So again, how do you draw the conclusion from that study that LT% isn't trainable for running?
Don't be jealous of the Norwegian scientists :) Considering the measurement tolerances and other stuff, the correlations and conclusions they found are remarkeable and that brings the sport science further.
1) LTv is for sure trainable. As also indicated in the papers i shared. LTv is higher for Elite.
2) LT% is the discussion variable. See also my recent answer to H2find.
Based on the formula LTv=LT%*VO2max/CR, the logic assumption is as better the athlete is (LTv is higher), as higher also LT% should be. Same with VO2max and CR (which gets lower if better). Based on that, the hypothesis was that LT% might improve with training too. And more for Elites as the train more. But this was not found for running. Your paper shared in post #2331, seems to indicate that training age might play a role, as well as muscle fiber topology. I may quote Storen, 2013: 'There are, however, several reports of no adaptations in LT in %VO2max (LT%) after training interventions'. Together this seems to indicate, that at least short term adaptation for LT%, for well trained athletes, are unlikely.
Now questions to you:
1) Why do you think Vla max is a bogus concept? Please explain in more detail.
2) What is level 2 and level 3 for you? (you shared your training)
You are clearly way behind the times if you think that mathematical formula is somehow revolutionary. The concept that endurance performance rests on a "three-legged stool" of VO2max (cardiovascular fitness), threshold (muscular metabolic fitness), and economy or efficiency of movement emerged in the late 1970s/early 1980s. For running specific references, see the classic papers from Londeree, Farrell, Sjodin, etc.
Obviously the fitter you are the less trainable anything and everything becomes. It's ludicrous, however, to conclude that threshold isn't trainable *at all* in already trained runners based on a cross-sectional study. That's doubly-true when there is plenty of evidence to the contrary, such as that paper I cited previously.
VLamax is presented as the non-aerobic equivalent of VO2max, i.e., the maximum possible rate of non-aerobic ATP production. However, it isn't possible to reach the latter during whole body exercise, as the enzymatic capacity for lactate formation is simply too high. (Based on some of Larry Spriet's data you might - or might not - be able to approach it during exercise with a small muscle mass.) If you think about it, this makes intuitive/evolutionary sense - just look at the painful muscle contractures (not cramps) and tissue damage experienced by patients with McArdle's disease when they push themselves too far.
Hence, the euphemism that "lactate production doesn't blow, it sucks" (is sucked).
You can search the web for "Coggan training levels" and find all sorts of resources. Cycling and running are different sports, however, so if you wish to mentally translate things to the latter, I suggest looking at the intensity factor scale instead.
You are clearly way behind the times if you think that mathematical formula is somehow revolutionary. The concept that endurance performance rests on a "three-legged stool" of VO2max (cardiovascular fitness), threshold (muscular metabolic fitness), and economy or efficiency of movement emerged in the late 1970s/early 1980s. For running specific references, see the classic papers from Londeree, Farrell, Sjodin, etc.
Obviously the fitter you are the less trainable anything and everything becomes. It's ludicrous, however, to conclude that threshold isn't trainable *at all* in already trained runners based on a cross-sectional study. That's doubly-true when there is plenty of evidence to the contrary, such as that paper I cited previously.
VLamax is presented as the non-aerobic equivalent of VO2max, i.e., the maximum possible rate of non-aerobic ATP production. However, it isn't possible to reach the latter during whole body exercise, as the enzymatic capacity for lactate formation is simply too high. (Based on some of Larry Spriet's data you might - or might not - be able to approach it during exercise with a small muscle mass.) If you think about it, this makes intuitive/evolutionary sense - just look at the painful muscle contractures (not cramps) and tissue damage experienced by patients with McArdle's disease when they push themselves too far.
Hence, the euphemism that "lactate production doesn't blow, it sucks" (is sucked).
You can search the web for "Coggan training levels" and find all sorts of resources. Cycling and running are different sports, however, so if you wish to mentally translate things to the latter, I suggest looking at the intensity factor scale instead.
Andrew. I know you probably haven't read this thread from start to finish. But how close do you think cycling and running are? Sirpoc for example has basically recreated his sweetspot/ time trial training (he was an excellent UK tester) and just done the same thing for running. With pretty remarkable results for 40 years old.
