Lactate Tolerance v. Lactate Buffering

wellnow you can sqabblle over names of things but ther is a feeling and once you know it you can train for it mroe effectively. Semantics?

Semantics? So knowledge is over rated and preaching ignorance is acceptable?

It's a bit like the Creationism versus Evolution debate, is that based on feeling too?

Regarding the feeling or feelings you get from an accumulation of acidity, how can you explain that when you are running out of glycogen and your pace is slow, your muscles hurt more than when you are running fast and relaxed?

If you really think about this question, you will realize that studying the new information is not semantics after all. It really depends whether you are excited about learning new information, or whether you feel threatened by the fact that what you were taught is being challenged.

I am one of the few who is excited about learning new information about sports science and wondering how to apply it to running.

buffer. to go as fast/or long as possible before the accumulation of.

tolerate. once its there, deal with the pain.

so i would say buffer wkouts would be at or below the point, and tolerance wkouts would be well above the point.

actually for me it's more avoid those who can only talk and look for those that also know the walk. Maybe you should get out there and experience lactic once in a while so you know the actual thing you are trying to talk about.

The magical 'science' that you seem to think is superior over my 'ignorance', keeps changing it's mind. It has done so in this specific example ie lactate is not important anymore, hydrogen ions are, as well as probably a billion other examples in and outside sport.

I am enlightened enough to the fact that science keeps changing it's mind and to take this into account in my decision making. Hydrogen ions, lactic acid, imbalance of potassium and sodium, whatever. You can still 'feel'(ignorance?) the exact thing no matter what it is being called.

Coaches don't need scientists to come along and tell them what they knew all along. It's just the scientists trying to make themselves important really. They are irrelevant in the scheme of high performance athletics and any real coach will tell you this.

The trick is to not just use your brain.

There is good science and bad science, I am good at spotting the bullshit.

The important point here is that Excercise Physiology is very badly taught. It took until 2004 for some intelligent physiologists to point out the fact that what has been taught since the early 1920's about "lactic acid" is wrong, (after previous attempts had been ingored) Do you really think that science hasn't moved on in more than 80 years?

Lactic acid is NOT produced in living tissue.

If you wish to remain ignorant and preach ignorance, then I have to ask why?

Please don't try to lecture me, If you don't want to learn, it's your problem not mine.

I'll say it again just for good measure.

Lactate is NOT buffered, hydrogen ions are buffered.

Lactate is a muscle fuel.

Lactid acid is NOT produced.

Lactate production has a buffering effect.

Intelligent questions or information from those who actually care about real knowledge and want to learn are welcomed.

With knowledge you can train and race better. Gaining as much knowledge from the past 50 years is what helps runners improve to run faster. It's not all about drugs, science can show other ways. Let me put it this way: Renato Canova is conceptually far above most coaches, and his concepts fit in well with the ideas of good scientists I am promoting.

You didn't listen to what i said. Was it because you didn't understand it?

I have one question for you. Has coaching changed since this revelation about lactic and hydrogen has become public.

Have coaches suddenly gone oh no we were doing it all wrong, we better change.

I think it is already covered and guys in white coats in sterile labs pondering over miscroscopes and those that treat their words like law, should stay in your little lab holes and not speak to normal people.

warbler not wrote:

I am enlightened enough to the fact that science keeps changing it's mind...

Coaches don't need scientists to come along and tell them what they knew all along...

It's not like coaches have never changed their minds about training. History reveals that there have been multiple methods coaches have used to train athletes. Some methods have obviously been better than other - and some that were accepted as the norm by coaches in the past (interval only training back in the 50s for example) are now generally rejected by most/all coaches.

warbler not you certainly are something else. if you want to avoid science altogether you had better avoid the term 'lactic' because science is where it came from (even though you are using the word inappropriately anyway). Honestly you would make more sense if you just said "that burning feeling we get when we run fast."

