Erratic Start At Lactate Testing

[old] adambalogh · Post by **[old] adambalogh** » February 24th, 2006, 11:32 pm

hi Doug I hope you recover well and quickly. i am VERY intrigued by Lactate testing to determine training intensities. i have read many articles on the subject, so i feel book-smart, but have no actual experience on the subject. i am seriously considering purchasing a lactate pro (will be through gorow.com) but the cost requires careful savings on my part to afford it. if you care to share, i would be curious of your rowing experience, erg experience, previous erg training, and previous erg capabilities (in particular 2k, 5k, 6k, 20min, 30min, and 60min PBs). let me know if you might have any thoughts/questions to share on lactate testing. thanks Adam

[old] dougsurf · Post by **[old] dougsurf** » February 27th, 2006, 6:46 pm

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'>QUOTE(adambalogh @ Feb 24 2006, 07:32 PM) </div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>hi Doug I hope you recover well and quickly. i am VERY intrigued by Lactate testing to determine training intensities. i have read many articles on the subject, so i feel book-smart, but have no actual experience on the subject. i am seriously considering purchasing a lactate pro (will be through gorow.com) but the cost requires careful savings on my part to afford it. if you care to share, i would be curious of your rowing experience, erg experience, previous erg training, and previous erg capabilities (in particular 2k, 5k, 6k, 20min, 30min, and 60min PBs). let me know if you might have any thoughts/questions to share on lactate testing. thanks Adam </td></tr></table> So I actually did the lactate testing I described, this weekend. I am very happy to say that I may be past the "erratic" part of my start. If the images come through below, you might say that some beginner's luck is kicking in. <img src="http://i45.photobucket.com/albums/f85/d ... iles01.jpg" border="0" alt="IPB Image" /> I can't believe how well it went this time. The graphs are textbook smooth and within very plausible ranges. I was dumbfounded by the fact that two of my chosen paces accidentally landed exactly on top of both 2mmol and 4mmol. And for once, my lowest point at 2:00 splits was not off of the scale on the low side. This is not to say it was entirely easy. The test takes some planning, which I did using Ergmonitor. Not shown here is the anearobic check, and a lactate clearance check, which involves sitting relatively still for about 20 minutes. With all the warmups and downs and rest periods, the whole thing took me about 2.5 hours. But that was a comprehensive profile which I'll only repeat every 2 or 3 months or so. Meanwhile, a single point check of my steady state level will probably suffice. And then there are those 10 holes in my ear today. Awesome data!! Now, what the heck is it good for?? The jury is still out, and I do hope they will chime in here. My first two observations are this: 1) For a given effort level, my lactate levels were much lower than I expected. Over the last couple months, I thought my steady state level was just a tad below 2:00, and that's the level I worked at. If I use Xeno's number of 2mmol, then I should be crankin away at nearly 8 split seconds faster. It is a little daunting thinking of cranking like that for 80 minutes, especially since recently dealing with overtraining. But maybe my impressions have been backward and I just haven't joined the big boys yet at training. 2) While "effort level" in 1) refers to Watts, the effort of my heart for a given lactate level was much higher than expected, or perhaps just more than what it used to be. Plain ol' out of shape? Can't believe that at 1:45 splits, my heart was bouncing off of its absolute max at 190. Lactate was highest there obviously, but again 8mmol/L is not extreme by any measure. At that level though, it is accumulating. So I suppose it could get as high as I want, if I rowed longer than the 6 minutes I gave each piece. So, I don't plan on jumping straight to 80' at 1:52, 5x per week, but will try to gradually ramp in that direction. Combining points 1) and 2), my SS HR at 2mmol/L would be slightly over 170. Seems high. May start out at the 1.5mmol level, which Marty Aiken likes in "Rowing Faster". I do hope to see changes; the same graphs, but with higher Watt numbers, and lower HR numbers. Any comments or questions very welcomed. About me: (Since Adam asked): I rowed one very non-heroic year in college at the U. of Washington. Took about 30 years off and started again three years ago with the Los Gatos Rowing Club. First 2k in '03 was about 7:20. Paired that down to just under 6:30 in one year (my race record of that is on the listings for 40-49h, '04). Basically haven't bested that yet. Last year managed 6:33 in a somewhat overtrained state, and this year washed out altogether, overtrained and with a cold. Last year I did a marathon in 2:45:00, and last fall my 5k was about 1:45, and back then the only thing I had posted in a while was a 1k at 3:07 (if I remember right). Row on the water year round with the club in either 4+ or 8+ sweeps. We're pretty competitive. I frequently get to stroke. My hope is that my multi-year plateau can be overcome with a new approach for me, emphasizing more and better aerobic training a la Xeno, and better tuning of that with lactate sampling. Regards, Doug

