Would you get a lactate threshold & VO2 max test?

Wild Garlic · 15-03-2016 5:55pm

Krusty_Clown wrote: »

So, I ran a flat out 5k recently. What does that tell me about my training paces? In other words, how do I calculate my training paces from my result?
Are you suggesting plugging it into a VDOT calculator or Macmillan, and lifting threshold, easy, marathon pace etc from the equivalent results and/or suggested workout paces? This is generally what I do at the moment, though if I'm being honest, I'm also guided (misguided?) by my target/goals.

My watch also calculates Vo2max and LT (Garmin Fenix), but I believe these values to be grossly over-estimated (2:23 marathon anyone? ). I hope to have a physiology test soon, so will hopefully be in a position to share some comparative info.

Once conditions both environmental and physical are taken into account, yes.
It seems to be working very well for you, so why change it.
If your watch is predicting a 2:23 marathon buy a new watch.

Myles Splitz · 15-03-2016 6:06pm

Wild Garlic wrote: »

Once conditions both environmental and physical are taken into account, yes.
It seems to be working very well for you, so why change it.
If your watch is predicting a 2:23 marathon buy a new watch.

What about variables such as muscle fibre composition etc?

I will give you an example of an athlete who was tested during particular sessions and the lactate readings which resulted?

One particular case study I have been shown by a coach showed that one of his athletes actually produced more lactate in a low intensity session than higher.

5x 1000m 3.30 – 3.20 w/ 2 min recovery Lactate: 11.2
5x 400m 75-72 ,75 sec recovery Lactate: 8.2
5x 300/100m 54-52 / recovery 55 Lactate: 6.5

In this incidence the lower intensity longer sessions provider more lactate meaning that the athlete was more suited to short reps for tempo work.

Wild Garlic · 15-03-2016 6:22pm

Myles Splitz wrote: »

What about variables such as muscle fibre composition etc?

I will give you an example of an athlete who was tested during particular sessions and the lactate readings which resulted?

One particular case study I have been shown by a coach showed that one of his athletes actually produced more lactate in a low intensity session than higher.

5x 1000m 3.30 – 3.20 w/ 2 min recovery Lactate: 11.2
5x 400m 75-72 ,75 sec recovery Lactate: 8.2
5x 300/100m 54-52 / recovery 55 Lactate: 6.5

In this incidence the lower intensity longer sessions provider more lactate meaning that the athlete was more suited to short reps for tempo work.

Muscle fibre composition? What about it? You're the expert, enlighten me.
Did the coach show you test results from all his athletes? Is your example above exceptional? Genuine question.

Myles Splitz · 15-03-2016 6:40pm

Wild Garlic wrote: »

Muscle fibre composition? What about it? You're the expert, enlighten me.
Did the coach show you test results from all his athletes? Is your example above exceptional? Genuine question.

I was highlighting that there are variables which a 5k race wouldn't show, not claiming to be an expert/guru simply highlighting the other side of the debate to give people available info to decide for themselves as its a pretty interesting subject.

As for fiber composition, type 1 fibers (slow twitch) will produce less lactate at given intensity levels coupled with increase mitochondrial and capillary density can aid in both lactate removal and reuse within the muscles. This is general basis for aerobic training however this training can be hampered if the lactate levels are too high despite the effort levels being lower due to muscle composition in some cases.

Yes the coach showed a number of athletes results as a comparison, this was actually the nature of the back and forth as it was related to tailoring the training of an athlete (different athlete to this case study) who had apparent aerobic issues however performed worse after a winter of aerobic base and how certain athletes can actually develop their lactate threshold but running seignificantly higher than the normal prescribed efforts.

Wild Garlic · 15-03-2016 6:49pm

Myles Splitz wrote: »

I was highlighting that there are variables which a 5k race wouldn't show, not claiming to be an expert/guru simply highlighting the other side of the debate to give people available info to decide for themselves as its a pretty interesting subject.

As for fiber composition, type 1 fibers (slow twitch) will produce less lactate at given intensity levels coupled with increase mitochondrial and capillary density can aid in both lactate removal and reuse within the muscles. This is general basis for aerobic training however this training can be hampered if the lactate levels are too high despite the effort levels being lower due to muscle composition in some cases.

Yes the coach showed a number of athletes results as a comparison, this was actually the nature of the back and forth as it was related to tailoring the training of an athlete (different athlete to this case study) who had apparent aerobic issues however performed worse after a winter of aerobic base and how certain athletes can actually develop their lactate threshold but running seignificantly higher than the normal prescribed efforts.

