Why I Don't Measure Lactate For Cycling Training
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 13 ส.ค. 2023
- Discussing lactate measurements for zone 2 training (as seen in content with The Norwegian Method, Peter Attia, San Millan, etc) and double threshold training days
Want more videos from me? Check out The NERO Show, new videos every week: • The Nero Cycling Show - กีฬา
![โจทย์โหดเหมือนโกรธเป็ดถีบ [อะไรอยู่บนหัวกูวะ ... EP.4]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Dqlb7EZ9PGk/mqdefault.jpg)
![[TH] VCT Pacific Stage 2 - Playoffs Day 1 // GEN vs RRQ | TLN vs TS](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/JhkzKOhvOps/mqdefault.jpg)
This Chanel is mega underrated. Thank you for all the high value content you put together for us Jesse!
Great video. I always come back to Seiler's pyramid and bottom 3 foundations 1. Volume 2. Intensity 3. Intensity distribution. All the fancy sensors and split threshold days do is facilitate maxing out these 3 and avoid injury/overtraining. Most people would be better off just ensuring they get the hours in consistently and (after that) the intensity in consistently year round while balancing life stresses. Money is best spent on facilitating consistent training - this looks very different for an amateur (online coach/training software + training log + sugar water) to a world class ironman (on site coach + every sensor available + maurten)
Was expecting this to be on Cedrik's video today, very fast on the uploads haha
Brilliant content, thanks for sharing your views Jesse!
I’m with you on the HRV thing, I did Whoop for nearly a year, and it was a waste of time. HRV by its very nature is variable, so taking a single data point at one time during the day, doesn’t tell the whole story. Taking a nap, having a stressful day, etc can change your HRV and have an impact on your training. About the only good night be over a long term to see if you are consistently declining due to fatigue or sickness because it’s measuring multiple data points. I won’t even get into how useless the whoop was outside of measuring sleep.
Agreed. I paid for and used a Whoop for a year. I learned everything I needed from it in the first 2 months, which was what makes my sleep better or worse. For training, if I'm fatigued, I know it. I don't need whoop to tell me. If I'm fresh I know it. I don't need whoop to tell me. It's supposed to be useful in between bad and good to guide decisions... if I followed the whoop and didn't train when I wasn't 100%, I'd almost never ride.
@@brianzimny totally agree, and because the data was not great (HRV) to predict readiness, red days you might be great, and green days you might be terrible or vice versa. Like you said, you know when you are ready and when you are not.
@@brianzimnycompletely concur with your statement. It was nice to see with the habit tracking how my metrics and sleep quality changed but it never really changed my behaviour. It's like oh drinking a beer decreased my sleep quality. Well, not like I didn't know that before. etc. etc. I got sick two times during my subscription and while I did see noticeable changes in my data at the point of there being a sufficient change I already could tell that I was getting sick. So essentially a waste of money. I think it can help people gamify their sleep which might lead to healthier sleep hygiene but as an athlete I don't need a gimmicky toy telling me to focus on my sleep. I don't see the company existing long term because the product is pretty useless at the moment. Unless we make advances in measuring body metrics and the device can give me an actual insight into my body.
HM and HCT are also variable but we are encouraged to test them 🤔 I wonder how often Jesse would recommend blood testing. Using a home testing kit makes it easy to test quite often.
Really great insights as always mate. Found your channel about a month ago and such an amazing resource. Cheers 🙏
Thanks for this Jesse. I can’t stress this enough but your videos are some of the best on TH-cam - thoughtful, concise and most importantly realistic for most normal riders. Cheers for the work you put in to make these, they are brilliant resource for coaches and athletes!
Thanks for the insight Jesse 🤘🏼
your channel is really pure gold. i like lactate also for submax ramps and sometimes for intensity control in the field.
great dialogue! As a handcycle athlete this resonates with me. Thankyou!
Well spoken!
Great vid Jesse. The norwegian method certainly has an aura about it. Last year, Lionel sanders had a go at it working with Gustav's brother. I expected him to get some really crazy results because "norwegian method" but it was normal results for him. Nowadays I think Lionel is back at the more tradicional approach. Also, great info about their company, its important to know!
Really excellent video.
Very vell explained, thank you sir.