[old] johnnybike · Post by **[old] johnnybike** » February 27th, 2006, 6:57 pm

Very interesting post. I did not even realise that there were self-test lits available. On a more general note. How good a predictor of 2K time is a lactate test? I was thinking of having one done but I wonder just what it will show me. Current 2K PB is 7:06. If it said that 2 second improve was possible I would not do any additional/different training. However if it suggested 15 seconds then I would consider a different approach.

[old] dougsurf · Post by **[old] dougsurf** » February 27th, 2006, 7:31 pm

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'>QUOTE(johnnybike @ Feb 27 2006, 02:57 PM) </div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>Very interesting post. I did not even realise that there were self-test lits available. On a more general note. How good a predictor of 2K time is a lactate test? I was thinking of having one done but I wonder just what it will show me. Current 2K PB is 7:06. If it said that 2 second improve was possible I would not do any additional/different training. However if it suggested 15 seconds then I would consider a different approach. </td></tr></table> I would not try to look at it as any kind of direct predictor of one's 2k. You first need an interest in the big picture of your combined aerobic and anearobic physiology. This testing can show you a- your aerobic capacity b- your anearobic capacity, and c- the balance of how much of each is being used at a given level of exertion. Based on this knowledge, which I think is more than HR provides, your training might be steered towards more steady state or more high intensity intervals. And, as Xeno suggests, steady state work is most effective right at or a bit below a lactate level of 2mmol/L. If you learn that your steady state workouts have been at the wrong pace, correcting that should have a positive influence on your 2k. But I certainly couldn't tell you whether it was worth 15 seconds or not.

[old] johnnybike · Post by **[old] johnnybike** » February 27th, 2006, 7:52 pm

Cheers Doug. Perhaps I got the wrong end of the oar as I was talking to someone over the weekend who suggested that they can give a good asssesment. Perhaps I misunderstood as I am not really all that au-fait with the lactate stuff cheers anyway John

[old] dougsurf · Post by **[old] dougsurf** » February 27th, 2006, 9:20 pm

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'>QUOTE(johnnybike @ Feb 27 2006, 03:52 PM) </div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>Cheers Doug. Perhaps I got the wrong end of the oar as I was talking to someone over the weekend who suggested that they can give a good asssesment. Perhaps I misunderstood as I am not really all that au-fait with the lactate stuff cheers anyway John </td></tr></table> To be a bit nitpicky, I said that "I" could not give you an assesment. But I'm sure there are those with enough experience to be good at doing that, just as others routinely estimate 2k from 5k, 6k or whatever. Along those lines actually, the 4mmol level is in the ballpark of anaerobic threshold, to the extent that you can use that as a 2k gage. I can imagine someone applying some kind of offset to that "V4" wattage level as a 2k target. I just read that some use 2.5mmol as a marathon target. I do think that offsets from these lower lactate levels are about the best to be had though. Wherever your 2k is, lactate is well above the accumulation level and accuracy falls apart, or at least becomes critically dependent upon the time of effort before measurement. YMMV. Cheers

[old] TomR/the elder · Post by **[old] TomR/the elder** » February 27th, 2006, 9:43 pm

Doug-- Looking at the C2 interactive guide from the UK site, I see that a 1.52/500 pace is the recommended UT2 pace for someone rowing a 6.28 2k. I always thought those paces were impossible, but . . . Tom