in my opinion everyone should have a problem with science because it certainly has its fallacies. but to make the statement "once you know the 'feeling' you will be able to train more effectively..." what does that mean, can you elaborate for us? are you saying that all elite athletes who have experienced a difficult workout know the "feeling" and therefore studies that give insight on how to train do not matter, and are not helpful? for example, all of the information Jack Daniels (who by the way is a scientist) has shared with coaches all over the world is irrelevant, and not helpful?

warbler not, what you are describing is not ignorance. i believe you are saying that it's not necessary to have everything spelled out at the molecular level, and that training is training as long as athletes are improving. and you know what, you're probably right. but science is a tool and it is there to help. the thing about scientists is they aren't here to say "coaches are wrong." they aren't here to "perform magic," and constantly change their minds. In its most simple form, scientists seek the truth, and sometimes that is VERY hard to do, especially when human subjects are involved.

one more thing. the main reason it seems that everyone is on a different page is that terms are thrown around so freaking loosely.. if i were to list five terms, i.e. lactate, lactic acid, lactate shuttle, lactate production, lactate accumulation. If I asked ten people to define each term I guarantee you I would get about 50 completely different definitions. that, everyone, is a HUGE problem. if we can't be on the same page with this stuff, its like we are all speaking different languages... i mean how do we get anywhere if we don't even know what the hell we are talking about?

thanks random schmo i can chill now. Someone is talking normal to me.

I should start with two things - one is that i am an ex athlete who trained 6 days a week for about 10 years. The term 'lactic' is the generic term we use with each other. How much 'lactic' have you got is a question asking 'how close to your edge are you', 'how close to when you had to stop?' The 'burning' feeling (ta) describes this very well and as you get to know that feeling better you can describe it in detail. It's heavy, it's intense, it came on quick,it built up slow, it has this feeling mixed with it (ATP-PC drained) or this other feeling (lungs straining). Where has the lactic accumulated most? Oh in the hammies and glutes so the question comes 'why aren't i also using my quads to the same level. Coach?", Oh this time it was more in my stomach. Ah i didn't eat or i have exams right now and am stressed.

The second thing is i have a B.APP.Sc. in Physical education and sports psychology. That was 15 years ago and i have been applying it firstly as an athlete and now as a coach. I have to admit i could spend time and get up to speed fully with it but i find it's a waste of my time. My main form of learning now is through application or sometimes reading wise words from a coach who has been there before me. Renato Canovo is probably my favourite at the moment. His clarity of expression and the soundness of his principles stimulate me. Arthur Lydiard is guy i would listen to the most when it comes to MD but i have Percy cerutty's book "Success' in my hands at the moment. I am also in contact with Nobby and now have someone to ask qiestions about Lydiard. My other favourite coaches are Vitaly Petrov, Franz Stampfl, Mihaliy Igloi and Clyde Hart. I also like what Gerschler was doing and of course Zatopek. I am lucky to haev come across a guy who has read his autobiography a dozen times and can rememeber most of the training stuff and teh explanantions Emil put forth.

I just see it as simply as you have three systems and all overlap and there are specific ways to train for each. Each event requires it's own balance of these three systems. Once the coach has it roughly correct or the event he/she must modify subtly for each indidivual athlete. See the rules are the same for all human beings. They vary slightly for elite athletes. They vary again for each event group and then for each event. Things then further differentiate according to each individual. The differentiation tree: Humans-athletes-event group-event-individual.

When someone loves the science too much, it will inhibit them from seeking real life experience, and as such they cannot then talk experientially about training. They hide behind intellectualism and the concepts they think they know and others don't. Intellectual bullying really.

So where is the science now? Hyrdogen ions cause the fatigue. The lactic is actually a by-product that can be used as it's own fuel source? If someone can answer it simply i would be happy to listen.

sorry Lord Kinbote i read your initial post and it seems very clear. Still, wellnow does the newer better info make a difference to the way we train?

I don't think there is anything new to add to the mix. I think all of the factors have been discovered and covered (easy to say i agree). I think what we need now is balancing out these factors correctly. It is like baking a cake or painting a picture. The fundamentals are quite clear - it is how the cook/artist or painting artist uses those variables in relation to one another, in the right proportions and with the right timing.

