You're conflating resistance training with endurance training. It may surprise you, but they aren't the same thing.
-
38
-
And now you're confusing the concept of a maximal lactate steady state with how it is operationalized. If the goal is to determine the maximum intensity at which all energy is derived aerobically (as Jones, Poole, et al. claim CP represents), that by definition is the same as (a) maximal lactate steady state. IOW, if, and only, whole body lactate content is neither increasing nor decreasing is this conditional fulfilled.
As for CP, it will always be just below the lowest intensity used to calculate it (at least if you ignore any mathematical noise/modeling error). Using tests of longer duration (e.g., out to 30 minutes), as Monod himself originally recommended, is still testing above the estimated value.
TL,DR: Conceptually, MLSS and CP are precisely the same thing. Any difference difference between them therefore is entirely due to precisely how they are quantified. This is why studies comparing them are never going to be very impactful. Instead, people interested in such issues should be focused on *why* there is non-linear/threshold-like response in the first place. *That* is a far more important and interesting question.
35 -
lexel wrote:
Andrew Coggan wrote:
Ironically, current proponents of the CP paradigm (e g., Poole, Jones) still favor tests that are too short in duration, even though this tends to result in an intensity greater than maximal lactate steady state, which by definition is the highest intensity at which 100% of energy is derived aerobically.
You knowledge about CV seems to be quite lacking.
MLSS is arbitrary defined. (MLSS is determined as the highest PO at which variation in [La] is ≤1.0mmolL-1, between the 10th and 30th min, during a 30-min ride). So it is very obvious that values like 1mmol , 10min and 30min are arbitrary values. :)
It was very well mentioned in a paper you listed, if you define MLSS different, CV and MLSS is not distinguishable. Other papers also show a close relation between CV and MLSS and i often mentioned that relationship.
If you estimate CV, you have to use TTs faster than CV, because the hyperbolic function is above and not below CV. So any scientist who uses TTs slower than CV, to estimate CV, does it very wrong and has no idea about it. Btw, i had to explain that also to hard2find, don't Email him, he is not a trustful person. Now he asks you the same.
Do you understand what ‘arbitrary’ means?
You give the accepted understanding of MLSS and then claim it’s arbitrary
Even you must see the contradiction
A concept with a wide and shared understanding is by definition not arbitrary
This post was edited 7 minutes after it was posted.92 -
lexel wrote:
If you estimate CV, you have to use TTs faster than CV, because the hyperbolic function is above and not below CV. So any scientist who uses TTs slower than CV, to estimate CV, does it very wrong and has no idea about it. Btw, i had to explain that also to hard2find, don't Email him, he is not a trustful person. Now he asks you the same.
Oh lexel, relax. Our emails and your data have remained private. No one has seen them and no one ever will. What you are to ego, I am to principled : )
I always extend the benefit of doubt to you, but again, you seem to think you’re explaining/solving something for me that 1) I understand (re: longer time trial durations shifting the CS value slower) and 2) I’m not actually asking about.
I was asking if the 2-15 minute time trial duration range is given because the estimated speed best approximates where CS and MLSS coincide (as AC just described it) or because it’s a range where the data best fits the 2 parameter hyperbolic curve used to model it (which I realize is a nuanced statement that I should probably quantify), or is it both?
At a practical level, I don’t find this type of discussion that useful (in terms of its impact on training), but at an esoteric level, it is stimulating.
81 -
Hard2Find wrote:
I was asking if the 2-15 minute time trial duration range is given because the estimated speed best approximates where CS and MLSS coincide (as AC just described it) or because it’s a range where the data best fits the 2 parameter hyperbolic curve used to model it (which I realize is a nuanced statement that I should probably quantify), or is it both?
It's neither.