If we had power as a reliable measure, would it be easier in your opinion to control intensity? How should FTP even be defined?
Don't be jealous of the Norwegian scientists :) Considering the measurement tolerances and other stuff, the correlations and conclusions they found are remarkeable and that brings the sport science further.
1) LTv is for sure trainable. As also indicated in the papers i shared. LTv is higher for Elite.
2) LT% is the discussion variable. See also my recent answer to H2find.
Based on the formula LTv=LT%*VO2max/CR, the logic assumption is as better the athlete is (LTv is higher), as higher also LT% should be. Same with VO2max and CR (which gets lower if better). Based on that, the hypothesis was that LT% might improve with training too. And more for Elites as the train more. But this was not found for running. Your paper shared in post #2331, seems to indicate that training age might play a role, as well as muscle fiber topology. I may quote Storen, 2013: 'There are, however, several reports of no adaptations in LT in %VO2max (LT%) after training interventions'. Together this seems to indicate, that at least short term adaptation for LT%, for well trained athletes, are unlikely.
Now questions to you:
1) Why do you think Vla max is a bogus concept? Please explain in more detail.
2) What is level 2 and level 3 for you? (you shared your training)
You are clearly way behind the times if you think that mathematical formula is somehow revolutionary. The concept that endurance performance rests on a "three-legged stool" of VO2max (cardiovascular fitness), threshold (muscular metabolic fitness), and economy or efficiency of movement emerged in the late 1970s/early 1980s. For running specific references, see the classic papers from Londeree, Farrell, Sjodin, etc.
Obviously the fitter you are the less trainable anything and everything becomes. It's ludicrous, however, to conclude that threshold isn't trainable *at all* in already trained runners based on a cross-sectional study. That's doubly-true when there is plenty of evidence to the contrary, such as that paper I cited previously.
VLamax is presented as the non-aerobic equivalent of VO2max, i.e., the maximum possible rate of non-aerobic ATP production. However, it isn't possible to reach the latter during whole body exercise, as the enzymatic capacity for lactate formation is simply too high. (Based on some of Larry Spriet's data you might - or might not - be able to approach it during exercise with a small muscle mass.) If you think about it, this makes intuitive/evolutionary sense - just look at the painful muscle contractures (not cramps) and tissue damage experienced by patients with McArdle's disease when they push themselves too far.
Hence, the euphemism that "lactate production doesn't blow, it sucks" (is sucked).
You can search the web for "Coggan training levels" and find all sorts of resources. Cycling and running are different sports, however, so if you wish to mentally translate things to the latter, I suggest looking at the intensity factor scale instead.
Regarding vLamax and not being able to reach a true maximum possible rate, some would make the same argument for VO2max. Noakes and Marino, surely would. Yet, it seems a lingua franca in exercise physiology to state VO2max and fractional utilization. vLamax may not perfectly capture anaerobic glycolysis, but it’s been around for years now and no one seems to have come up with something better. Particularly in so far as incorporating it into a first principles approach to modeling lactate dynamics in a two compartment model, such as Mader did. I’m open to new sources though, if you’ve any?
Regarding vLamax and not being able to reach a true maximum possible rate, some would make the same argument for VO2max. Noakes and Marino, surely would. Yet, it seems a lingua franca in exercise physiology to state VO2max and fractional utilization. vLamax may not perfectly capture anaerobic glycolysis, but it’s been around for years now and no one seems to have come up with something better. Particularly in so far as incorporating it into a first principles approach to modeling lactate dynamics in a two compartment model, such as Mader did. I’m open to new sources though, if you’ve any?
Have you tried to measure vlamax? The results are dubious.
Maders model is actually useful for back-calculating vlamax based on known vo2max and mlss. But why go through the trouble with vlamax and fuzzy models when time trials will tell you basically what you need to know.
W’ is far far more useful, but it’s also difficult to estimate.
Can you describe how you use vlamax? As someone who uses the Mader model, I’m curious.
Thank you! 60-72 mins. week (3x24) sound a little easier (8 sets of 3 on, 1 off).
EZ runs the rest of the time, and 1 LR.