Class video jesse 👌🏻
You are so right 👍
Thanks for calling this out
When I was younger 2x intense workouts a day worked very well for me, training wise and time wise before and after work. Tuesdays were always maximum effort sprints so for eg I would do 60-90 minutes of sprints in the morning then in the afternoon would do my high intensity intervals, Wed afternoon would be my anerobic threshold work. Thurs endurance, sprints again on Saturday followed by more anerobic work. Sunday endurance. Doing maximum effort sprints twice a week really lifted my performance. Now adays I only do them mostly once a week (sometimes twice) and only for blocks of about six weeks and for a specific purpose, but I'm much older now and goals have definitely shifted to what I was doing back then and I never do twice a days now.
Thanks for your clarity on this issue. I’m assuming this applies to all endurance sports not just cycling where there are power meters to measure effort.
Great information. Leave Lactate testing to the elites and their exercise physiologists. LT1 and LT2 varies individually depending on training history and recovery. LT2 is even more dependent on specific training and genetic muscle makeup. This again needs to be tested by exercise physiologists, and can change with training.
Wow I was just researching this 😂 perfect timing
afaik Iden and Blumenfelt use Lactate more often when at altitude, where the negative effects of going to hard are compounded. Another important point about their "method" is their nutrition strategy which seems to follow one simple principle: get in enough calories. They aren't afraid to drink plenty of soda or ear pizza and other fastfood as long as it's not to fatty -> heavy on the stomach and then obviously the adequate fueling of session, which means downing dozens of gels, sometimes over the course of a single day to achieve 100g/h+ in training consistently. Finally I think the overwhelming amount of low intensity work in their training is also considered to be part of their "method"
Nevertheless I completely agree that these fancy sensors or double threshold days are useful pretty much exclusively for these extremely high trained athletes and useless for us average and even above average amateurs. I found it very interesting to hear that lactate levels also fluctuate the same way HR does, I think this does not get communicated, somewhat intentionally, to sell a kind of "superior" measurement to people
Thanks for the video
I think you're right on double sessions for cyclist, they don't really suit the sport that much. In triathlon on the other hand, from what I know every professional is doing double intensity session anyways, and that's just because they have to train 3 sports and put in some easy days in between. I think it's pretty rare for a triathlete to do a double intensity session in the same sport, what the norvegians do (I think) compared to most is just a bit more high intensity volume because they're doing a lot of lt2 when others are doing high z4 and so they can do more.
Running is very different and in the last 10 years the double threshold days have become really popular in professional teams and individuals, it's really beneficial to do a lot of volume at moderate intensity and the best way to control it to prevent injuries and overtraining is doing repeats with lactate measurements, also splitting it makes sense because you get the time to recover between and the sessions are way less impactful on the body. Doing two theshold sessions one day and two easy runs the next day makes sense intead of 1 lt2 and one easy every day from asupercompensation perspective
Im perscribed double days in Vo2 blocks and my understanding of this is that it allows for more TIZ in a day but im doing 5-6 vo2 sessions a week in these blocks and about 20-25 minutes per session. I dont think I would be able to support a 5 hour session with 40-45 min TIZ of Vo2 max work, however I can hit sky high volume and intensity with these double days. I don't think this is sustainable over a full season or even a month but for its purpose it works very well. I am also most definitely not at the top level physically as im around 5w/kg cp (I do have a 90+ min TTE though). Also touching on the HRV I think the idea of the DFA a1 method for determining LT1 could be pretty useful and I also thing using hrv trends to determine when to prolong or shorten a training cycle is also useful if you already have a long term data set to work with.
Awesome 👌
Good video ...
Awesome subjective reaction! 👌
Pumping out the content! Thanks JC. Hey mate feeling sick and i know i shouldn't ride but would a zone 1 30min spin on zwift worth it or pointless?
Pointless. Take that 30 minutes and go to bed for a short nap, best thing you can do to speed up the recovery process so you can get back to your regular training ASAP
One of the main problems (and why Lactate measuring is appealing to me) is simply that everybody and their mum seem to have a different opinion on where Zone 2 is. Leaving the various models (3/5/6/7 Zones) aside for a second, you say your athletes aim for 60% - 65% of FTP. Peter Attia aims for a much higher % of FTP and the same goes for people like Steven Seiler or Inigo San Millan. Of course all of them are dancing around similar definitions, but there are fairly substantial differences and the "Talking Test" is just to vague for me. Especially since all seem to agree that when you are in Zone 2 it's beneficial to be in the upper end of Zone 2 during that training.
