Lactate Tolerance v. Lactate Buffering

ok so as i sit here typing there is lactate being produced somehwere in my system and re-consumed elsewhere in my system. (God i hope that is right)

The thing is ... i can't feel it. I can feel my hammies where it normally concentrates when i have to max out. I can't feel it in my stomach where it always ends up when i enter that particular feeling I/we have been calling 'lactic' since the first ime i felt it and said "what the hell is that"?

Later when i was a bit more mature i allowed the feeling to come and go on long runs with hills. I also allowed it to build up really heavy and deadening during long hills. The intense burn after fast long track reps. The extra sharpness in specific places (like upper hammies) because weights were tougher the previous night and i was carrying extra tension. That day you finish the 400m in a personal best and it felt like nothing thanks to the training.

Now when an athlete starts to feel the lactic coming on and they need encouragement right there, i am ready for it. It is more about the pyschology than anything else. When you develop the lactate system it is really hard mentally so you need a good reason to do it. It is sickening yet doing it makes you in a very rarified group of people already and the slef esteem that follows is excellent. Allowing that self-esteem to build without getting out of control is an art in itself. When the athlete says why do i need aerobic as a 400m runner i can tell him why and when the 800m runner says why do i need to develop my speed so much i can also answer.

I don't think a physiologist can do those things. I also like the word buffer and the word lactate. They sound good. I'm happy to let go lactic acid as it has many bad memories attached to it. (i'll probably have a dream tonight now). Hyrogen ions are too small to make any difference in my world as i rarely have microscopic vision. Also, most of those words are from Latin and, in the main, i find Italians a but untrustworthy. (jks)

Wellnow, if you say the words lactate is not buffered one more time i might have to get nasty.

Is there a blocking feature in this forum?

Hi wellnow:

I like Renato's stuff too. I have been trying to understand the Jan Olbrecht stuff. Even though you disagree with Olbrecht's use of Aerobic/Anaerobic, do you see any value in his theories or methods? He seems to have helped a lot of swimmers and triathletes.

Yeah. petew, do me a favor and point out where I ever said lactate is bad. 'wellnow', not sure where you got that one, but i never said it. i said that the presence of accumulated (remember, there is a difference between production and accumulation) lactate indicates that hydrogen ions are present. Lactate thresholds are still measured on athletes to this day. Why? because even though it doesnt cause fatigue it seems to be a good indicator of whatever is causing the fatigue. 'wellnow': make sure you are reading everything here, don't jump to conclusions. I mean i took it straight out of a biochemistry text copyrighted 2006. Believe me I have long abandoned the brainwashing i was given long ago..

anyways...yes, a blocking feature would be nice

you didn't say that Schmo. I think wellnow understands his stuff nad not only all of the currently known physiological variables but also some of the other ones like the pyschological variable of arousal.

I really want to have this physiologic knowledge well understood i have to admit, it is just distracting to the other type of thinking i am doing when i coach. Maybe i am still young.

So now i have a question wellnow if you don't mind?

What is the relationship between lactate production and hyrodgen ion production. Is it linear, logarithmic or does it no observable relationship exist?

If the latter is true and later proves that there is no relationship, then is it possible to train so that more lactate is produced than hydrogen ions? Or is this what is already happening as one trains?

Is there training that de-emphasises the hydrogen ions whilst allowing maximal lactate production? You did mention that fast twitch muscles produce more lactic and a hypertrophied muscle has more capacity to do this as well.

Does increased aerobic capacity reduce the hydrogen ions? Does prodcuing lactic in a session which is also highly aerobic reduce the hydrogen ions? eg 2x4x400/1&5 in 60 instead of 4x400/5 in 55.

I use a product called Lectric Soda. It is washing crystals for clothes. It also acts as a muscle relaxant because is operates across the cell membranes and is highly alkaline. I use it in baths for recovery. It's other effect is that it can draw inflammation and swelling across the skin membrane. So when i sprained my ankle i put it on obver night and in the morning there was 25% of the original swelling and i was walking normally the following day with slight pain where the actual sprain was.