Fair enough however, surely the runner would know from doing workouts which suited him best, where his strengths or weaknesses lay etc.

If people want to spend money on lactate tests then good luck to them.

The bottom line for just about everybody on here is that they need to get out and train. There isn't a regular poster on here that's run under 2:30 for a marathon. Get under 2:30 and then start talking about Lactate testing. In the mean time, go out run more. IMO.

demfad · 15-03-2016 8:33pm

Myles Splitz wrote: »

What about variables such as muscle fibre composition etc?

I will give you an example of an athlete who was tested during particular sessions and the lactate readings which resulted?

One particular case study I have been shown by a coach showed that one of his athletes actually produced more lactate in a low intensity session than higher.

5x 1000m 3.30 – 3.20 w/ 2 min recovery Lactate: 11.2
5x 400m 75-72 ,75 sec recovery Lactate: 8.2
5x 300/100m 54-52 / recovery 55 Lactate: 6.5

In this incidence the lower intensity longer sessions provider more lactate meaning that the athlete was more suited to short reps for tempo work.

Yes, but as this is results from a coach you know's athlete (You haven't even had this test done on yourself) you are kind of proving WGs point about overkill.

Any coach will know if his athlete is predominately ST or FT and as WG says the runner would have a strong inkling. Those type of sessions have been around a good while too and were devised and prescribed without lactate testing I'd wager.

BTW: Out of interests sake what was the athletes LT?

pconn062 · 15-03-2016 9:54pm

Wild Garlic wrote: »

Fair enough however, surely the runner would know from doing workouts which suited him best, where his strengths or weaknesses lay etc.

If people want to spend money on lactate tests then good luck to them.

The bottom line for just about everybody on here is that they need to get out and train. There isn't a regular poster on here that's run under 2:30 for a marathon. Get under 2:30 and then start talking about Lactate testing. In the mean time, go out run more. IMO.

No, but Ultrapercy has run very close to that (2.31 I believe) and seems to be an advocate of the HR system. Also I know a fair few runners who have run equivalent times to a 2.30 marathon (such as sub 15 5k's, sub 3.50 1500m runners) who train full time by Heart Rate. Finally I don't see what times have to do with having an opinion on training methods, I'm not a 2.30 marathon runner but I have been coaching athletes for a few years and have attended lots of seminars on coaching where HR training is a key component.

I'm not having a go by the way, I just think to write off a lactate test as an unnecessary is a little harsh, going out and running more isn't always the answer. Train smart.

Wild Garlic · 15-03-2016 10:18pm

http://www.trainingscience.net/?page_id=745
Interesting stuff here.

Wild Garlic · 15-03-2016 10:30pm

pconn062 wrote: »

No, but Ultrapercy has run very close to that (2.31 I believe) and seems to be an advocate of the HR system. Also I know a fair few runners who have run equivalent times to a 2.30 marathon (such as sub 15 5k's, sub 3.50 1500m runners) who train full time by Heart Rate. Finally I don't see what times have to do with having an opinion on training methods, I'm not a 2.30 marathon runner but I have been coaching athletes for a few years and have attended lots of seminars on coaching where HR training is a key component.

I'm not having a go by the way, I just think to write off a lactate test as an unnecessary is a little harsh, going out and running more isn't always the answer. Train smart.

Absolutely anyone can have an opinion no mater what times they are running, my point was that in my opinion all this testing lark is by and large unnecessary to the average runner here. There may or may not be a case for it at a more advanced level. As you said yourself, train smart.

Myles Splitz · 16-03-2016 10:43am

demfad wrote: »

Yes, but as this is results from a coach you know's athlete (You haven't even had this test done on yourself) you are kind of proving WGs point about overkill.

Any coach will know if his athlete is predominately ST or FT and as WG says the runner would have a strong inkling. Those type of sessions have been around a good while too and were devised and prescribed without lactate testing I'd wager.

BTW: Out of interests sake what was the athletes LT?

And what if a FT athlete is moving up in events? or trying to become stronger at running rounds.

Those sessions we actually done as a part of an evaluation period at the start of the season where blood lactates were taken to assess strengths and weaknesses, effort levels and other parameters in order to tailor training for the coming year (as he does with all his athletes).