Current proponents of CP have pushed use of shorter tests in an attempt to create a "grand unifying theory" aligning this classic idea with VO2 kinetics. Along with this comes their preferred nomenclature for exercise intensity "domains" (e.g., "severe"). To establish the primacy of this idea, it is necessary to "dis" MLSS, as well as ignore the limitations of CP (i.e., test duration and model choice) as well as prior research (including some of their own). They also have to choose to ignore (or simply don't realize) that if CP is supposed to represent the intensity at which all ATP is produced aerobically, a steady state in whole body VO2 (even if delayed) is only a necessary but not a sufficient condition - whole body lactate (and high energy phosphate, but that's minor) content must also be constant as well. Thus, *by their very own definition*, CP and MLSS are exactly the same thing! This is why I say that they can only differ if one (or both) has been incorrectly operationalized.
For folks new to the field, this probably all seems a bit confusing... aren't people like Jones and Poole "big names"? How could they be wrong? If you actually read the literature, though, you will find that only recently has CP testing started to coalesce around tests of a particular duration - previously, things were much more variable (with tests that are even shorter than 2-15 min too often being used, despite Monod - again, himself - pointing out that this results in overestimation of the true maximal metabolic steady state). As well, the lack of widespread acceptance of this "grand unifying theory" is illustrated by the recent ACSM/Australian position stand on terminology to describe exercise intensity, which rejected the new "domain" in names in favor of classical descriptors ("moderate", "high").
But hey, this is just me sitting on the sidelines observing the field (for 50 years now). I'm not an applied sports scientist and don't study CP, MLSS, VO2 kinetics, etc.
This post was edited 1 minute after it was posted.61 -
The way that the MLSS concept is normally operationalized could be said to be arbitrary, or at least pragmatically chosen vs. being based on theory. However, that in no way undermines the concept itself.
The same, of course, could be said of CP.
Unfortunately, the Jones, Poole, et al. article proposing CP as the new "gold standard" is highly biased, because they go into great depth about the practical difficulties of determining MLSS, but fail to turn the same scientific scrutiny on CP.
(I say all of the above as someone who concluded that "the best predictor of performance is performance itself" before Jones ever heard of exercise physiology. IOW, I do agree with their basic premise.)
23 -
Andrew Coggan wrote:
Hard2Find wrote:
I was asking if the 2-15 minute time trial duration range is given because the estimated speed best approximates where CS and MLSS coincide (as AC just described it) or because it’s a range where the data best fits the 2 parameter hyperbolic curve used to model it (which I realize is a nuanced statement that I should probably quantify), or is it both?
It's neither.
Current proponents of CP have pushed use of shorter tests in an attempt to create a "grand unifying theory" aligning this classic idea with VO2 kinetics. Along with this comes their preferred nomenclature for exercise intensity "domains" (e.g., "severe"). To establish the primacy of this idea, it is necessary to "dis" MLSS, as well as ignore the limitations of CP (i.e., test duration and model choice) as well as prior research (including some of their own). They also have to choose to ignore (or simply don't realize) that if CP is supposed to represent the intensity at which all ATP is produced aerobically, a steady state in whole body VO2 (even if delayed) is only a necessary but not a sufficient condition - whole body lactate (and high energy phosphate, but that's minor) content must also be constant as well. Thus, *by their very own definition*, CP and MLSS are exactly the same thing! This is why I say that they can only differ if one (or both) has been incorrectly operationalized.
So, is the shorter duration range (the often cited 2-15 minute range) more a consequence of wanting to obtain a maximal VO2 steady state at the CS, despite CS and MLSS not coinciding at this point? Whereas, if you used a slightly longer duration range, say 2-25 minutes, you would have a coinciding CS and MLSS and a VO2 steady state but it would not be a maximal VO2 steady state and to the proponents of the CP/CS concept, that feature takes precedence in “optimizing” the test duration range?
20 -
That's my take, yes.
One additional editorial comment: you can now find numerous studies in the literature comparing various "thresholds" (including FTP), some finding a difference on average, others not, all depending on how the measurements are made, possibly the population, etc. Even when people don't find any difference on average, though, they somehow feel compelled to comment on how any two such approaches aren't "equivalent" or "interchangeable", because they don't give the exact same result in every individual. To me, this is missing the point entirely - why would you expect different ways of maximal metabolic steady state to always exactly agree in the first place (especially given biological variability/technological error)? Furthermore, why does it even matter in the first place? Agreement or lack thereof really says nothing about the underlying physiology, which is far more interesting and important.