[old] george nz · Post by **[old] george nz** » February 27th, 2006, 10:02 pm

The problem I see with using lactate levels as guide to 2k potential is that each of us I am guessing has a different tolerance to lactate so where 12mml might be high for one person and they are dying another may be able to sustain 16mml for the last 500m ? Is it 'definite' that lactate levels increase incrementally with pace or is there the chance that for 2 people who can chug along at 1:55 with lactate levels of say 3mml when they both increase to 1:50 one jumps to 4mml and the other 5.5mml ?? Would in both cases this then not mean that training paces / durations at higher intensities would be different, for each person? George

[old] dougsurf · Post by **[old] dougsurf** » February 27th, 2006, 11:05 pm

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'>QUOTE(george nz @ Feb 27 2006, 06:02 PM) </div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>The problem I see with using lactate levels as guide to 2k potential is that each of us I am guessing has a different tolerance to lactate so where 12mml might be high for one person and they are dying another may be able to sustain 16mml for the last 500m ? Is it 'definite' that lactate levels increase incrementally with pace or is there the chance that for 2 people who can chug along at 1:55 with lactate levels of say 3mml when they both increase to 1:50 one jumps to 4mml and the other 5.5mml ?? Would in both cases this then not mean that training paces / durations at higher intensities would be different, for each person? George </td></tr></table> As the premise of this whole thread makes clear, I am no expert. But, I can think of one case. Not everyone has the same resting lactate level, so A might have a resting level of 0.7 and B 1.3. Just so happens that they both hit 3mmol at 1:50, but A is already on a steeper slope, so higher intensities will go higher for him. This notion also unfortunately gives me a problem with declaring one absolute number to be the right training level. It seems to me that A will be working quite a bit harder than B, when both are at 2mmol. Would be a good time for Xeno to chime in. I agree that a 2k eval is tough. Everything else being equal, more aerobic capacity, as shown with lower lactate for any given load, would mean a better 2k. But not everything is equal. Not just the capacity to withstand pain, but your body's capacity to generate lactate, how much white meat vs. red, etc., is a huge variable, I would think. Tom, I was always afraid that somewhere there might exist a justification for those C2 tables. I apologize to everyone for possibly finding one.

[old] george nz · Post by **[old] george nz** » February 28th, 2006, 3:05 am

Doug I would guess that the 2mml and the 4mml are fairly arbitrary figures that can be applied to a reasonable cross section (like the 220 - age for HR) but that the way you are going about it is the most accurate personal alternative to being a lab rat. I would be keen to here your results as you go along as we are close in age. George

[old] adambalogh · Post by **[old] adambalogh** » February 28th, 2006, 8:48 am

Doug please let me evaluate the curves you posted. it would be helpful to me if you would post the actual data points, cuz the x axis is hard to read: 1mmol/L - 125 bpm - 180 watts 1.5mmol - 135 bpm - 200 watts etc. also please help me understand your current physical condition: if you rowed a 100% 2k race or a maximal 20 min piece today, what would your times be today? were you very well rested for several days prior to the L-test? might i suggest that in a few days, you perform a long-term test comprised of: rowing 60 mins at your HR that corresponds to about 1.5 mmol/L. every 20 mins, stop and obtain another lactate sample. according to Marty Aitken, your first result might be a bit high (perhaps just above 2mmol/L), but the successive results should be at your target level for the HR. right off the bat, i am thinking that the target HRs from the curves seem high for a 49 year old. this leads me to wonder 2 things: - i wonder if you might be lactate heavy, perhaps from overtraining or sickness - the curves look well developed, the sign of a well-trained athlete. what do you think? Adam

