Concept2 Forum

Hi folks. I have some questions about my somewhat bizarre results. By way of background, I am a fast twitch guy...one with a low V02Max.
For my age (60) and weight (lwt) I do quite well on the erg (6 WR's last year 500m-HM with a hole in performance at 2-5k in keeping with a crap V02Max).

Also, due to injury, I have done next to no rowing/erging in months. I have forced myself to erg 1x per week over the last 4 weeks. Each time just a tt for the ranking tables....~5% lower Watts than when I was at my peak in March.
I am probably just as fit, possibly more...just with cycling...not rowing. There too, I am good at power surges and the stochastic nature of most races....absolute crap at steady state tt's.

In any event, my son (a cyclist) is up and he talked me into trying lactate testing. I chose the erg because I am still hoping to get back to where I was last year and wanted to find my 2mmol/l pace. I figured my 2mmol pace was somewhere ~180-200W (16W less than I held for 100k a year back!), so started my graded test @~160W

I predicted that my 4 mm/l pace would be ~240 W given that I did a 1h tt at this output a week ago.

here are the results:
Test day #1 HR average and (Max)
No warm up - 5min intervals
#1 @ resting - 2.5mmol (after 10 seconds rowing due to my error with instructions?)
#2 @ 160 watts - 5.2mmol HR 111 (115)
#3 @ 182 watts - 2.6mmol HR 121 (127)
#4 @ 191 watts - 7.6mmol HR 124 (130)
#5 @ 241 watts - 5.5mmol HR 140 (150)

Test day #2 - 7 min intervals (because we hypothesized that it was taking me a while to "gear up" my aerobic system and consume the lactate.
13min warm up at 140 watts (no test after)
#1 @ 160 watts - 3.8mmol HR 116 (119)
#2 @ 170 watts - 3.0mmol HR 118 (124)
#3 @ 186 watts - 2.7mmol HR 122 (126)
#4 @ 200 watts - 3.6mmol HR 128 (133)

Because the results were essentially screwy, I then rested for 5 minutes and went
500m all out to test my anaerobic system (and salvage something from what was a very disheartening session).
Results: (1:28.9) 503W (down from 1:27.5 when rowing fit).
Immediately after - 5.1mmol
3 min after - 16.1 mmol -
5min after - 15.7 mmol - * probably spiked higher between 3-5min before it lowered


So: a couple of questions:
1. Why does my lactate spike then start to drop despite higher workloads?
2. Can I really have this crappy an aerobic engine??? I am certain I could suffer through a 2:55 marathon on the erg tomorrow if I had to.
3. Any predictions regarding what my actual 2mmolL pace is from this screwy data?
4. Is this an example of an "imbalance" between aerobic and anaerobic systems.
Any exercise intensity prescriptions?

BTW the test kit/strips are fine...they worked perfectly on the "normal" people!

Looking forward to input from the lactate cult crowd....MChase et al.
Steve

First guess would be that "Lactate testing" and "Intervals" are contradictory.

If your sampling procedure is OK, you've seen (as experiments never fail) that changing power levels give data that's difficult to interpret. So the next experiment is to hold power constant until Lactate stabilizes. After all that's what La testing is for, to find steady state thresholds and see how they've moved since the last set of tests. Which means the tests have to be exactly repeatable and as simple as possible.

steveroedde wrote:

So: a couple of questions:
1. Why does my lactate spike then start to drop despite higher workloads?
2. Can I really have this crappy an aerobic engine??? I am certain I could suffer through a 2:55 marathon on the erg tomorrow if I had to.
3. Any predictions regarding what my actual 2mmolL pace is from this screwy data?
4. Is this an example of an "imbalance" between aerobic and anaerobic systems.
Any exercise intensity prescriptions?


Steve

Hi steve,

1 like you say yourself, it takes time to get your system working, at first the aerobic system needs to start up, so the anaeobic system needs to start first. Solution first do a decent warm up, to get you going.

2 ofcourse not, nomatter what after a few minutes the aerobic component is number one, so it must be great in your case.

3 2 mmol is proberly not your ut2 level, on the uk site someone also tried to keep thst level, it gave him bizarre slow paces. He is a power athlete though, but still.

4 no clue, but if you have plenty of fast twitch fibers, you will use them and thus produce lactate, in nature they work anaerobicly. In the test you also see that although you get. Higher power output, the lactate does not rise much.
You being a cyclist, the nature of that, is often not giving a constant power output, slopes, curves, short prints, riding in front or in the pack, so seldom like say marthon runner who would have a much more constant pacing.