The athletes had readings of 4 mmol was actually achieved during a workout of 100m (14.5) off 100 float recoveries

Wild Garlic wrote: »

http://www.trainingscience.net/?page_id=745
Interesting stuff here.

Not a bad article and certainly clears up alot of the more dated theories. Will have to come back to you on the hydrogen ion aspect as this would be one of the main focal points (unfortunately my Russian ain't what it used to be so I will have to find an English copy before I can comment on that research)

Wild Garlic wrote: »

Absolutely anyone can have an opinion no mater what times they are running, my point was that in my opinion all this testing lark is by and large unnecessary to the average runner here. There may or may not be a case for it at a more advanced level. As you said yourself, train smart.

Would it not make more sense for people who haven't the background (or limited) in the sport to use such tools at their disposal? If athletes that have been training for years to reach higher levels (such as your 2.30 threshold) feel their intuitions and experience can be aided by this input into their training then surely someone without the experience and knowledge of the sport who is relatively new can get as much if not more from this testing. Train smarter is the key for definite but this can help you do so.

dublin runner · 16-03-2016 10:47am

Wild Garlic wrote:

Absolutely anyone can have an opinion no mater what times they are running, my point was that in my opinion all this testing lark is by and large unnecessary to the average runner here. There may or may not be a case for it at a more advanced level. As you said yourself, train smart.

I don't understand what you mean by an 'average runner'. How does this have anything to do with testing (much like the 2.30 arbitrary marathon time you set)?

Surely training in the correct zones is as beneficial to every type of runner, irrespective of times and ability. Training off a 5k time is shooting in the dark. There are just too many variables. Besides that basing your paces off a 5k time when training for a marathon (or any long distance race really) is nonsensical in my opinion.

I do not know if testing will help me but I do intend to get tested in May/June. So in that respect I am open minded. I certainly will not wait until I have 2.29 beside my name because that may never happen.

Wild Garlic · 16-03-2016 11:19am

dublin runner wrote: »

I don't understand what you mean by an 'average runner'. How does this have anything to do with testing (much like the 2.30 arbitrary marathon time you set)?

Surely training in the correct zones is as beneficial to every type of runner, irrespective of times and ability. Training off a 5k time is shooting in the dark. There are just too many variables. Besides that basing your paces off a 5k time when training for a marathon (or any long distance race really) is nonsensical in my opinion.

I do not know if testing will help me but I do intend to get tested in May/June. So in that respect I am open minded. I certainly will not wait until I have 2.29 beside my name because that may never happen.

I stated "average runner here" ie you and I.
Best of luck with the test. In my opinion you are wasting your money. In my view it won't be far off from what you know/suspect already.

conavitzky · 16-03-2016 12:18pm

Myles Splitz wrote: »

I was highlighting that there are variables which a 5k race wouldn't show, not claiming to be an expert/guru simply highlighting the other side of the debate to give people available info to decide for themselves as its a pretty interesting subject.

As for fiber composition, type 1 fibers (slow twitch) will produce less lactate at given intensity levels coupled with increase mitochondrial and capillary density can aid in both lactate removal and reuse within the muscles. This is general basis for aerobic training however this training can be hampered if the lactate levels are too high despite the effort levels being lower due to muscle composition in some cases.

Yes the coach showed a number of athletes results as a comparison, this was actually the nature of the back and forth as it was related to tailoring the training of an athlete (different athlete to this case study) who had apparent aerobic issues however performed worse after a winter of aerobic base and how certain athletes can actually develop their lactate threshold but running seignificantly higher than the normal prescribed efforts.

Myles have you ever heard of an athletes lactate levels being quite high at rest (pretest), dropping upon starting exercise and barely reaching the resting lactate level during high intensity intervals? What would your take on that be or could you hazard a guess?

Myles Splitz · 16-03-2016 12:50pm

conavitzky wrote: »

Myles have you ever heard of an athletes lactate levels being quite high at rest (pretest), dropping upon starting exercise and barely reaching the resting lactate level during high intensity intervals? What would your take on that be or could you hazard a guess?

I don't actually conduct these test's myself and as such have limited to case studies seen, my own tests over the years and other athletes so it would be hazarding a guess at best.

Would be interested to know if it happened on one occasion or repeatedly with the athlete and also what they did in the week coming up to it?

