don't know what to call some of these intensities or how to interpret them and I would like to know. I did figure out anaerobic threshold by feel but I don't know how the aerobic threshold is supposed to feel, I only have guesses.
Though, yes I rely more on my guesses based on feel than on that 175bpm number I got from the possibly botched-up lactate test :)
I'm not really worried about losing focus on how running feels at given paces/intensities. If I can have numbers and measurements it just makes me focus even better. As long as the measurements do make sense. So I would say that's a big reason as to why I'm interested in this sort of stuff.
Races are good but are not always available and they only provide information on the higher intensities. (Such as anaerobic threshold for example.) This is useful but does not give me the whole picture.
Anyway... please forgive me for not feeling satisfied enough just by race data and for being more curious than that ;)
So.... do you know anything about field tests being more reliable than testing on whatever crappy treadmill in gym room? I'd imagine a field test mirrors normal circumstances better. Assuming I'm normally rested for the test and normal weather etc.