Would you get a lactate threshold & VO2 max test?

seanynova wrote: »

Just want to throw this out there for discussion, would any of ye pay to have these tested? There are other testing options also, but the test below seem to be the the full package for running related tests:

Lactate threshold test with VO2 In addition to the measurement of blood lactate, this assessment also measures metabolic and ventilatory data during incremental exercise. Gas exchange will be measured using a metabolic cart to determine oxygen consumption and carbon dioxide production. Other variables measured include ventilation rate, max heart rate, and VO2max, the maximal amount of oxygen the body can consume to produce energy. $200

More info here from the clinic:
http://www.fortiussport.com/Services/Pages/ExercisePhysiology.aspx

I'm thinking of doing it at some stage, as I'm curious about these things but don't necessarily want to know my limits. I'd like to think with enough training, I can be as fast as a Kenyan

A mod may want to add a poll to the thread to guage responses....

Your limits don't have to limit you TOO much though, I always think of this article whenever I start to think of my disadvantages (not a whippety-runner shape, short legs, asthma etc ).

http://www.runnersworld.com/the-fast-life/why-science-and-running-dont-always-mix

pconn062 wrote: »

I had a lactate test done last year (not a Vo2 max test), mainly because I wanted to determine accurately heart zones to train off HR. I got mine done with Emmett Dunleavey, was done on a track on a pretty calm day with the pin prick method on the finger. Was very happy with it, and I got exactly what I wanted out of it. Will get another one done in a few weeks if I get a bit more solid training done just to see where I currently am.

Another +1 to this, I'm definitely getting another one post marathon I'd hope to see drastic changes in the results.

OP I got the test done so I could determine my HR zone and training paces for marathon training. It depends what your looking for, for me it was exactly what I needed and has served me very well.

Anything to be said for running by feel?

Wild Garlic wrote: »

Anything to be said for running by feel?

Yes and no, problem with that is RPE can be manipulated my mental stubbornness/strength. People can mentally condition themselves to believe they are running easier than they are, similarly other athletes can kid themselves in sessions by not digging deep enough for effort required for prescribed session.

The other issue is basing sessions off feel requires you to be consciously aware of the effort required in that race session and that takes experience of racing regularly enough.

No point in running 1 mile effort not looking at the watch if you have only ever raced the distance once and it was not the target race. Your basically throwing darts in the dark and hoping for the best

adrian522 wrote: »

To those who had this test done were the results any different to what you would have expected?

I'd be of the opinion that I have a pretty good idea of what my training zones should be and I wouldn't expect a test to throw out results much different to what I am doing anyway but I could be wrong on that.

I did test before Christmas. While the HR and rough pace guides were not hugely out the one thing that did become apparent was that my lactate clearance was alot higher than I expected.

I used this info to manipulate my training somewhat from my previous approaches in the past where I am now running my tempo sections at a slightly higher effort and added alot more 10k paced work as this was where my strength was going to be best developed rather than the MP tempo's I had originally planned in my training.

So far it seems to be working as I am in alot better shape than I have been in previous years and effort levels are alot more controlled at higher paces.

Wild Garlic wrote: »

Anything to be said for running by feel?

I don't disagree with you, it's a valid point - it just happens I'm rubbish at that, something to be worked on for sure!

pconn062 wrote: »

What if it's windy on the day of the 5k, or you're a little run down without realising it and you don't perform as well and run slower than you did 2 months ago? Do you adjust your training based off one 5k race? HR is a much more accurate, stable way of measuring progression. I used to run "by feel", most runs without a Garmin, but after I got the lactate test done it turns out I was running too hard on my easy days (about 20 secs a mile on average). This pace still felt easy to me but the HR data said otherwise and it was impacting my recovery abilities. Each to their own though.

5k races are a penny a dozen. If conditions or your health are not perfect just do one the following week when conditions are better.
Not saying these tests aren't accurate, just think they are a bit overkill. Maybe I'm just old fashioned.

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 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.

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

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 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 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)