To not use your anaerobic system, use constant pacing, and use pace /hf and not look at the lactate levels. You did pretty well without them

steveroedde wrote:So: a couple of questions:
1. Why does my lactate spike then start to drop despite higher workloads?
2. Can I really have this crappy an aerobic engine??? I am certain I could suffer through a 2:55 marathon on the erg tomorrow if I had to.
3. Any predictions regarding what my actual 2mmolL pace is from this screwy data?
4. Is this an example of an "imbalance" between aerobic and anaerobic systems.
Any exercise intensity prescriptions?

Hi Steve:

1. These tests require a decent warm up - 20 minutes would do. The accepted protocol is 4 minutes at steady wattage, 1 minute rest/measurement, 4 minutes at increased wattage, etc. Also, you should be coming off an easy day for best results.
2. Your aerobic engine is fine. But there is a specificity component as well which you wil get back very quickly which should push the graph of mmol/l to wattage to the right.
3. No idea as to your 2mmol/L pace based on this data.
4. Anecdotally yes - hard examples - no. Comes down to ones training patterns. If you build by working "zone 2" (2 mmol/L) then ramp up, to harder efforts once your aerobic engine as aoptimized, this imbalance shouldn't be a problem.

jamesg wrote:First guess would be that "Lactate testing" and "Intervals" are contradictory.

If your sampling procedure is OK, you've seen (as experiments never fail) that changing power levels give data that's difficult to interpret. So the next experiment is to hold power constant until Lactate stabilizes. After all that's what La testing is for, to find steady state thresholds and see how they've moved since the last set of tests. Which means the tests have to be exactly repeatable and as simple as possible.

James, Thanks. It seems that lactate testing is for a few things (feel some). The testing I did was one accepted step-test protocol to get information about LT and 2mmol/l power levels (perhaps to be confirmed with longer stead state efforts). Unfortunately, even at power levels I can maintain for 7 hours my lactates are over 2mmol/l. I will try a steady state test at 160 W rate 20 tomorrow (after a 140W warm-up) and post the results. If, once again the lactates are high, I'll stuff the whole lactate thing and go back to training based on FTP and power..

hjs wrote:
To not use your anaerobic system, use constant pacing, and use pace /hf and not look at the lactate levels. You did pretty well without them

Henry, Thanks for your thoughts. I will take a stab at a steady state test at a level that is way slower than my UT2 level and see what comes of it. It seems that some (Greg being oneMChase another), use the pace at 2mm/l for endurance rows. Some evidence supports this but I remain to be convinced.
Thanks again for your thoughts

rjw wrote: Hi Steve:

1. These tests require a decent warm up - 20 minutes would do. The accepted protocol is 4 minutes at steady wattage, 1 minute rest/measurement, 4 minutes at increased wattage, etc. Also, you should be coming off an easy day for best results.
2. Your aerobic engine is fine. But there is a specificity component as well which you wil get back very quickly which should push the graph of mmol/l to wattage to the right.
3. No idea as to your 2mmol/L pace based on this data.
4. Anecdotally yes - hard examples - no. Comes down to ones training patterns. If you build by working "zone 2" (2 mmol/L) then ramp up, to harder efforts once your aerobic engine as aoptimized, this imbalance shouldn't be a problem.

Raoul, We followed the Step test suggested with the kit. It worked perfectly for the normal people. Only when we got screwy results did I try a longer warm-up...with no appreciable difference. I still find it hard to fathom (specificity or not) why a workload so far below what I consider below my "recovery" pace produces >2mm0l/L lactate. Still, results are...results.
Thanks for your thoughts.
Steve

Steve, I've never been much of a fan of secondary data when it comes to training versus training based entirely on a history of results. What if the data is actually wrong? Then one launches off on a track that either over- or under-trains you. I think that your past history of results tempered with your more recent results will tell you all that you need to know in terms of what rates are possible at varying distances.

One can train to increase anaerobic threshold without ever knowing actual lactate levels. And I do think that is the key to athletic performance. A person with greater tolerance for lactate will win out over a VO2Max person most of the time. I feel that was the key to my successes in duathlons (run,bike,run) years ago. I was slow, but I could operate relatively close to top speeds for greater than two hours. I trained that system with endless numbers of 400-800 meter (80s - 2:45) repeats with limited rest. Of course there was other training, esp 3-4 miles just over race pace runs. Lot of pain, but on race day I knew I could push myself harder than the other guy.

Hope I was not off topic. Jim G.

I repeated my step test today.....but modified it a bit due to the wonky results with the "standard" protocol.
I followed the "Steve Roedde Lactate Machine" protocol and finally got some useful (but discouraging) data.

First, I hypothesized that it was taking longer to get my aerobic engine warmed up than the protocol Nigel used allowed.