What may have happened is that the athlete went into the test with elevated lactate levels (possibly from a hard session earlier in the week or other factors). The low instensity efforts aiding lactate clearance causing the drop and the fatigue or already elevated HR limiting the ability to achieve required effort levels before the test was concluded.

I know in my last test I went in with slightly elevated HR and lactate levels but these dropped upon the starting the test (baseline 0.9 mmol dropped to 0.7 mmol upon first reading during testing)

dublin runner · 16-03-2016 12:52pm

Depends how one describes 'average' I suppose. It's a very subjective description and one I would never subscribe to.

I have no idea what to expect and again am open-minded in that respect. I spend a lot of time and effort training, enjoying getting faster and genuinely excited to see what type of times I can run. With that in mind I don't see spending 60e on a test, a test that could prove very beneficial, to be bad value for money. If not, it's only the price of a decent night out.

I wouldn't be so quick to belittle it.

demfad · 16-03-2016 1:09pm

conavitzky wrote: »

Myles have you ever heard of an athletes lactate levels being quite high at rest (pretest), dropping upon starting exercise and barely reaching the resting lactate level during high intensity intervals? What would your take on that be or could you hazard a guess?

No expert either but from reading around marathons, id guess that the person very recently performed a session (earlier that day?) that left some blood lactate but also depleted muscle glycogen. The person cleared the blood lactate on initial warm up and effort, and was not able to produce any more. Likely that the person fasted deliberately or accidentally since the last session.
You might observe this on the second sessions of one of the big special blocks that elite marathons do although youd expect that they wouldn't be that depleted starting the second session. Interested to hear the actual reason.

Wild Garlic · 16-03-2016 1:14pm

dublin runner wrote: »

Depends how one describes 'average' I suppose. It's a very subjective description and one I would never subscribe to.

I have no idea what to expect and again am open-minded in that respect. I spend a lot of time and effort training, enjoying getting faster and genuinely excited to see what type of times I can run. With that in mind I don't see spending 60e on a test, a test that could prove very beneficial, to be bad value for money. If not, it's only the price of a decent night out.

I wouldn't be so quick to belittle it.

Roughly speaking "Average" is the sum of a set of values divided by the number of values. So roughly speaking, as you and I would be regarded as middle of the pack runners id say we are average.

Again good luck with the test. If it proves beneficial to you and others I might just give it a go.
On your night out analogy, I'd rather spend 60 notes on a few bottles of chocolate/ coffee stout than getting my middle finger pricked.

conavitzky · 16-03-2016 1:41pm

Myles Splitz wrote: »

I don't actually conduct these test's myself and as such have limited to case studies seen, my own tests over the years and other athletes so it would be hazarding a guess at best.

Would be interested to know if it happened on one occasion or repeatedly with the athlete and also what they did in the week coming up to it?

What may have happened is that the athlete went into the test with elevated lactate levels (possibly from a hard session earlier in the week or other factors). The low instensity efforts aiding lactate clearance causing the drop and the fatigue or already elevated HR limiting the ability to achieve required effort levels before the test was concluded.

I know in my last test I went in with slightly elevated HR and lactate levels but these dropped upon the starting the test (baseline 0.9 mmol dropped to 0.7 mmol upon first reading during testing)

Thanks Myles. This person went in with resting lactate of 3.7, dropped to 1.9 @ marathon pace and only rose to 3 @ somewhere slightly slower than 5k race pace. Your points and are worth investigating further.

conavitzky · 16-03-2016 1:45pm

demfad wrote: »

No expert either but from reading around marathons, id guess that the person very recently performed a session (earlier that day?) that left some blood lactate but also depleted muscle glycogen. The person cleared the blood lactate on initial warm up and effort, and was not able to produce any more. Likely that the person fasted deliberately or accidentally since the last session.
You might observe this on the second sessions of one of the big special blocks that elite marathons do although youd expect that they wouldn't be that depleted starting the second session. Interested to hear the actual reason.

The person was told that it was early stage overtraining. Would be interested in reading some research papers on the same if available. Have scoured the interweb to no avail.

Chivito550 · 16-03-2016 1:45pm

Wild Garlic wrote: »

Roughly speaking "Average" is the sum of a set of values divided by the number of values. So roughly speaking, as you and I would be regarded as middle of the pack runners id say we are average.

Again good luck with the test. If it proves beneficial to you and others I might just give it a go.
On your night out analogy, I'd rather spend 60 notes on a few bottles of chocolate/ coffee stout than getting my middle finger pricked.