Finally, and most importantly, it can affect the acidity levels of your muscles. I had chronic tendonitis in my patella tendon for 18 months leading up to a major competition and on a daily basis i applied this stuff. It rebalanced the pH and i was able to continue training and competing and i smashed my pr in that comp. (actually was a new Aussie record for decathlon).

What does this stuff actually do from a physiologic perspective?

Also, and finally, an injured state is an acidic state and a state where the lactate system is maxed out is an acidic state. They are almost one and the same.

No wonder Lydiard (and many others) say keep away from anaerobic training for most of the year.

I "googled" for "Mr Canovo" and also "Reanto Canovo", and got this:"Did you mean: renato canova"

petew wrote:

If we take Mr Canovo (google this please)

But I see "wellnow" clarified this for all, so I "googled" for "Renato Canvova", as he insists is correct, and got this:

Did you mean: renato canova

No standard web pages containing all your search terms were found.

Your search - renato canvova - did not match any documents.

Suggestions:

Make sure all words are spelled correctly.

Try different keywords.

wellnow wrote:

... Renato Canvova (that's his real name, not Canovo as you keep calling him) ...

Glad I got this right *before* being a pedantic jerk. I was about to post a question about "Renato Canova" -- boy that would have made me look stupid. BTW, who are "Reanto Canovo" and "Renato Canvova" anyway?

"wellnow",I think "Random Shmo" was addressing the myth, explaining the myth, and dispelling the myth, not propogating it.He talked about fatigue, and you've responded with an explanation of acidosis. When he says "even though it is not the lactate that causes the fatigue", and you rebut with "Lactate cannot cause fatigue, that is the big myth.", what point exactly are you trying to make, and how is he confused when you are saying the same thing? Does that make you confused too?He says that lactate is a reliable indicator of fatigue because it is accompanied by a proton. You responded that lactate doesn't cause acidosis, which agrees and complements what he said, not contradicts it.Is there something he said that you actually disagree with? Because the tone is there, but the words are not.Or maybe it's me that's confused.

light i am really confised by this

'Random Shmo, you are a bit confused here, what's with the "lactate is bad" that's the worst thing you can say, the brainwashing is still there in your consciousness.'

when Schmo said this (from your quote)

'Everyone should be saying: Lactate is not acidic, and it is used as a fuel, so why is lactate a bad thing?' he could have added the word considered after the second lactate for your help i guess. Does this help

'Everyone should be saying: Lactate is not acidic, and it is used as a fuel, so why is lactate considered a bad thing?

I'm quite convinced the light and wellnow are the same person.

sorry Mr Canova.

so you guys are from the group called the anti-long distance running. Are you also anti-Lydiarite? This is your modus operandi aint it? Use physiology as a weapon to prove or disprove things, but not in a fair and honest way. IN a biased way. Isn't that considered cheating within science. I happen to think of science as like religion and scientists are like the priests of their religion. I think mis-using the rules of science is akin to defying god, to blasphemy. Surely you should have your scientist title removed for this. who can be complained to?

you do need to develop yourself at your aerobic threshold and it is more than you are giving credit

you are probably missing it because your world view is a little out of whack so your perspective is skewed. The main knowledge that may help is that the world is seriously physically under-trained. Elite athletes are probably the example of just above where humanity should sit. To get a clear picture check out any truly wild animal population and substitute humans in there. The fitness difference from 'all' wild animals to that which humans currently possess is massive. Once it was the same. The difference between then and now is simply fitness to return to normal human capacity.

So get out there and develop your volume and then intensity levels at 120bpm over the next year. The effect on your anaerobic threshold will be obvious as will the performance effect. Don't forget to run fast for short periods a few times a week to keep the feeling of natural going.

ciao

???