[old] dougsurf · Post by **[old] dougsurf** » February 28th, 2006, 1:50 pm

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'>QUOTE(adambalogh @ Feb 28 2006, 04:48 AM) </div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>Doug please let me evaluate the curves you posted. it would be helpful to me if you would post the actual data points, cuz the x axis is hard to read: 1mmol/L - 125 bpm - 180 watts 1.5mmol - 135 bpm - 200 watts etc. </td></tr></table> Raw Data: Splits Watts HR Lactate Aerobic 6 minute steps 2:00 203 147 1.0 1:56 224 160 1.4 1:52 249 173 2.1 1:48 278 181 4.0 1:45 302 187 7.8 Anaerobic / Clearance 60 seconds all out 1:28 519 3 min later 8.1 5 min 10.4 20 min 4.7 <table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'>QUOTE</div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>also please help me understand your current physical condition: if you rowed a 100% 2k race or a maximal 20 min piece today, what would your times be today? were you very well rested for several days prior to the L-test? </td></tr></table> Due to a cold going on a month now, and a bout of overtraining, I am probably off my 2k 6:30 by 10 or 20 seconds. I am "well rested" in the sense that I haven't trained hard in about three weeks. Last week every other day I just did a 10k recovery row for a little fat burning. <table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'>QUOTE</div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>might i suggest that in a few days, you perform a long-term test comprised of: rowing 60 mins at your HR that corresponds to about 1.5 mmol/L. every 20 mins, stop and obtain another lactate sample. according to Marty Aitken, your first result might be a bit high (perhaps just above 2mmol/L), but the successive results should be at your target level for the HR. right off the bat, i am thinking that the target HRs from the curves seem high for a 49 year old. this leads me to wonder 2 things: - i wonder if you might be lactate heavy, perhaps from overtraining or sickness - the curves look well developed, the sign of a well-trained athlete. what do you think? Adam </td></tr></table> That's a great idea about doing the Aitken check. I was definitely going to do some spot checks after 20 minute SS segments, but not necessarily 4 samples. Good idea. - Maybe I misunderstand you but it seemed to me that lactate was low relative to HR. I'd like it lower for the power levels, but these levels wouldn't surprise me now. - My doctor (part of that non-erging segment of society that just doesn't understand) responds with something like, "well duhhh your lactate is low. you excercise like a maniac.". The HRs seem high. Definitely inclined to ease into it. Feeling worse today too, like the cold is coming back. Another recovery day, at most. - Doug

[old] johnnybike · Post by **[old] johnnybike** » February 28th, 2006, 4:49 pm

For those un-initated in the art of lactate testing Nick Rockliff has posted a graph of his profile and there is some good analysys. All in his diary - <a href="http://www.concept2.co.uk/forum/weblog_ ... hp?e=10967" target="_blank"> HERE </a> Weds entry

[old] SlugButt · Post by **[old] SlugButt** » February 28th, 2006, 8:22 pm

Doug - nice data and nice results! You're an aerobic moose! Thanks to all for the interesting posts on this thread. It's been an education. Doug, based on you're 2k times of about 6:30 it looks like predicted splits for training levels might play out something like this: UT2 UT1 AT TR AN 50% 60% 70% 105% 110% 2:02.8 1:55.6 1:49.8 1:35.9 1:34.5 However, if I understand correctly it looks like you lactate testing results would suggest different thresholds/training levels. Last time I did lactate testing the results correlated very closely with training levels from the charts (that's where I got the splits/levels listed above). That said, although I'm an amateur at all of this it looks like the way your lactate results fell at different splits makes sense; each step showed a pretty reasonable increase in lactate so maybe I'm not reading things correctly. Have you tried 80-90 minutes or more at 1:52? If so, did it feel horrible or difficult to sustain? If so I wonder if hanging out between 2:02.8 and 1:56.6 might be better for the long and slow practices. An additional piece that might be of interest. Marlene Royle (roylerow.com) had me run through a fitness test that included, on seperate days, a tests for peak power, aerobic threshold, VO2 max, and anaerobic threshold. She then ran through a magical process of comparing my results with different prescribed ratios to determine where things were for me and where there might be lots of room for me to improve. Interesting stuff, and she's adjusted my training plan accordingly. While the changes still appear to be more or less in line with Ed McNeely's suggestions on training volume in a recent Rowing News, the fine tuning since I did the test seems right on target for going after areas where I'm weak. Although I continue to profess relative ignorance on how to train intelligently, I'm starting to lean towards the following thinking: 1. Results of Marlene's fitness tests or Ed McNeely's advice on distributing training volume to determine how much of what level training to do (e.g., UT1/UT2, anaerobic, etc.) 2. lactate results and/or splits charts to determine splits for the different training levels 3. erg tests and race results as the last word on if I'm getting anywhere Happily, Marlene is setting the practices for me. However, it's interesting for me to learn and to develop an understanding of all this so every now and then I can throw in some extra practices without messing things up. Any thoughts? David

