Also, you really think %LT is trainable for cycling but not for running?
Possibly one of the more ridiculous contributions you’ve made this far and that’s saying simmering
lab test after a period of high intensity focus. Then lab test after a period of threshold focus. the results you see will be applicable to both running and cycling, obviously
In the paper i shared recently, there is another paper referred for cycling, which is that
Have a look at figure 1, they found a weak correlation between LTw and LT%(Vo2max). As i mentioned, i do not know why there is a difference between running and cycling. However, 75 runners is really a very good sample size and has its statistical power.
These guys from Norway are top notch scienticists (i.e Ronnestad and others), at least i respect them.
ok they found a weak correlation between those two. relevance?
yes in any population of participants some will have higher vo2s and some will have higher fractional utilizations of their lesser vo2 #s to yield the same LTv
not seeing the point as being particularly eye opening
ok they found a weak correlation between those two. relevance?
yes in any population of participants some will have higher vo2s and some will have higher fractional utilizations of their lesser vo2 #s to yield the same LTv
not seeing the point as being particularly eye opening
It's OK. You can just say lexel was correct, as much as it pains you 😉
ok they found a weak correlation between those two. relevance?
yes in any population of participants some will have higher vo2s and some will have higher fractional utilizations of their lesser vo2 #s to yield the same LTv
not seeing the point as being particularly eye opening
It's OK. You can just say lexel was correct, as much as it pains you 😉
But he's not. "Threshold" clearly *is* trainable, even in already well-trained runners, e.g.:
The purpose of this study was to determine the effects of increased training intensity (ITI) on VO2max, plasma lactate accumulation, ventilatory threshold (VT), and performance in trained distance runners. Seven trained male...
Of course, at some point you can't push it any higher, just like you will reach a limit for VO2max or running economy. However, to use a cross-sectional to argue that LT% isn't trainable is ridiculous.
ok they found a weak correlation between those two. relevance?
yes in any population of participants some will have higher vo2s and some will have higher fractional utilizations of their lesser vo2 #s to yield the same LTv
not seeing the point as being particularly eye opening
It's OK. You can just say lexel was correct, as much as it pains you 😉
I think youve missed the plot here
Ppl are trying to walk him into the obvious conclusion that what he’s pointing out is irrelevant to the point he’s trying to articulate here
What was your max sweetspot % in terms of time when you were in your best shape for TT?
Also, did you follow any periodization? Or simply sweetspot with slight tapers?
Be interested to know from the author himself
Most people here could beat Andy on a chopper bike in a TT. No point in asking him. Like most could beat sirpoc. Probably 90% of HS kids could beat sirpoc running a 5k as well.
Fourteen competitive cyclists who possessed a similar maximum O2 consumption (VO2 max; range, 4.6-5.0 l/min) were compared regarding blood lactate responses, glycogen usage, and endurance during submaximal exercise. Seven sub...
I only started training specifically for TTs as a time-constrained masters. Overall, though, I would describe my approach as "Lydiardesque", except that the highest intensity stuff packed on the end was still focused on FTP.
Most people here could beat Andy on a chopper bike in a TT. No point in asking him. Like most could beat sirpoc. Probably 90% of HS kids could beat sirpoc running a 5k as well.
You do realise Andrew is one of the most respected in this field?
You also realise sirpoc rode nearly sub 18 for a 10 mile TT? That was almost a decade ago. Likely easily sub 18 in today's money . At the time I guess that put him in absolutely elite for Time trial specific in the UK. He has just qualified to represent his country in the masters and ran 32:23 on a even slightly than normal long road course and 40+ years old. There's trolling then there's just being stupid. Lexel and others are losing the plot here as well . They can't see the wood through the trees and what is actually improving to get this level of success.
I only started training specifically for TTs as a time-constrained masters. Overall, though, I would describe my approach as "Lydiardesque", except that the highest intensity stuff packed on the end was still focused on FTP.
Was asking total % of time in your week at sweetspot or total time/# of days in a week that was the primary focus.
Here the dose has been advocated 3x per week, scaled to volume by time.
Was just wondering the dose and volume you were at. Youve had some pods with Hunter talking generally but i was just wondering specifics
Lexel, I agree with several of the recent posts suggesting you get an unfair immediate negative reaction. Having said that haha…
If two variables are independent, then they are uncorrelated. Two variables being uncorrelated does not imply independence, you’ve mixed it up. For example, %LT (expressed as a % of VO2max in this case) and vLT not being correlated COULD mean that the runners with the lower %LT have stronger “anaerobic” systems despite having similar VO2max values. Alternatively, runners with a higher %LT could simply have weaker “anaerobic” systems, again, despite similar VO2max values. How that manifests in this study is the former will be reaching the arbitrarily defined LT at a lower %LT than the latter. This would actually fit into Alois Mader’s lactate threshold model, thus explaining why you see the lack of correlation between %LT and vLT. Test the correlation between %LT and Lactate Max though, and I’d suspect you’ll see a significant relationship. Of course, this is not my field, just something I toy with.