Coaching is an artistic endeavour as well. It is ultimately a balancing act and as the athlete becomes better trained the more fine tuned the balancing needs to be. Da Vinci was pretty fine tuned. My own efforts in painting are clearly not.

I am not a physiologist, but am a research biologist. There seems to be a major misunderstanding here of what science is about.

Some in this thread seem to think that scientists want to coach athletes. That would be a very small group.

Actually, we are just trying to figure out how things work. A failed hypothesis is ok, because someone will think up a better one. You can call that changing our minds, flip flopping, or whatever derogatory phrase you want to use.

By trial and error, coaches know how to train athletes, and some are great at it. They don't have to care why it works, though curious and open-minded ones do. Scientists recognize and appreciate the coaches experience and methods, and try to understand why it works.

What you are saying is that you care about results. By that logic, it doesn't really matter if the sun goes around the earth or the earth is spinning- both hypotheses predict morning will come, but one is wrong.

I doubt you ever talked to a scientist if you think we believe our words are like law. When asked what we think, we should say so; I think most of the public expects that.

Where science can help us is by finding physical indicators that correlate with those intuitive "feelings" about running. Without a guide to how you should feel and what general pace you should run on certain days, it might take you years of trial and error to find the most cost-effective zones for training. Or you might never get it. As an example, most people do "tempo" runs incorrectly, either progressing to a decent pace too quickly or just jumping right into their pace without progressing at all or running too long at too fast a pace too often for best results. How can the guys in the white lab coats help us find the right feeling?

Well, it turns out that most runners, even many experienced ones, can't discern what kind of effort level represents their true "threshold," a safe effort for regular use, one which is so cost-effective that it basically "cheats" the overtraining gods by virtue of skirting the edge so finely - even crossing it in such brief stints - that the runner gets most of the benefits of fast-paced running with few of the risks. Some runners may literally feel that all running is too easy unless they're forcing things, or they may feel like even a "slow" pace is a bit of an effort. Or they may be somewhere in between, but still without a definable feeling of what "on the brink" running is. So how can they really know what's too slow or too fast?

Along come the exercise scientists to find a few measurable physical processes which occur in conjunction with that "maximum steady state" or "on the brink" feeling reported by the runners who are in tune with that feeling, even providing points of definition for the effort level. Subsequently, some number values (imperfect as they may be) can be assigned to the true "threshold." The pertinent data, such as blood lactate and respiratory exchange ratio, can then be correlated reasonably well with other standards, such as percentage of 5k or 10k or half marathon or marathon race pace, or with heart rate, to provide a more "field-suitable" set of numbers for everyday use. Of course, these numbers still aren't infallable. Since heart rates are affected by more stressors than perceived exertion is, they are more variable in actual practice, and therefore less reliable, but they can be used in a "general neighborhood" fashion. The same is true of pace as a workout parameter. Jumping right into a predetermined pace on a "tempo" run is usually less effective than progressing to the right feeling, but a "lower limit" starting pace (just like a "neighborhood" heart rate) can often guide you to that feeling. If nothing else, regular failure to come close to the pace you should be able to sustain (or, conversely, running without difficulty at a quick "steady state" pace but racing poorly) can be a sign that something is amiss and that you might need to back off for awhile or you might need more work in a different area of fitness.

Realize that laboratory science (not counting the roads, tracks and trails as one big laboratory) can never replace the trial and error of thousands and thousands of runners when it comes to finding the best duration for "threshold" running and (more importantly) how frequently it can be repeated and how it blends in best with the other running you do. But exercise science can attach quantifiable measurements to those effective training zones runners have come to know.