With all due respect he's a fair few notches ahead of yourself, so it must be a fairly big pack that the two of you are in "the middle of" so.

More than one way to skin a cat when it comes to being a better runner.

And average is such a stupid term. Average of what? Average of registered club athletes? Average boards user? Average recreational runner/jogger?

Ceepo · 16-03-2016 3:02pm

http://www.letsrun.com/2012/lactate-0906.php

Might be of some interest to this discussion

Pacing Mule · 16-03-2016 3:05pm

Wild Garlic wrote: »

Roughly speaking "Average" is the sum of a set of values divided by the number of values. So roughly speaking, as you and I would be regarded as middle of the pack runners id say we are average.

Again good luck with the test. If it proves beneficial to you and others I might just give it a go.
On your night out analogy, I'd rather spend 60 notes on a few bottles of chocolate/ coffee stout than getting my middle finger pricked.

I don't know exactly what level you're at yourself WG but at Dublin Runners most recent race he placed in the top 3.5% - average runner is a bit of a disservice TBH

Wild Garlic · 16-03-2016 3:14pm

Pacing Mule wrote: »

I don't know exactly what level you're at yourself WG but at Dublin Runners most recent race he placed in the top 3.5% - average runner is a bit of a disservice TBH

Ah fair enough.
Apologies DR.

Wild Garlic · 16-03-2016 3:28pm

Chivito550 wrote: »

With all due respect he's a fair few notches ahead of yourself, so it must be a fairly big pack that the two of you are in "the middle of" so.

More than one way to skin a cat when it comes to being a better runner.

And average is such a stupid term. Average of what? Average of registered club athletes? Average boards user? Average recreational runner/jogger?

Fair enough on your first point.

Absolutely agree on your second point. I just think one way is unnecessary. That's just my opinion take it or leave it.

How the hell do you think the term "Average" is a stupid term?
Have you ever used the term Average in any of your articles? You better go back and edit them if you have as God forbid anyone associates the term "stupid" with any of your writings.

Chivito550 · 16-03-2016 3:30pm

Wild Garlic wrote: »

Fair enough on your first point.

Absolutely agree on your second point. I just think one way is unnecessary. That's just my opinion take it or leave it.

How the hell do you think the term "Average" is a stupid term?
Have you ever used the term Average in any of your articles? You better go back and edit them if you have as God forbid anyone associates the term "stupid" with any of your writings.

Average is a stupid meaningless term if context is not given.

Pacing Mule · 16-03-2016 3:37pm

Wild Garlic wrote: »

Ah fair enough.
Apologies DR.

Sorry to be fair I should have said you were doing both of you a disservice.

Wasn't assuming you weren't one of the fast lads up at the front.

Wild Garlic · 16-03-2016 3:49pm

Chivito550 wrote: »

Average is a stupid meaningless term if context is not given.

Your a gas man. All that sun in Melbourne must have distorted your grasp of the word average and your ability to spot context.:)

Chivito550 · 16-03-2016 3:52pm

Wild Garlic wrote: »

Your a gas man. All that sun in Melbourne must have distorted your grasp of the word average and your ability to spot context.:)

The term average in running can mean anything. You have not really specified what you mean. You consider DR an average runner. By high level club running he'd be below average. In terms of Boards he'd be way above average. In terms of general club running he'd be above average, certainly in road running events where a lot of slower runners join clubs, compared to the track where the average standard is higher. In terms of general runners he's way above average. Include joggers in there and he's a superstar. So which of these are you referring to?

pconn062 · 16-03-2016 4:01pm

Ah lads it's an interesting thread, let's not ruin it over something silly.

Wild Garlic · 16-03-2016 4:09pm

Chivito550 wrote: »

The term average in running can mean anything. You have not really specified what you mean. You consider DR an average runner. By high level club running he'd be below average. In terms of Boards he'd be way above average. In terms of general club running he'd be above average, certainly in road running events where a lot of slower runners join clubs, compared to the track where the average standard is higher. In terms of general runners he's way above average. Include joggers in there and he's a superstar. So which of these are you referring to?

Post #40 I alluded to the average runner here, have a look.
I've already acknowledged twice that I was wrong putting DR into the "Average" bracket, and apologised for it. You have obviously missed that one too.

Anyway I'll leave it at that. Apologies to all for my part in taking this thread off topic.

Would you get a lactate threshold & VO2 max test?

Comments