As I tell my students, ask good questions, attack with rigor. IMO, comparing CP vs. MLSS vs VT vs. NIRS vs. iEMG vs. epinephrine vs. what have you fails the first test, hands down.
(Thanks for indulging my ranting.)
41 -
Andrew Coggan wrote:
The way that the MLSS concept is normally operationalized could be said to be arbitrary, or at least pragmatically chosen vs. being based on theory. However, that in no way undermines the concept itself.
The same, of course, could be said of CP.
Unfortunately, the Jones, Poole, et al. article proposing CP as the new "gold standard" is highly biased, because they go into great depth about the practical difficulties of determining MLSS, but fail to turn the same scientific scrutiny on CP.
(I say all of the above as someone who concluded that "the best predictor of performance is performance itself" before Jones ever heard of exercise physiology. IOW, I do agree with their basic premise.)
Enough papers show, that CP/CV is real and can be observed in any lab (by doing a VO2 measurement). That is a fact and it is shown in numerous papers.
The mathematical models to estimate them can be discussed, but that’s likely too much here. Those mathematical models have to be used at least in a correct way, which is not the case in some papers!
How they call the ‘zones’, I do not care, that is quite irrelevant. The name ‘Severe’ looks like a marketing name to me, like Tinman.The standard definition of MLSS, I call it now MLSS (trad) can be adopted, as it is arbitrary. Again the parameters 10min, 30min and 1mmol (@ unbelieve) are random numbers and they have no special physiological meaning. Someone could say use 1.5mmol, or 2mmol, or 1.25mmol, or 15min to 30min, or 20min to 40min, or whatever you get the idea. It’s all arbitrary. Also lactate levels cannot be transferred from athlete to athlete. It’s not difficult to realize that this MLSS definition is a severe problem (haha).
Neither CP nor MLSS needs to be dropped. Scientists can even keep up the MLSS (trad). MLSS (trad) is then typically 7-9% lower as CV, FTP about 5% lower -> theory and practice.
And now i drop the bomb, the link between your Coggan power zones and CP: Level 4: Lactate Threshold: 91-105% FTP; Level 5: VO2max 106-120% FTP
And exactly around 105-106% FTP is CP, which is exatcly the boarder between your level 4 and 5. So you already used CP as a boarder. You are welcome, I find this quite funny.
Source:
This post was edited 1 minute after it was posted.212 -
lexel wrote:
Andrew Coggan wrote:
The way that the MLSS concept is normally operationalized could be said to be arbitrary, or at least pragmatically chosen vs. being based on theory. However, that in no way undermines the concept itself.
The same, of course, could be said of CP.
Unfortunately, the Jones, Poole, et al. article proposing CP as the new "gold standard" is highly biased, because they go into great depth about the practical difficulties of determining MLSS, but fail to turn the same scientific scrutiny on CP.
(I say all of the above as someone who concluded that "the best predictor of performance is performance itself" before Jones ever heard of exercise physiology. IOW, I do agree with their basic premise.)
Enough papers show, that CP/CV is real and can be observed in any lab (by doing a VO2 measurement). That is a fact and it is shown in numerous papers.
The mathematical models to estimate them can be discussed, but that’s likely too much here. Those mathematical models have to be used at least in a correct way, which is not the case in some papers!
How they call the ‘zones’, I do not care, that is quite irrelevant. The name ‘Severe’ looks like a marketing name to me, like Tinman.The standard definition of MLSS, I call it now MLSS (trad) can be adopted, as it is arbitrary. Again the parameters 10min, 30min and 1mmol (@ unbelieve) are random numbers and they have no special physiological meaning. Someone could say use 1.5mmol, or 2mmol, or 1.25mmol, or 15min to 30min, or 20min to 40min, or whatever you get the idea. It’s all arbitrary. Also lactate levels cannot be transferred from athlete to athlete. It’s not difficult to realize that this MLSS definition is a severe problem (haha).