Given all of that, the ability to track lactate and be SURE that you are staying at the top end of Zone 2 is fairly appealing. I personaly have not gotten a Lactate Meter yet, but the outlined reasons are the ones why I'm toying with the idea. Also should add here that I do a lot of my Zone 2 rides on my indoor trainer. So the problem of doing the test in the field doesn't apply to me.
You don't need a lactate meter for this. Just go to the lab once and get it tested, then you can put the power/hearth rate zones in your garmin. Saves a lot of money and annoying stops
If you don't know how your zone 2 "feels" then it's simply that you haven't ride enough. Zone 2 is the result of "training everyday", not the reason of it. A lot of zone 2 guys risk undertraining not over. If you feel very OK after your "zone2" everyday for a week, a month? Then maybe that's zone 1, to make the most of your time you better just up that intensity to a point that you feel you can't recover well and hard to continue the training, then you dial down a bit, after a while you'll know what's the "feeling" of staying at the top of zone 2. However another problem of you here is power is an external load factor, lactate/HR/RPE is internal factors. As your fitness changes, the relationship between external power to internal lactate/HR changes. You try to map this changing relationship, that's what gives you trouble. But who said you have to only pace to power??? The relationship between internal factors like lactate/HR/RPE/Your-breath-compensation-point does not change. IF you are doing training to internal factors, say, lactate, why not just read other internal factors that have a well established stable relationship to it ??? Simply because HR monitors are so cheap ??? Your central neural system is already a lactate meter, a lot of feedback and signaling going on, so want to know your lactate level? Learn to read those signals, other than try to find a blood meter... Just use RPE and HR. And afterall, you ride too little. Up your frequency, up your diversity (different kinds of ride, internsity, duration...). IF you ever don't step into zone3, how do you know what's the feeling of the upper edge of zone 2 ???? How do you know how much you can eat without once for a while "over-eating" ??? What meter do you want to find to figure this out??? I'm saying is, at your current level, you just need to relax and ride more...
Interesting to see perceptions of training for triathlons from the perspective of a single sport coach - cycling.
I find RPE to be really useful and accurate. I've been training for years without knowing my ftp, done ultra distance without a power meter. Last week i did my first lactate ramp test on the bike and my zone 2 watts were spot on with my RPE estimated zone 2 watts. Just practicing to listen to your body very well can go a really long way in your training and recovery. I trust my feeling more then heart rate and power numbers.
Edit: Also my measured heart rate numbers are almost meaningless during the test. I had 150bpm heart rate on 220watts during the test inside, 2 days later i did 220 watts outside on the bike with 120BPM. Its just so much hotter when youre in a room cycling while stationary.
Get a good fan for indoor cycling (vacmaster).
@@markusseppala6547 there was a fan very close to me
Hr needs context just like any parameter. For most, it is very useful to track intensity. I use different internal (RPE, hr) and external (pace, watts..) measurements. You shouldn´t just stick to one.
If I wanted a coach then you would be my choice Jesse and anyone that has not seen your videos is missing out...Thanks
Hi Jesse just a point on RPE, I did a couple of lab tests because I wanted to know more about my physiology and was told that my perceived exertion was always much higher than what I was actually doing. I’ve learned to trust the numbers now more than what my mind tells me.
It’s worth considering that peoples RPE may vary from person to person. (Apologies if you mentioned that as I may have missed it.)
I agree. However if you combine it with the HR if gives a fair indication of the internal stimulus. Combine that with the external stimulus like power and we have a pretty good picture.
Why should we trust the numbers more than RPE?
While RPE may have its issues and it isn't always a perfect measure no other measure like HR or lactate is either. All internal load has the flaw of variation. If you think we should rely on external load that can also be fraught with danger for example sticking to z2 watts on a really hot day creates a lot more fatigue than z2 HR. We aren't sure which is even better for adaptation.
What seems to make the most sense is doing a mix of internal and external load measures. Possibly using a few different measurement devices. I also believe in doing the occasional maximal effort which can help calibrate your RPE better.
@@DvlnerocoachI was simply giving my own experience and what works for me, I’m not suggesting what others should do.
Hey Jesse, I love your approach to training and coaching. Have you got any coaching spots available? If so, what’s the best way for me to contact you?
Very insightful as always, I don't think many people test lactate on Z2 endurance rides (I've never seen any norvegian do that and I've never done it either) the lactate testing is useful (for elite/professional athletes only) when doing some specific intensity to get a bit more data on how the body is responding and maybe adapt a little according to that, also sometimes lactate says something that you can't get from any other data, for example I was doing some running testing in the lab and did a TTE at vo2 max after 45' Z3, the lactate was only 4mmol even tho legs were dead, heart rate pretty high and I know I was able to get around 15mmol doing a vo2max effort when fresh a year ago
@nerocoaching hi Jesse what range % of max hr should you be at for zone 2?