Also, the equation you posted is basically just an algebraically rearranged economy curve, no? That's going to require that people go to a lab and get both lactate and oxygen consumption tested. Not sure how that is the universal running formula. BTW, is this universal running formula different from the universal intensity descriptor, CS? Asking for a friend who’s confused by all this universality.
The formula provided is applicable for highly aerobic events, where LTv correlates well with race time. It is true that as shorter the race distance gets, as shorter the race duration is and as more relevant the anaerobic system gets. But i see no main contradiction and i do not conclude that that explains the non-correlation between LT% and LTv (we are talking here about trained athletes). However, yes the relative strength of the anaerobic system to the aerobic system might explain small variation in LT% between athletes, this is a (nice) theory.
Maximum Lactate Steady State (MLSS) is related with CV/CS. So it seems reasonable to postulate CV= (CV%Vo2max) * Vo2max/CR . CV%VO2max is then a fraction of VO2max (e.g. typ. around 0.9) analog to LT% (in the last paper typ 0.84), CV%>LT% (LTv is a little bit slower as CV). Also here VO2max and CR are the main variables.
Direct from the study, “Due to the large number of runners, we were not able to arrange a test-run over, e.g., 5000 m or 3000 m for all the runners. However, by collection of race results the same year as the physiological tests were performed, the range of performance was found to be from 8.05 to 13.30 min in 3000 m.” Seems reasonable then that the 1500m-5000m would fit the researchers definition of “long distance runners” and your definition of “highly aerobic events”?
Great, so back to %LT and vLT… it’s not simply a shorter race distance I’m talking about, it’s the metabolic profile (meaning both VO2max and Lamax) and muscle fiber profile! Take two runners with the same VO2max but differing lactate max values. To get to the arbitrarily defined LT that this study proposed (baseline lactate plus a constant), the runner with the lower lactate max will be working at a higher percent of their VO2max thus faster relative vLT, than the runner with the higher lactate max. Since, for the runner with the higher lactate max, the intensity (% VO2max) doesn’t need to be as high to generate the arbitrary lactate value.
Now, tying that in with the range of athletes in this study and based on the mathematical model of the lactate threshold that Alois Mader defined (which frames the process in terms of the underlying generative mechanism based on ATP, ADP, and AMP production), the variation seen in this study would be well explained, simply, by relatively small differences in Lamax. That would mean %LT and vLT are not actually independent from performance level, as you stated. Rather, vLT is not explained well by %VO2max alone. However, add Lamax to the mix, and both a relationship and explanation appears. This could be referred to as a eureka moment.
Of course, at some point you can't push it any higher, just like you will reach a limit for VO2max or running economy. However, to use a cross-sectional to argue that LT% isn't trainable is ridiculous.
1) As CR was not measured in this paper, you can not conclude it shows a higher LT%.
Remember: LTv=LT%*VO2max/CR, so both VO2max and CR has to be measured before and after any training intervention!
2) In the last 2 papers i shared, they scientisists use lactate baseline + 2.3mmol/L (Lactate Pro) as a definition of LT. If i apply this in Fig. 1 of your shared paper, i see no difference in %VO2max before and after, as also the lactate baseline is different and has changed before and after.
Of course, at some point you can't push it any higher, just like you will reach a limit for VO2max or running economy. However, to use a cross-sectional to argue that LT% isn't trainable is ridiculous.
1) As CR was not measured in this paper, you can not conclude it shows a higher LT%.
Remember: LTv=LT%*VO2max/CR, so both VO2max and CR has to be measured before and after any training intervention!
2) In the last 2 papers i shared, they scientisists use lactate baseline + 2.3mmol/L (Lactate Pro) as a definition of LT. If i apply this in Fig. 1 of your shared paper, i see no difference in %VO2max before and after, as also the lactate baseline is different and has changed before and after.
So you think in 8 weeks efficiency increased dramatically on 3 days a week intervention more so than the obvious improvements in LT in that paper?
You really think that’s the more likely conclusion?
The lactate curve moved down and to the right. look at Table 4. That’s clearly an increase in LT% and not efficiency.