Neither CP nor MLSS needs to be dropped. Scientists can even keep up the MLSS (trad). MLSS (trad) is then typically 7-9% lower as CV, FTP about 5% lower -> theory and practice.
And now i drop the bomb, the link between your Coggan power zones and CP: Level 4: Lactate Threshold: 91-105% FTP; Level 5: VO2max 106-120% FTP
And exactly around 105-106% FTP is CP, which is exatcly the boarder between your level 4 and 5. So you already used CP as a boarder. You are welcome, I find this quite funny.
Source:
This thread has degenerated into meaningless exercise physiology jerking off. All this has no practical meaning to real world coaching. The last 24 years I have coached in my local hometown club, and without doing any recruiting, and not doing one single lactate test, not one single time trial to set training paces and most often not even given the runners paces before their hard workouts, I have managed to produces 6 sub-14, 3 sub-3,40 runners etc. etc. That´s the difference between real world coaching and the bla bla you have written above.
335 -
well,,. wrote:
lexel wrote:
Enough papers show, that CP/CV is real and can be observed in any lab (by doing a VO2 measurement). That is a fact and it is shown in numerous papers.
The mathematical models to estimate them can be discussed, but that’s likely too much here. Those mathematical models have to be used at least in a correct way, which is not the case in some papers!
How they call the ‘zones’, I do not care, that is quite irrelevant. The name ‘Severe’ looks like a marketing name to me, like Tinman.The standard definition of MLSS, I call it now MLSS (trad) can be adopted, as it is arbitrary. Again the parameters 10min, 30min and 1mmol (@ unbelieve) are random numbers and they have no special physiological meaning. Someone could say use 1.5mmol, or 2mmol, or 1.25mmol, or 15min to 30min, or 20min to 40min, or whatever you get the idea. It’s all arbitrary. Also lactate levels cannot be transferred from athlete to athlete. It’s not difficult to realize that this MLSS definition is a severe problem (haha).
Neither CP nor MLSS needs to be dropped. Scientists can even keep up the MLSS (trad). MLSS (trad) is then typically 7-9% lower as CV, FTP about 5% lower -> theory and practice.
And now i drop the bomb, the link between your Coggan power zones and CP: Level 4: Lactate Threshold: 91-105% FTP; Level 5: VO2max 106-120% FTP
And exactly around 105-106% FTP is CP, which is exatcly the boarder between your level 4 and 5. So you already used CP as a boarder. You are welcome, I find this quite funny.
Source:
This thread has degenerated into meaningless exercise physiology jerking off. All this has no practical meaning to real world coaching. The last 24 years I have coached in my local hometown club, and without doing any recruiting, and not doing one single lactate test, not one single time trial to set training paces and most often not even given the runners paces before their hard workouts, I have managed to produces 6 sub-14, 3 sub-3,40 runners etc. etc. That´s the difference between real world coaching and the bla bla you have written above.
Makes you wonder if they have reached sub 14 thanks to your training or despite it?
211 -
well,,. wrote:
lexel wrote:
Enough papers show, that CP/CV is real and can be observed in any lab (by doing a VO2 measurement). That is a fact and it is shown in numerous papers.
The mathematical models to estimate them can be discussed, but that’s likely too much here. Those mathematical models have to be used at least in a correct way, which is not the case in some papers!
How they call the ‘zones’, I do not care, that is quite irrelevant. The name ‘Severe’ looks like a marketing name to me, like Tinman.The standard definition of MLSS, I call it now MLSS (trad) can be adopted, as it is arbitrary. Again the parameters 10min, 30min and 1mmol (@ unbelieve) are random numbers and they have no special physiological meaning. Someone could say use 1.5mmol, or 2mmol, or 1.25mmol, or 15min to 30min, or 20min to 40min, or whatever you get the idea. It’s all arbitrary. Also lactate levels cannot be transferred from athlete to athlete. It’s not difficult to realize that this MLSS definition is a severe problem (haha).