"petew",Can you please go back and re-read what I wrote -- just the part on top? I hope you are not confusing me with "wellnow", simply because of the way this forum displays nested quotes. My words are on top before any quoted part. "Random Schmo's" words are in the middle, and "wellnow's" words are at the bottom. At a first glance, it can look like "wellnow's" words are coming out of my mouth.Specifically I did not say "Random Schmo" was confused -- "wellnow" did, and I just quoted it for context. My intent, if my words, or the formatting, are not clear enough, was to essentially make the same clarification to "wellnow" that you just made to me. I agree with you the word "considered" could help, but it doesn't help me at all, because that's how I understood it.Regards,PS: BTW "petew" and "wellnow", apologies, if due, for the "Canovo, Canvova, google" dig, if you found it the least bit offensive or pedantic. I thought it was funny at the time -- and still do, but I realize that sometimes we all type with fat fingers.PPS: "petew", it doesn't hurt understanding to use punctuation and capitalization.

petew wrote:

light i am really confised by this

'Random Shmo, you are a bit confused here, what's with the "lactate is bad" that's the worst thing you can say, the brainwashing is still there in your consciousness.'

when Schmo said this (from your quote)

'Everyone should be saying: Lactate is not acidic, and it is used as a fuel, so why is lactate a bad thing?' he could have added the word considered after the second lactate for your help i guess. Does this help

'Everyone should be saying: Lactate is not acidic, and it is used as a fuel, so why is lactate considered a bad thing?

I'm quite convinced the light and wellnow are the same person.

SlowFatMaster wrote:

Hi wellnow:

I like Renato's stuff too. I have been trying to understand the Jan Olbrecht stuff. Even though you disagree with Olbrecht's use of Aerobic/Anaerobic, do you see any value in his theories or methods? He seems to have helped a lot of swimmers and triathletes.

I don't really know how to apply Olbrechts ideas to running. He mentions how speed work will push lactate values up at every pace, and states that this is due to an increase in anaerobic capacity, but I think he is overstating that term, and not addressing the real issue, of why this happens.

If you do some sprints on Monday, on Tuesday you will produce more lactate at every pace. Now what physiological adaptations can change overnight? I am sure that the speed work increases nervous stimulation and muscle tension, to cause this increase in lactate production at every pace, which is beneficial for more sprinting, but reduces running economy over long distances.

Renato Canova's runners do so much mileage that this is not a problem, and also, the speed work is done in a certain sequence so that the runners can gain maximum benefit from the sessions. This is in line with Olbrecht's ideas of balancing speed and endurance, but Renato's explanations are more correctly along the lines of nervous stimulation and not Olbrechts explanation of aerobic/anaerobic capacity.

As a scientific explanation, I have to go with Renato, because even though he has less background in science than Olbrecht, he is more conceptually aware in his application of science in sport.

wellnow wrote:

[

I have to go with Renato, because even though he has less background in science than Olbrecht, he is more conceptually aware in his application of science in sport.

It has nothing to do with conceptual awareness. It is all about experience. If Canova hadn´t coached loads of world class runners, his "conceptual awareness" wouldn´t be worth shit.

Bernie wrote:

wellnow wrote:

[

I have to go with Renato, because even though he has less background in science than Olbrecht, he is more conceptually aware in his application of science in sport.

It has nothing to do with conceptual awareness. It is all about experience. If Canova hadn´t coached loads of world class runners, his "conceptual awareness" wouldn´t be worth shit.

What is a definition of 'conceptual awareness'?

Renato certainly does have a conceptula awareness of how to apply science. Much more so than most.

Don't underestimate his ability to apply science to running. It's a mixture of practical experience and physiological knowledge.

No problem there i am currently pasting everey comment he made from that huge lactic thread into a word document. I think he is my current favourite alive one.

I was just wondering if anyone has a definition of conceptual awareness.

I'll have a crack.

Conceptual is pertaining to concept which is like an idea except larger. It has more depth than an idea. We all know what concepts are anyway.

Awareness pertaining to being aware of something. How does aware differ from understanding something. Is understanding an idea the same as being aware of a number of concepts. So i think awareness is more complete than understanding. It is further on in the process of learning.

To be aware of (deeply understand) all if the concepts relating to running and how they interrelate is how i would describe Renato. A well developed conceptual awareness. From many years of plying his trade and researching behind it for increased understanding.

I admire this very much.