Second, It seemed that regardless of the incomplete data from the other tests, my 2mmol/l power was far, far, lower than I had thought/hoped.

Third, because the lactate after the warm up was already at close to 2mmol/l, a steady-state effort slightly higher would give me a useful number.

Fourth, Once the 2mmol/l level was reached, I reverted to the 5 minute steps to get my 4 mmol/l level (for what it is worth).

Results:

20 minutes Warm-up at 140W Lactate 1.8 mmol/l End HR 106
20 minutes at 161W Lactate 2.1 mmol/l End HR 115
5 minutes at 180 W Lactate 2.5 mmol/l End HR 124
5 minutes at 211W Lactate 4.3 mmol/l End HR 136

All this is interesting. I now have a reasonable 2mmol/L level. It would be pretty tough to maintain my training stress scores if I do my LSD at 160 W (it would be a tough sell to explain why I'm on the erg for 3h per day).
That said, I don't really see any other downside in this approach for 3-4 weeks. Loads of time to ramp things up if I feel there is not the rapid progress I have found with a power-based approach. There is still the 1-2x/week of intervals that will prevent too much deterioration in my anaerobic system.

Life is an experiment where the final outcome is known. I might as well keep having fun.


steve

Joined: Tue Jan 14, 2014 9:21 pm

Cyclingman1 wrote:Steve, I've never been much of a fan of secondary data when it comes to training versus training based entirely on a history of results. What if the data is actually wrong? Then one launches off on a track that either over- or under-trains you. I think that your past history of results tempered with your more recent results will tell you all that you need to know in terms of what rates are possible at varying distances.

One can train to increase anaerobic threshold without ever knowing actual lactate levels. And I do think that is the key to athletic performance. A person with greater tolerance for lactate will win out over a VO2Max person most of the time. I feel that was the key to my successes in duathlons (run,bike,run) years ago. I was slow, but I could operate relatively close to top speeds for greater than two hours. I trained that system with endless numbers of 400-800 meter (80s - 2:45) repeats with limited rest. Of course there was other training, esp 3-4 miles just over race pace runs. Lot of pain, but on race day I knew I could push myself harder than the other guy.

Hope I was not off topic. Jim G.

Jim, Thanks for your thoughts. Not off topic. I share many of your concerns/skepticism about this approach. I agree that for many events one can succeed with a lower MV02 but higher LT. There are many ways to achieve this. The balance of anaerobic/aerobic systems thing is intriguing. I sure have an effective anaerobic system....but improving my aerobic engine via this (<2mmol/l ss approach advocated by Mchase on http://www.rowingillustrated.com/boards ... =45&t=6380
is interesting...if nothing else.
When I look back at my first 8 months of erg training, I did 8 million meters at 2:05/500 (180W), then 3 weeks of intervals and still managed a 6:43 2k. With the improved economy, vastly superior technique, I should be able to repeat this. Starting at 160W is not a big ask. If Mchase is correct, doing my ss erging at this should move my power/lactate curve rapidly to the right and I can up the ss watts. If not, I'll ask why not?
Seems worth the experiment.
steve

Steve,

You'll have to admit that 8M meters in 8 mo is a huge amount of rowing. That sort of skews the LSD vs intervals argument. If my math is right that is over 30K meters per day. It is not surprising that you ended up doing well in 2K. For 55-59, HW, I believe you ended up 15th in world rankings for 2K.

By contrast my path to my first 2K was totally different. In 2012, from Jan 4 to April 10, I averaged 16K a WEEK with only 4 rows of 30 min. I did lots of 5Ks and 250-500 m intervals. I ended up on Apr 10 with a 6:40.7 2K which ranked first in world rankings for 65-69, HW. I had been a long-time cyclist but actually the previous year was a down year for me in cycling having been hospitalized for a PE.

Not sure what any of this means. Possibly, it is that since you are a fast-twitcher, you needed the endurance training. While, I am a slow-twitcher and needed the speed work. One thing is for sure, no one can say that only one way works to achieve a sports goal.

Steve,

Thanks for sharing your training data, it's really fascinating stuff. I had the good fortune to share the podium with you and Paul Seibach at CRASH B's last year (you both crushed me by 30s). I find it EXTREMELY interesting that you got to 6:43 on a steady diet of low-moderate intensity high-mileage training. I share a strong cycling back ground with you and Jim. I'm just coming off a six week stretch of mostly 15k 180-200w 20r rowing and am curious to see how my 2k PR improves(that is, hopefully improves) after a four week stretch of hard intervals. I already feel like I have a better stroke (but who knows for sure). It's all a grand experiment; that's for sure.

Eight million meters......damn!!!!!!