Mon--6 EZ
Tuesday (8 sets of 3 on, 1 off) 24 mins at subT (about 3, but w/ w/u and c/d, 5 on day)
Wed--6 EZ
Thurs--(8 sets of 3 on, 1 off) 24 mins at subT (about 3, but w/ w/u and c/d, 5 on day)
Fri--4 EZ
Sat--10-15 LR EZ
Sun--3 EZ
38-44 mpw to start.
(At some point I'd then do the subT on Sat, and then EZ LR on Sun).
The main downside to this approach is that it can get kind of boring. Mixing up the length of the reps makes it a bit more interesting, if nothing else. Probably helps with running economy too given the slightly different paces. Anyway, I wouldn't do 8x3 minutes for every single session. You can repeat workouts on a 1-2 week cycle and still get good at dialing in the right pace for each.
15 mile long run is probably overdoing it at this mileage. 10 would be OK. Get the third quick workout in there first, unless you're racing much longer distances.
Agree with Sam. 15 miles is way too long for a long run if you are only getting 5 miles on a quality (threshold) day.
Based on your saying 3 miles in reps of 24 minutes total, I’d say your easy pace will be 10:00 per mile or slower. So even 6 miles for EZ is probably too much at that fitness. And I think I’d cap the long run at 90 minutes.
In general, the total mileage of a run with the threshold reps should be higher than your easy runs.
We followed 5,000m world champion, 2-mile world record holder and Olympic 1,500m champion Jakob Ingebrigtsen as he crushed a track session at altitude in Fla...
I've been putting off getting a lactate meter until I could have someone else take my measurements because of how hard it sounded to DIY, but this looks doable. (I understand JI has done it 1000x and could do it blindfolded at this point, but still, it's not rocket science).
In the video he's using an Arkray Lactate Pro 2.
Does anyone happen to know what the lancet is, or have a recommended brand/size? It looks like this or something just like it: ?
Agree with Sam. 15 miles is way too long for a long run if you are only getting 5 miles on a quality (threshold) day.
Based on your saying 3 miles in reps of 24 minutes total, I’d say your easy pace will be 10:00 per mile or slower. So even 6 miles for EZ is probably too much at that fitness. And I think I’d cap the long run at 90 minutes.
In general, the total mileage of a run with the threshold reps should be higher than your easy runs.
I've always hated the long run. Not to keep going on about what sirpoc84 does, but seeing his results has given me confidence in dumping the long run of 2+ hours. I think the longest he has ever done is 90 mins? There was a period last year where within a month he did. Pb at 5k, 10k, 10 mile and HM. All the results were within seconds of equivalent of each other. I'm now pretty sure the focus need be on the 3 sub threshold runs to fuel the aerobic engine. The long run being just to buff up the overall load slightly , but not so much it becomes anything more than that. The 25% we got provided with in terms of work at sub threshold versus 75% easy was a rough guide, but for those looking for keep it simple has loved remarkably accurate and repeatble week on week. Definitely not overdoing the long run helps that in my view.
I've been putting off getting a lactate meter until I could have someone else take my measurements because of how hard it sounded to DIY, but this looks doable. (I understand JI has done it 1000x and could do it blindfolded at this point, but still, it's not rocket science).
In the video he's using an Arkray Lactate Pro 2.
Does anyone happen to know what the lancet is, or have a recommended brand/size? It looks like this or something just like it: ?
I use 23g lancets since 28g didn't produce a nice blood droplet for me.
It's super easy to do this yourself. Just make sure you have a clean site when pricking your finger and letting the drop form. I do solo testing for both running and cycling and have great results.
But don't get too caught up in the lactate fad. After spending about $1K USD on a meter and test strips, I found I can get easier and more actionable data with a running power meter.
Regarding vLamax and not being able to reach a true maximum possible rate, some would make the same argument for VO2max. Noakes and Marino, surely would. Yet, it seems a lingua franca in exercise physiology to state VO2max and fractional utilization. vLamax may not perfectly capture anaerobic glycolysis, but it’s been around for years now and no one seems to have come up with something better. Particularly in so far as incorporating it into a first principles approach to modeling lactate dynamics in a two compartment model, such as Mader did. I’m open to new sources though, if you’ve any?
Have you tried to measure vlamax? The results are dubious.
Maders model is actually useful for back-calculating vlamax based on known vo2max and mlss. But why go through the trouble with vlamax and fuzzy models when time trials will tell you basically what you need to know.