Between 70% up to around 80% in most riders in regular conditions but max HR isn't a good value to anchor zones on. Some zone models show higher than 80% but that's going to be too intense for most riders
So is yout Hb meter also in the garage?😅 or is measuring Hb worth getting a meter? If so what kind of do you use/recomend?
Jesse - how many hours per week do you need to do before Zone 2 is worthwhile? For example would you recommend zone 2 to someone on 3 hours a week who has been training for a few years ? On 3 hours a week surely the lowest intensity should be tempo ? What about 5 hours per week or 8 hours etc ? At what point does zone 2 become important to get the training load volume and recovery?
Would you recommend zone 2 to someone on 3 hours a week who has been training for a few years ? Very unlikely, it won't be enough training load, they will likely detrain if they are doing any significant % of their training load as endurance time.
On 3 hours a week surely the lowest intensity should be tempo ? Agree most of the time but can depend on the fitness level of the rider. And a rider could be doing 4x VO2max sessions a week, in 3 hours, and have decent amount of time riding at zone 2 inside there as warm up, recovery, cool down, etc. But that's a technicality, I think we mean "lowest intensity target of a specific session overall being zone 3", if that makes sense.
What about 5 hours per week or 8 hours etc ? Likely room to fit zone 2 time, but again depends on fitness level of the rider.
At what point does zone 2 become important to get the training load volume and recovery? The principle of overload sits above training intensity distribution, that's the only way I can answer this. Training to improve endurance performance firstly involves getting enough training load, ideally that load includes plenty of low intensity training.
@@nerocoaching thanks for taking the time to respond. Makes sense :)
60-65% z2 seems really easy. So someone with an ftp of 340 would be between 204 and 221? With an ftp of 280 id be almost z1hr @ .60 for most of the ride. Guess My 4-5hr z2 rides shouldn't be at 200 watts. Guess I should slow down.
Don't do that unless you are not recovering as fast as you'd like.
It would be hard to ride *above* z2 for 5 hours. If you can ride z3 for 5+ hours, you probably have your zones wrong somewhere on the power curve. Riding at the high end of your z2 for 5 hours is very close to a maximal effort.
This depends on how you've set your HR and PWR threshold values. And your individual physiology (you may have a relatively low FTP but be stronger in your long aerobic capabilities). But to generalise I see most riders zone 2 range goes too high, and that 60-65% range is a good target that's intense enough to get the aerobic benefits without being too fatiguing.
In a classic 6 zone model the zone 2 range can go up to 75%, which IMO is too intense to be doing your endurance rides at if you're riding any decent amount of volume.
You seem like an excellent coach. Someone suggested that the 2mmol is zone 2 when it’s arbitrary and on a continuum. As you suggested triangulate with RPE, Power, and HR. A wise coach described Z2 as riding as hard as you can that’s still ridiculously easy. Thanks for sharing.
I'd say that it's the opposite: 'riding as hard as you can' implies that you need to think about the power or pacing. Proper level 2 should need no concentration whatsoever. If you notice any shortness of breath or heart beats, it means you're at VT1 which is the top end where level 3 begins.
@@philadams9254I disagree to an extent. It's quite easy to slip into Z1, especially if the road goes downhill.
Can your v02 max increase after the first 12 months or racing ?
As i use the Coggan zones staying in zone two is not to difficult i mean u have 56 to 75 % range with a power meter so quite a range to keep well within Zone 2
The Fast Talk podcast number 166 talks about double days and it's quite interesting. You can have the same volume of training split up into more sessions to increase training frequency - which has its own benefits.
Agree lactate measure reduced "need" on bike as PM plus rpe, HR provides data...
Swim and run no PM so in thisbcase lactate testing perhaps closing a data gap / increasing accuracy... thoughts??
I haven't spent enough time coaching in those disciplines to know whether the same applies in practice RE lactate.
Although running and swimming have pace which are far more consistent external load measures cvs speed for cycling. Especially if running on a flat course and swimming in the same pool.
Wow, I didn't know you could just buy a Haemoglobin Meter. Can you talk about that and how it helps you?