Neither CP nor MLSS needs to be dropped. Scientists can even keep up the MLSS (trad). MLSS (trad) is then typically 7-9% lower as CV, FTP about 5% lower -> theory and practice.
And now i drop the bomb, the link between your Coggan power zones and CP: Level 4: Lactate Threshold: 91-105% FTP; Level 5: VO2max 106-120% FTP
And exactly around 105-106% FTP is CP, which is exatcly the boarder between your level 4 and 5. So you already used CP as a boarder. You are welcome, I find this quite funny.
Source:
This thread has degenerated into meaningless exercise physiology jerking off. All this has no practical meaning to real world coaching. The last 24 years I have coached in my local hometown club, and without doing any recruiting, and not doing one single lactate test, not one single time trial to set training paces and most often not even given the runners paces before their hard workouts, I have managed to produces 6 sub-14, 3 sub-3,40 runners etc. etc. That´s the difference between real world coaching and the bla bla you have written above.
Yeah but if you followed lexel's method you would have produced 6 sub 12:35 and 3 sub 3:26 runners.
174 -
If you mean that you infeed can pick a combination of test durations and mathematical expression that makes CP align, on average, with the intensity at which you seemingly just avoid an inexorable rise in VO2, but not all energy is being derived aerobically (since lactate is accumulating), then yes, I agree with you. However, what is the value of identifying this rather obscure point? Contrary to Jones's assertions, it is clearly above the point at which metabolic control is lost.
As for my training levels (not zones), all of the cut points are arbitrary (since everything resides on a continuum). The fact that level 4 ends about where the "new" CP falls is therefore coincidental.
34 -
Keep up, first years.
310 -
Andrew Coggan wrote:
If you mean that you infeed can pick a combination of test durations and mathematical expression that makes CP align, on average, with the intensity at which you seemingly just avoid an inexorable rise in VO2, but not all energy is being derived aerobically (since lactate is accumulating), then yes, I agree with you. However, what is the value of identifying this rather obscure point? Contrary to Jones's assertions, it is clearly above the point at which metabolic control is lost.
As for my training levels (not zones), all of the cut points are arbitrary (since everything resides on a continuum). The fact that level 4 ends about where the "new" CP falls is therefore coincidental.
Andrew. Please define clearly, once and for all. What is your definition of FTP?
50 -
Andrew Coggan wrote:
That's my take, yes.
One additional editorial comment: you can now find numerous studies in the literature comparing various "thresholds" (including FTP), some finding a difference on average, others not, all depending on how the measurements are made, possibly the population, etc. Even when people don't find any difference on average, though, they somehow feel compelled to comment on how any two such approaches aren't "equivalent" or "interchangeable", because they don't give the exact same result in every individual. To me, this is missing the point entirely - why would you expect different ways of maximal metabolic steady state to always exactly agree in the first place (especially given biological variability/technological error)? Furthermore, why does it even matter in the first place? Agreement or lack thereof really says nothing about the underlying physiology, which is far more interesting and important.
As I tell my students, ask good questions, attack with rigor. IMO, comparing CP vs. MLSS vs VT vs. NIRS vs. iEMG vs. epinephrine vs. what have you fails the first test, hands down.
(Thanks for indulging my ranting.)
Haha…no problem. I appreciate the detailed responses. This has answered something that I’ve been wondering about for a while, since learning about the CP/CS concept. 1) the basis for the time trial durations and 2) why it’s referred to (by lexel and others I’ve read) as a true metabolic steady state when you can have a situation of steady state VO2 but increasing lactate. Hence, why, I’ve thought when I see people use longer time trial durations, they are trying to achieve that point that coincides between CS and MLSS, despite the observation that it would lead to an increasing error.
20 -
#3677
This post was removed.
-
Hard2Find wrote:
Andrew Coggan wrote:
That's my take, yes.