W’ is far far more useful, but it’s also difficult to estimate.
Can you describe how you use vlamax? As someone who uses the Mader model, I’m curious.
I think you have conflated my suggestion that the observed lack of correlation between %LT and vLT could be examined through the lens of vLamax and muscle fiber distribution, in the study lexel posted, for me suggesting the masses should be testing vLamax? I’m not. I also never said I use the Mader model for my training. I don’t. However, I am interested in the various training approaches circulating the running community, so make the effort to learn them. You know, so as not to be bamboozled by INSYCD, as you earlier suggested.
Yes, if you have economy and VO2max values, you can use an optimization algorithm to fit vLamax. You’re making my point for me. Most of these studies are measuring VO2max, lactate, and economy anyway. So they could fit vLamax (they could obviously test it too and compare predicted vs observed) and using the experimental data, test how %VO2max at LT correlates with vLamax amongst the group.
More simply, just observe how the lactate curve changes when VO2max is held constant and vLamax varies. Does that fit the experimental data of the subjects? Based on the model, that change alone is not far off the range of variation presented in the study, hence why I thought of that potential explanation and responded to lexel. Intuitively it would seem muscle fiber plays the bigger role but vLamax could very well be a reasonable proxy in lieu of muscle biopsy. I don’t know what field you’re in but simulations have been useful in my experience. If for no other reason than to establish a base knowledge and observe the mechanics of a complex system.
Regarding lactate testing, I actually liked taking a sample after doing what Joe Vigil would call a 400m tag, but I wouldn’t suggest it because I know you’ll criticize it as being too long and dependent on aerobic metabolism to be of use in assessing purely anaerobic metabolism. Sometimes, it’s interesting to just experiment though.
Thanks for the lancet advice, and the consumerism caution -- I understand my post probably screams "I just saw a pro doing this in a video and now I want to buy what they're using!" but I've actually been trialing Sirpoc's training since late last year and I've seen great results using just LTHR and a strap, but something thing I'm starting to run into is the fact that the fitter you get, the harder it becomes to use HR as anything more than a ceiling. So I will in fact benefit quite a bit from learning what approaching LT2 "feels" like. (I think I actually already know, but would be nice to confirm!)
Do you have any resources on power meter reading? I have one in my watch and have been logging that data this whole time, but ignored it as I figured it was unusable for running.
By definition, the intensity equivalent to the lactate threshold can be maintained for approximately one hour. This duration may be longer in higher level athletes and shorter in runners of low physical condition.
This is such a common oversight and something that is quite an oversight when we talk about Lactate Guided Training. The whole point of training with a meter and actually measuring and then checking with training is that you are basing the training on your own personalization instead of an arbitrary round number cutoff.
It's true that it can be close to a one hour steady state race pace in some, but you'd think after 100+ pages in this thread it wouldn't pop up.
Thanks for the lancet advice, and the consumerism caution -- I understand my post probably screams "I just saw a pro doing this in a video and now I want to buy what they're using!" but I've actually been trialing Sirpoc's training since late last year and I've seen great results using just LTHR and a strap, but something thing I'm starting to run into is the fact that the fitter you get, the harder it becomes to use HR as anything more than a ceiling. So I will in fact benefit quite a bit from learning what approaching LT2 "feels" like. (I think I actually already know, but would be nice to confirm!)
Do you have any resources on power meter reading? I have one in my watch and have been logging that data this whole time, but ignored it as I figured it was unusable for running.
Stryd Pod is kind of the only game in town so to speak. They run about 200 bucks but worth it in my opinion. I’ve never done lactate testing so my numbers could be off, but when using the power meter I’ve found that it marries up almost identical to my estimated LT hr and pace. The critical power number it generates is essentially your LT2.
Do you have any resources on power meter reading? I have one in my watch and have been logging that data this whole time, but ignored it as I figured it was unusable for running.
Watches that have running power tacked on are going to be quite a bit less responsive in terms of power changes and not account for environmental changes compared to taking data from a sensor on the foot.
I've used Stryd for all my data collection in the past including full LT traning blocks based on power data collected during a treadmill step test.