RPE is vastly underrated, heart rate can be highly variable athlete to athlete depending on sleep, hydration, drugs (stimulants), stress, cortisol levels and time of day. Power and RPE is king.
Hey Jesse, I appreciate your videos but I think you got a few things wrong here. I've discussed the Norwegian method with multiple athletes in the Norwegian team and here's my understanding.
- Lactate is used to make sure you're not going too hard on easy days.
While this is true to some degree, I wouldn't say this is the main use. While they do sometimes check lactate on easy days the biggest usage is during efforts, so using lactate first to define treshholds and zones in testing - and then using lactate to nail intensity during harder rides
- practicality, price, accuracy
Setting price and practicality aside as it's not really a factor for pro athletes, the accuracy and day to day fluctuations is interesting. While single measurements can be wrong because of sweat etc, the accuracy compared to actual blood lactate is very good, and for a single unit the accuracy is even higher. Compare this to different power meters, yes the number can differ between meters but if you consistently use the same unit you will be pretty accurate over time.
- double treshhold days
I agree with a lot what you're saying but would like to add that a big reason they're doing double threshold days is because they have three sports. Not very common that they split a ride up in two. More common to for example ride treshhold in the morning and swim threshold in the evening.
- marketing term
Well yeah definitely. However I wouldn't say the Norwegian triathletes coined the term. The "method" dates back to late 90s when the Norwegian Olympic committee initiated a project to monitor elite runners. In more recent years the Ingebritsen brothers have dominated middle distance running, and put a lot of success to their lactate training. You can read more here: www.mariusbakken.com/the-norwegian-model.html
I think it would be very interesting for you to have either Olav, Arild or Mikal on to discuss how lactate could be incorporated more into "regular" cycling training. It would definitely make for an interesting discussion!
Nice comment, thanks. Only thing I'll add is the discussion around how lactate measurements are used has already been had on many podcasts, videos, in literature, etc which is why I made this video in the first place: because I haven't found it to be worthwhile or necessary to improve performance in riders I coach over the last 10 years. So this video serves as a counter point to the more common narrative of "lactate measurement is useful and beneficial, you're training isn't as effective if you don't test it".
Coaches and sports scientists (myself included) will argue until they're blue in the face about this stuff. But I try to keep this TH-cam channel out of the weeds on things like that and cut through to give the message that matters from my perspective.
@@nerocoaching totally agree on the point that for most people lactate isn't worthwhile if you take all aspects into account (price, availability, benefit over HR/Power/RPE).
However of we're going to criticize / make a point of Norwegians (or their method), it's only fair to do it based on what they're actually using lactate for😀
Again, appreciate your work and would love to maybe see a follow up sometime in the future!
I notice that Lionel has ditched lactate testing
I’m only tempted by lactate testing as a means of estimating my LT2 without FTP testing but I can feel roughly where that lies (+/-5W) so it never really feels worth it.
i test for lactate, but only LT1. LT2 is a weird not too specific zone, which is difficult to define
@@iancarson8614 you know, that’s a really fair point. I only really care about LT2 because it’s used to estimate LT1 in lieu of testing… but if I’m testing I can just go straight for the money and calculate LT1
I think a focus on lactate is a case of coaches mixing up prescriptive with descriptive. Lactate threshold, or lactate at a given power, is obviously a very good measure of performance but that doesn't mean that you will improve lactate threshold and performance by measuring and training to lactate submaximally (or at all). The same thing kind of applies to FTP, once a measure becomes a target, it ceases to be a good measure.
The Norwegian method as I understand is not so much about data. My key takeaways:
- You dont need to do your threshold sessions at ftp. Do longer intervals below ftp (e.g. sweat spot)
- One hit per week is good enough
- Endurance should be done at very low i tensity
If you use SABA asthma puffers like albuterol and hydration status will cause serum lactate to elevate.
From what I have seen triathletes do it looks time consuming and the sample needs to be clean and not contaminated with sweat etc
Jesse, if we had a continuous lactate meter like the glucose units would that change your opinion regarding the value.
Definitely would be useful. I'd put it into the same category as HR, recorded constantly and assessed as needed to provide more insight into training sessions. It would be in the "sometimes useful" category which I put HR into, in my practice power and RPE are in the "always useful" category.
i am interested in the lactate monitor if you don't want it. Do you think you could you send it to me? .)))