[old] dougsurf · Post by **[old] dougsurf** » February 28th, 2006, 10:14 pm

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'>QUOTE(SlugButt @ Feb 28 2006, 04:22 PM) </div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>Doug - nice data and nice results! You're an aerobic moose! Thanks to all for the interesting posts on this thread. It's been an education. Doug, based on you're 2k times of about 6:30 it looks like predicted splits for training levels might play out something like this: UT2 UT1 AT TR AN 50% 60% 70% 105% 110% 2:02.8 1:55.6 1:49.8 1:35.9 1:34.5 However, if I understand correctly it looks like you lactate testing results would suggest different thresholds/training levels. Last time I did lactate testing the results correlated very closely with training levels from the charts (that's where I got the splits/levels listed above). That said, although I'm an amateur at all of this it looks like the way your lactate results fell at different splits makes sense; each step showed a pretty reasonable increase in lactate so maybe I'm not reading things correctly. Have you tried 80-90 minutes or more at 1:52? If so, did it feel horrible or difficult to sustain? If so I wonder if hanging out between 2:02.8 and 1:56.6 might be better for the long and slow practices. An additional piece that might be of interest. Marlene Royle (roylerow.com) had me run through a fitness test that included, on seperate days, a tests for peak power, aerobic threshold, VO2 max, and anaerobic threshold. She then ran through a magical process of comparing my results with different prescribed ratios to determine where things were for me and where there might be lots of room for me to improve. Interesting stuff, and she's adjusted my training plan accordingly. While the changes still appear to be more or less in line with Ed McNeely's suggestions on training volume in a recent Rowing News, the fine tuning since I did the test seems right on target for going after areas where I'm weak. Although I continue to profess relative ignorance on how to train intelligently, I'm starting to lean towards the following thinking: 1. Results of Marlene's fitness tests or Ed McNeely's advice on distributing training volume to determine how much of what level training to do (e.g., UT1/UT2, anaerobic, etc.) 2. lactate results and/or splits charts to determine splits for the different training levels 3. erg tests and race results as the last word on if I'm getting anywhere Happily, Marlene is setting the practices for me. However, it's interesting for me to learn and to develop an understanding of all this so every now and then I can throw in some extra practices without messing things up. Any thoughts? David </td></tr></table> Hi David, Thanks for the interest. I will endevor to live up to your moosely impression of me. My thoughts, maybe a bit repetitive, are that your split regions are about where I previously thought they should be. I was doing UT2 between 1:58 and 2:00. I am surprised to be looking at "easy" UT2 steady state to be at 1:52. I am sure I can get through 10k at that pace, can probably survive 15k or about an hour, but have real doubts about even surviving 80', much less considering it a conversational pace. I was going to experiment with some 5k segments this morning but felt quite lousy. Will try again in a day or two. Will definitely be taking lactate samples after those pieces to see just how stable it is over those lengths. Your last comment is key to me, as I'm considering avoiding excessive lactate as some protection against overtraining. Theory being that anything near 2mmol ought to be easy on the system. UT2 always seems to be safe to add, although there must be limits there as well. Last summer at a sweeps camp at UWashington, the US 4 was practicing there. They were 4 out of the 8 that won the last Olympics. It was interesting to observe their day from a distance, and certainly to hear their stories. After they'd already had a thorough workout and practice in the morning, by mid-afternoon I saw them come in, switch on the TV, and plop down on the ergs to "put in some time". They did about an hour at about 1:50. Fairly easy looking, for a group of 2Kers all under 6:00. - Doug

Concept2 Forum

Erratic Start At Lactate Testing

Training

Training

Training

Training

Training

Training

Training

Training

Training

Training

Training

Training

Training

Training

Training