The main downside to this approach is that it can get kind of boring. Mixing up the length of the reps makes it a bit more interesting, if nothing else. Probably helps with running economy too given the slightly different paces. Anyway, I wouldn't do 8x3 minutes for every single session. You can repeat workouts on a 1-2 week cycle and still get good at dialing in the right pace for each.
15 mile long run is probably overdoing it at this mileage. 10 would be OK. Get the third quick workout in there first, unless you're racing much longer distances.
Agree with Sam. 15 miles is way too long for a long run if you are only getting 5 miles on a quality (threshold) day.
Based on your saying 3 miles in reps of 24 minutes total, I’d say your easy pace will be 10:00 per mile or slower. So even 6 miles for EZ is probably too much at that fitness. And I think I’d cap the long run at 90 minutes.
In general, the total mileage of a run with the threshold reps should be higher than your easy runs.
I did not know that the threshold volume should be more than the EZ runs, thank you! I thought it would be less and more of a supplement to the EZ runs. My EZ pace is 9:45-10:15--which works.
So cut the EZ runs back to 2-3 and then have threshold be more? I thought the rule was the threshold volume should be 25% of total run volume per week.
Indeed, Coggan turning up is like when him and Trev the Rev (and others) just kept arguing the toss over irrelevance for most people on the TT forum.
That brings back memories. Oh wait I haven't posted on there in 7 years and they are still going at it right? Ha ha
I can't add much to the science. But one thing I will say on the Stryd again (repeating a bit here) is that for me in the wind, it still doesn't work and I can't make it work (no matter what parameters I put it). The numbers it spits out are just ridiculous into the headwind versus tailwind. I actually bought one yesterday cheap off a runing gear back on Facebook, as thought maybe it's a duff unit. Will report back. For at this point, it's still the worst metric I have available to me. Terrible in fact. I think I'm maybe judging and expecting it though to be as good as a cycling power meter, which obviously it can't be in it's current form.
You are clearly way behind the times if you think that mathematical formula is somehow revolutionary. The concept that endurance performance rests on a "three-legged stool" of VO2max (cardiovascular fitness), threshold (muscular metabolic fitness), and economy or efficiency of movement emerged in the late 1970s/early 1980s. For running specific references, see the classic papers from Londeree, Farrell, Sjodin, etc.
Obviously the fitter you are the less trainable anything and everything becomes. It's ludicrous, however, to conclude that threshold isn't trainable *at all* in already trained runners based on a cross-sectional study. That's doubly-true when there is plenty of evidence to the contrary, such as that paper I cited previously.
It is not only about the 3 variables (three-legged stool) itself, it is more about the realtion to each other creating the formula LTv=LT%*VO2max/CR. That is the relevant thing here. I have not the feeling you got that.
As mentioned now several times, in the paper from Stoa, 2020, they had trained experienced athletes. With experienced athletes i mean they do it for a longer time, several years. In the paper 'determinants of endurance in well trained athletes' (post #2331) most of the group L cyclists they had only 1-3 years of cycling. That is ridiculous little experience and therefore adaptation time. You call them well trained, that is funny, so i have to reject also this paper for that purpose.
As elite train more as recreational athletes and have the higher LTv, you would expect to see statistically higher LT% values for elite. This was not found for running (Stoa, 2020). One theory could be that muscle fibers can only partly transfered (over a longer period of time) i.e. from fast twitch IIa to slow twitch fibers and after several years of training its over, no more adaptation possible. Also what you do in your childhood, might play a significant role.
There are individual LT% adaptations between athletes and because a marathoner or you have a higher LT% as the average, that does not prove anything. There is always the argument he is good at marathon because of his high LT% and not the other way around.
So there seems to be some evidence, that after years of training LT% is hardly trainable at all. The experienced athlete should then focus on VO2max and CR.
The version 2 did not have the wind option so that could work for you. I have trouble here in Southend on sea for the same reason running on the coast
I already have the latest version. My problem as I've mentioned before is my body height and weight don't seem to match up to the algorithm. The pod doesn't measure actually any force, so it's relying on effectively most people to fit into how to calculates power used going into the wind. I do not. A couple of other people have pointed to the same. Others seem to be having success with it. Unfortunately, just shows how far behind running power is still. We will get there in the end though, I'm sure. Just running seems to be way behind cycling in this area.