I dont think they check that much to stay under 2mmol or at zone 2 training. It shouldnt be that hard for them without, but they take it serious because getting over 2mmol can trigger a high reaction of the sympatic nervous system and recovery will be afected. The ingebrigtsen have been seen walking up hills if heart rate raises too much. I did understand the Norwegian method in the way that they want to spend as much time as possible at a high intensity without getting too fatigued to get the maximum possible cardio and stuff system training effect. And thats around the 4mmol lactat area. And it seems to work, i think their vo2max go up to nearly 90. And 4mmol is not that super hard and does not need too much recovery so for example the ingebrigtsens can do once or twice a week a double session. In triathlon you have the advantage that you will use more differnt muscles. So cardiac stress and stuff goes up and less stress for the muscles which are usually damaged faster. The acuracie... they take the test at the ear in the breaks. And if there is heat or something the will may stay under 4mmol to limit the stress and get the time in that intensity.
Excellent Jesse, riding in z3 on your endurance rides, is the norm in the UK. Its called riding for strava averages 🤣🤣🤣
A big factor is the time it takes lactate to leave the muscles which depends on transporter levels.
Can u elaborate on how HRV doesn’t work for you & your group? That’s not the case for my personal experience & lots of scientific research
I never found it to be more predictive of stress/fatigue/readiness/sickness than a subjective question like "How are you feeling today?" or "How did you feel this morning?". So as a coach it was mostly redundant data because I already knew a rider was sick, or tired, etc before I even looked at their HRV reading.
Personally I also found it sometimes to give false cases of saying I was under an amount of stress, where I would then adjust my training based on that, but I felt absolutely no degree of not being ready to train.
As it didn't improve my training process personally or with any riders, I've stopped using it. I honestly really wanted it to work, it would be a thing of beauty if I could know exactly the readiness level of a rider without having to ask them anything, I just didn't find it was capable of doing that
It also adds another bit of hassle into your routine. If you want to use it you need to do a measurement every day at about the same time in the morning, after getting up. It does not take long, but it is another thing to do, and another five minutes of mandatory time spend on training every day. It does not sound like much, but doing to much of those small things (like measuring your calory intake, doing your core exercises, measuring HRV, etc.) really adds to your (mental) training load.
@@EJD2012 for sure, that’s why I use whoop, I don’t have to thank about it at all everyday actually
@@nerocoaching thanks for the reply man, but I also think HRV is a metric that has to be looked at in accordance with a few different data- mainly your resting HR- for me my whoop has been giving me very consistent and accurate evaluation of my recoveries and strain based on a few metrics it tracks everyday(HRV, Resting HR, temp, etc)
In my experience (and I agree with Jessie here) it doesn’t give you any new information
If you drank the night before - you know it 😂
If you slept bad - you know it
If you feel bad - you know it
2+ years Oura user
I think if you have a coach/team to take measurements for the athlete (and to make sense of all the data points that are obtained) then it is useful to measure lactate and as many parameters as the team wants.
But if you have to go through it on your own, you're better off riding by feel and power/heart rate, which do not take any effort to measure (provided you have the equipment for it)
I think it’s also good to just get a calibration for rpe and heart rate, getting a bit of confirmation on what you already think
mind blown
Jesse Coyle: "it's my way, my way or the highway" 😂
It's mind boggling to suggest the best Triathletes in the world wouldn't be able to hit their training effort levels without lactate measurements. If you look at Blumenfelts physique, one could think the "Norwegian Method" is rather based on hGH than data...
I'd say for many recreational athlete's the overall engine is small enough to take this approach - but the FTP model itself is problematic as it cannot identify at all the aerboic vs anaerobic contirbution between two athlete's. So the power at zone 2 can easily be over or under estimated. Then to use RPE as a control check, is good - from a recovery perspective but doesn't help at all in terms of specific training goals to try cause physiological adaptations. Using HR as the final check - again is good to track over training as a control measure but won't help you identify true zone 2. There's plenty of research and power testing models that let you build a metabolic profile without lactate testing itself that will be more accurate at estimating zone 2 factoring in an individuals balance of energy contributions. Measuring lactate can help with this as well. I don't think you nessecarily need to use lactate in the field but it can definitely be used in testing to determine zones instead of FTP. Agreed lactate can fluctuate but is still a much better primary measure - to be used with secondary control measures like RPE and HR.
I agree there is more to gain from using lactate in testing and profiling vs using it for intensity monitoring. Here's a sample of coaching in practice though- you have 10 riders you need to coach for a year, only 1 of them has access to a lactate meter. To get the best outcome across the board you need to spend time refining your coaching and analysis process to get the best outcomes for every rider, with and without a lactate meter.