To illustrate the limits of exercise science in truly understanding the big picture of running, consider this: Even if you do know the right feeling for repeatable, cost-effective training, it's often easy to go overboard, thinking that you might as well go ahead and hammer it really, really hard while it feels good, so as not to "waste the super feeling," so to speak. If you're in great shape and are at the ideal weight and are eating and sleeping right and recovering well in the short term, hammering it pretty often might work for awhile but, alas, there are no perfect bodies. Something has to give, and (like Icarus flying a little too close to the Sun) your awesome fitness can definitely override your structural (and, eventually, your metabolic) limits. You will never get it right if you can't learn from your mistakes and the mistakes of your predecessors. Exercise science can be an aid when it comes to some specifics, but it's those mistakes and successes of your predecessors that will prove vastly more valuable to you than anything exercise science can provide.

In a previous post, I mentioned MCT proteins and their association with "above threshold" running. Those concepts only reflect what people currently think is a major contributing factor to producing energy during moderately high-intensity exercise. But guess what, Chief Two Dogs Humping ... I was running in that exact zone several decades ago, long before there was a name for it. Other runners were as well, and the collective experiences of these runners has already done far more to refine the use of this zone in a broader training scheme than exercise science will ever do. And if, a hundred years from now, exercise scientists "finally understand what's really happening" (like they always seem to be doing) and propose "new, innovative" workouts to attack these "previously undiscovered energy systems," you can bet every red cent you've ever had that runners have already done those workouts enough times to figure out how to incorporate them into a schedule (if they need to be done at all).

The problem is that many ex phys guys are not satisfied with staying in their labs, so they start preaching how athletes should train. Since many coaches still are trying to find some miracle recipe, the ex phys guys will have a big influence. Many are listening to guys like Owen Anderson, who preaches the following:

1. High mileage is useless.

2. Long runs for non-marathoners are useless.

3. Intensity is more important than volume.

4. Long, "slow" tempo runs at AT pace are useless.

5. Threshold training should be done at 10k pace.

6. Strength training with weights should be done 3 days/week.

7. Vo2 max training at "6 minute race pace" (faster than 3k pace) should be done year round.

i didn't mean to put down your profession or the entire scientific method, apologies. As Remember? says it is more in those pseudo-scientists who are trying to use science (actually someone elses science) to justify stating how athletes should train. The example above perfectly illustrates this. So apologies for the generalisation, as I like science when it is honestly applied. However, it does limit intuitive thought which are based on intellectual analysis of our feelings. For me a good coach has both the intuitive intellectualism and the rational intellectualism working side by side.

I find it difficult to trust science when it doesn't correspond with my intuition as science is still in it's developmental stages really. At least when compared to Eastern thought. Their philosophical thought already understands the primary principle in the universe in balance. Western Science saw once explained the the world as flat, then round; as the center of the universe and then on the far edge of one galaxy. Science thought things were absolute until Einstein brought in the idea of relativity, which led to quantum physics which has now realised that the very act of designing an experiment means that the experiment's result is altered to more accurately reflect the hypothesis than not. A bias of intention in created when the experiment is created. Intention (thought) precedes action. This is fundamentally Eastern yet it only exists within Western science on it's very cutting edge. Western science is developing nicely it is just not as complete. Medicine suffers similarly which is why som many people eventually find respite within alternative, traditional or Asian methodologies.

Yet, what i do trust is people who can explain the science with the mind of limiting the bias as much as possible. You sound very fair.

I think if balance as the primary principle is applied to athletics then we can find the trial and error method more effective. In addition we have many years and many great thinkers behind us already having done much research before

allowing for our trial and error to be within more precise boundaries than ever before. Scientific analysis is not only validating intuitive practices in coaching, it allowed for new directions of intuitive thinking to be found. But on the flipside of this Science only ever really moves forward when someone breaks the rules and becomes intuitive. That's when a leap is made 'Eureka, I've got it!' The rest of the time the rest of the scientists are running around on the same plateau the previous leap left the thinking at.

The balance for the 800m is speed and endurance and then combine. It is as simple as that in the broad sense. If speed is emphasised over endurance or vice versa balance will not be found and performance will be limited.