One additional editorial comment: you can now find numerous studies in the literature comparing various "thresholds" (including FTP), some finding a difference on average, others not, all depending on how the measurements are made, possibly the population, etc. Even when people don't find any difference on average, though, they somehow feel compelled to comment on how any two such approaches aren't "equivalent" or "interchangeable", because they don't give the exact same result in every individual. To me, this is missing the point entirely - why would you expect different ways of maximal metabolic steady state to always exactly agree in the first place (especially given biological variability/technological error)? Furthermore, why does it even matter in the first place? Agreement or lack thereof really says nothing about the underlying physiology, which is far more interesting and important.
As I tell my students, ask good questions, attack with rigor. IMO, comparing CP vs. MLSS vs VT vs. NIRS vs. iEMG vs. epinephrine vs. what have you fails the first test, hands down.
(Thanks for indulging my ranting.)
Haha…no problem. I appreciate the detailed responses. This has answered something that I’ve been wondering about for a while, since learning about the CP/CS concept. 1) the basis for the time trial durations and 2) why it’s referred to (by lexel and others I’ve read) as a true metabolic steady state when you can have a situation of steady state VO2 but increasing lactate. Hence, why, I’ve thought when I see people use longer time trial durations, they are trying to achieve that point that coincides between CS and MLSS, despite the observation that it would lead to an increasing error.
Increasing error?
16 -
once and for all wrote:
Andrew Coggan wrote:
If you mean that you infeed can pick a combination of test durations and mathematical expression that makes CP align, on average, with the intensity at which you seemingly just avoid an inexorable rise in VO2, but not all energy is being derived aerobically (since lactate is accumulating), then yes, I agree with you. However, what is the value of identifying this rather obscure point? Contrary to Jones's assertions, it is clearly above the point at which metabolic control is lost.
As for my training levels (not zones), all of the cut points are arbitrary (since everything resides on a continuum). The fact that level 4 ends about where the "new" CP falls is therefore coincidental.
Andrew. Please define clearly, once and for all. What is your definition of FTP?
See the glossary of any edition of our book.
114 -
Andrew Coggan wrote:
That's a bit more detailed than how I might have phrased it, but essentially, yes. That is, I am not convinced that the terminal decline of the intensity-duration relationship truly significantly varies between individuals.* If you model this as an exponential decay (linear on a semi log plot), this is the same as saying that the "Reigel exponent" is the same for every athlete.
Consider the following:
Assume you have two athletes with absolutely identical running speeds at maximal metabolic state. For athlete A, though, this speed is overestimated by 1%, whereas for athlete B it is underestimated by 1%, just due to normal measurement error/variability in testing. If you then threw them on the treadmill and asked them to run as long as possible at any speed slower than this, athlete B will be able to exercise about 15% longer, simply due to the way small differences in intensity translate into much larger differences in duration as a result of the shallow slope of this relationship in this region. IOW, despite identical muscular metabolic fitness, athlete B will *appear* to have greater "durability", but in fact this is just due to measurement error.
*The exception would be if you push things beyond the distance/duration for which someone has adequately prepared, in which case they may very well "fall off the curve". Obviously this would be more common in running (e.g., attempting a marathon on limited training) vs. cycling.
Late to the party, but isn't that asterisk like, the main point of thinking about durability? What actually changes in the body when one is adequately prepared for a marathon vs a 10k or 10mi race? Why do some people seem to need to do more marathon specific work than others to translate a good 10k into a good marathon? And with everything we know about the body, how likely is it that "adequate preparation" just flips a switch where you don't see that decline, vs it being a spectrum with increasing cost vs benefit to improve that durability?
Maybe I'm completely wrong but I imagined the applicability of this as a separate physiological parameter as really only mattering for the hm, m or especially trail ultras with a lot of vert. Like it has more to do with resistance to muscle damage and neuromuscular fatigue, and not really anything metabolic. Other than maybe fat utilization or something.
110
What People Are Talking About On LetsRun
No top threads at the moment. Check back soon.