Fast forward a year and you then find that you're actually getting similar outcomes from the 9 riders that don't have the lactate meter vs the 1 rider that does. So in your own practice you've concluded that you can get great outcomes without lactate measurements, and it falls in priority. Doesn't mean you don't see how it can be used, it just means you don't need it to achieve your outcomes.
I haven't found it necessary, in most cases, to have lactate profiling to form training targets and physiological outcomes. Similar story with HRV, tried it with riders, didn't add enough value so put that time and energy elsewhere. Doesn't mean I don't understand how it works, or the science behind it, it just doesn't make up part of my practice. That's why I made this video, most discussions about lactate are theoretical, not in practice discussing it in relation to everything else that a rider could or should be monitoring.
Also it's surprisingly hard to get some riders to do even more basic monitoring tasks like yearly blood tests or regular subjective wellness monitoring, which I would say are easier to complete and more important that lactate profiling.
@@nerocoaching Thanks for replying - big topic to hit on in the social sphere. I would second your comment on bigger issues around getting recreational/amatuer (the majority of coached athletes) to record data and would go as far to say program compliance is maybe the biggest limiting factor for many riders - which is where a good coach comes into play. The perfect program, sicentific or not is useless if the athlete cannot follow it and coach cannot track the progress and make adjustments as needed.
I have trouble believing elite Ironman are clean with the ridiculous training volume they do and how fast they’re riding these days.
Norwegian method is a large amount of epo
Zone 2, as per Dr San Milan, and Dr Peter Attia, is defined as below 2 millimole of lactate.
Power meter is a measure of power output, but not a measure of cardiovascular exertion. If you have a bad recovery or if you're sick, generating the same wattage will require higher exertion, producing a higher heart rate than if fully recovered or well rested.
The only reason so much is going around about lactate testing is because that is the definition of zone 2. Sure you don't need to test every minute, but you should at least know what zone 2 feels like, and how exertion differs from power output, and so getting your lactate tested at least once is a good idea.
If you happen to ride above zone 2, it's not ruining your aerobic adaptations. It will take longer to recover from, and make it more difficult to get adequate volume done in the week, and slightly change the substrate contribution to the power output, but it's not less effective training. Some of the stuff I've listened to on the topic is legitimate fear mongering.
I do find some riders are pushing too hard in their endurance rides. But you can monitor that very easily in other ways as discussed to make sure it's at the correct intensity. It doesn't require lactate measurement.
It should also be mentioned that 2 mMol is a population average for LT1, and if applied as the first threshold for an individual person, is almost always going to be wrong. For a lot of highly trained endurance athletes, 2 mMol might be close to LT2 than LT1 for them because of how rapidly they combust lactate for fuel.
@@nerocoachingWhat about fat oxidation? I thought that fat oxidation drops off quickly above zone 2 and one of the benefits of zone 2 training is improving fat oxidation. Wouldn't the effect on improving fat oxidation be reduced if you do all your workouts above zone 2?
Yes fat oxidation tends to drop off in most riders as they go above zone 2. But you can improve the power output you're producing at your fat max simply by getting fitter aerobically, which doesn't necessarily requite doing zone 2 training. E.g. you could take an enthusiast rider, train them 5-7 hours a week for 2 months, not doing a single minute below zone 3 and their fitness and metabolic profile would improve. They would be doing more power at 2mmol lactate and they would be producing more power at fat max.
TO CLARIFY: I'm not saying that's a good way to train! But you can get fitter, be a better rider, with a higher power at fat max, without doing any zone 2.
99.9% of riders aren't training to improve their fat max value or their power at fat max. They are training to improve performance overall, which most often involves doing a good amount of low intensity training in zone 2. But let's say I find a rider doing their zone 2 rides too hard, as a coach my main concern with that is on the impact it has on the sustainability of their training, symptoms of overtraining, the impact on the quality of their intense sessions, etc. Those are going to be more immediately consequential than impact on fuel usage and the downstream effects of that.
But my perspective on it comes from being a coach dealing with riders day to day. The common discussions on these topics come from researchers, it's not their job to consider the whole picture and keep in mind all the other impacts.