Lord Kinbote, i like the bit about not being able to take it easy and have patience. A problem broader than threshold running i'm sure. I was speaking about it with an athlete i now coach. he is an 800m runner who was injured from 23 to 28 which is his age now. He is a pure 800m type in that neither 400 to 1500 appear emphasised. he has just had an ankle operation that could resolve the long term issue and i had to be very convincing to egt him to do this slower stedier stuff. He loves the other side of the coin too much. tonight i got through and the goal now is to see how long it takes for him to control himself for 30 mins at 145-150bpm or near there. Eventually i would like this to go for an hour three times a week until he has well adapted to it. He did run 145 odd from 21-23 so it is a worthwhile experiment for him.

So to address his current balance (and keep in mind he began with a natural balance for the 800m) he needs to focus on developing his aerobic abilities again. Initially he saw speed as being the limiting factor as he was 'old' at 28. now he agrees with Lydiard. Rebuild the base and the rest will be easier, safer and with a higher potential.

my friend said to me last year that science is the filter for intuition.

I'm just trying to explain what we all need to learn.

Might as well make it sooner, rather than later, because we all gonna have to deal with these changes.

The Earth wasn't created in six days, it's not flat, it orbits the Sun, not the other way round, and it's not the center of the Universe.

There was a time when those statements were considered heretical.

It's the same with excercise physiology right now.

Brooks et al have proven that Lactate is a fuel not a wast product.

Robergs et al have proven that Lactic acid is not formed and does not exist in living tissue.

These issues should have been sorted out in the 1930's, I don't know why they weren't because Hill et al knew that Lactate was an oxidisable molecule way back in the early 1920's

So it's kinda embarassing for coaches to be told this stuff now, after 85 years of dogma.

But like I said, we will all have to deal with these issues in the future, so swallow your pride and learn it now. It will save you the embarassment of confrontation with a young eager to learn kid who has done what you should have done and googled the information.

Please don't hide behind the "what has this changed about the way we coach" argument, because you should know that where coaching is concerned, you can never have too much knowledge. In fact the aquisition of knowledge surely plays a huge part in the progression of athletes over the last 100+ years.

One day, it will be common for American athletes to be running under 13 minutes for 5000m and they might have a slightly different training program to what is used now, we can't be sure. But we can be sure that we don't know it all.

I am not a fan of the "threshold" concepts for training, because I think that too much emphasis on the idea that concept detracts from the importance of training at different paces.

I really belive that the threshold concept is irrelevant, since there is no such value in reality, rather a range of constantly variable paces at which we can buffer acidity. This is important because an increase in muscle acidity can occur at just about any pace.

With this in mind it is much more important to practice target race paces, so that we can extend the time run at a certain pace, without being afraid that we are crossing some imaginary threshold which will damage us.

Oh great - a lactate debate!

How did this thread turn into "let's get up to date" debate?

I think the original question was about the physiological characteristics and difference between lactate tolerance versus lactate buffering, and now the discussion has veered off topic about the role of science, dogma, pseudo-science, and even touched the creation versus evolution debate.

I believe "wellnow" hit lactate buffering on the head, by saying it's really H+ buffering, and lactate actually acts as a buffer to reduce or delay pH-lowering.

What I didn't see yet was a useful definition of lactate tolerance (although I skipped a lot at the end), except for a couple of suggestions to throw the term out.

I interpreted it to mean, right or wrong, generally the adaptations that take place which allow you to deal with the higher levels of blood lactate accumulation. Perhaps "dealing with lactate" is a better term.

Maybe there's a formal definition, but so far as it goes, the question made sense to me.

Also, the phrase "feeling lactic" made sense to me too. I interpreted "lactic" as an adjective describing the burning feeling in the legs, and not as a tangible noun, which ends up being incomplete anyway.

I thought workouts to improve "lactate tolerance" and "lactate buffering" are those that produce and expose your muscles and blood to high levels of lactate accumulation: tempo runs, steady state runs, progressive runs, long intervals, as well as shorter and faster VO2max intervals, at varying intensities around your (imaginary or not) lactate threshold.