I think you can just mention that the relationship between lactate level, RPE, ventilatory threshold, %HR max or %HR reserve has been thoroughly studied in scientific literatures DECADES ago. End of talk. Your neural system is a feedback system, your RPE, breath rate, HR is the result of the lactate level. Just like the number on your temperature meter is a feedback from the actual temperature, your body is a perfect lactate level meter by itself. Any time you train with HR or RPE, you train with lactate. A lot of people mess this up because they want to map the external factors like power to the internal factors like the lactate or HR, they may find a lactate meter "necessary", because the relationship between power and lactate level is changing and should be changing. That is partly due to the prevalence of power meter in cycling community that nowadays a lot of people only PACING themselves to power. However this is stupid because once you look beyond this you'll see that you can just look at HR or RPE for even better, because %HR, lactate level, RPE correlates at a very accurate level. For example my Garmin watch prescribe my "easy run" at 155 bpm, the thing that surprise me most is whenever I go for a easy run, this is exactly the magic number that always comes back as avg as a result. The pace varies a little day to day, the pace itself varies a lot inside each run. The HR varies from the warm-up sessions to the final up-drift, but the avg stays at this magic number, almost every run. Once you nailed it, you don't need such gimmicks. A lot of people don't, so this thing has a certain market. But I just don't believe that those pros who can't figure this out, as you said, it's just for a "business".
Lactate testing been around and used in cycling, running ,rowing wat before the Norwegian method. The Norwegian method just been advertised more and brought Lactate testing in the media more. Lactate testing is king for performance, no guess work. Betrer than hr as hr has too many variables.
Okay, but FTP is just a guess to begin with, with no scientific backing to to justify it as a metric. Now that said, I agree that this micromanaging of whatever piece of biometric data is the flavor of the month just seems like another way to sell "hope." At the end of the day, the only thing that matters is the stop watch. And if you want it's numbers to look better, you need will power and a proper training journal. It'll tell you everything you need to know, assuming you know how to read it.
As far of San-Millan, I hate to say it but for those of us who have been around a while, he reminds me of a certain Italian doctor from the 90s. I hope I'm wrong, but I'm way to skeptical to think I am.
resting heartrate is key. rest is just commercialized nonsense.every cardiologist knows this. some must earn their money somewhere...........
P R O M O S M
You left out avg speed 😅
Why not just call it the GOS training? The Norwegians have been following my training method. I was the first ever to keep a 20 mile an hour average on my rides. That dates back before they ever started doing that. And I'm sure their coach has argued with me many times on the internet.
Let's stop the charades already.
That's exactly what I've been doing the last year basically.
The point at which you begin to accumulate acid more quickly than your body can dissipate it is your lactate threshold, or, in riding terms, the fastest pace you can maintain for 30 minutes without feeling like your legs are on fire. Fortunately, it isn't hard to determine your lactate threshold.
On the first point: "If I want to prescribe an aerobic endurance ride, and make sure someone's not going too hard, it's not that difficult, ok?" - Yet, everyone but two Norwegian triathletes are better at it than the rest, most of the pro teams are doing it, Inigo San-Milan is using it. Maybe there's a bit more to gain than you think, especially if you base zone2 on FTP.
"It's just not a thing in cycling" This is incorrect, it's totally a thing in cycling and not because of time management. It's a big thing, and it's been for a couple of seasons. I know for a fact Jumbo Visma are doing them, if I recall correctly, they even do it through the off-season. I know some riders of Lidl-Trek, Bahrain-Victorious and EF are as well, and I think UAE are as well, though I could be mistaken there. However, I think that's a pretty good testament to ti's efficacy and that it is being used. Extensively, even.
From following your channel for almost a year, I think it's safe to say, that you're relying on sub-par coaching and training methods and if you are to deliver solid critique of the methods of some of the best athletes and teams in the world, mind you, some of which are professors and leading academics within their fields, you have to do your homework a lot better. Reducing this to a marketing technique (while mentioning that you're a coach over and over) is reductive and ill informed. I would recommend that other viewers and the people you coach are reconsidering the trust their put in your takes and methods.
Agreed. Multiple teams are using lactate either as a means of measuring metabolic profiles and creating training zones - or within day to day. UAE included. Dr Inigo San Millan has talked extensively about this topic on various podcasts.
@@benjamintreble3805 Yup... for a person who is so "pro-data", there is a lot of resistance towards.... data.
This comment seems awfully personal, seemily from not understanding my perspective.
I did say in the video that using lactate measurements for benchmarking or profiling is of more use than tracking training intensity, if you can keep the conditions controlled.
RE "it's just not a thing in cycling" I think you're referring to double days? I worked for 3 years at one of the biggest online training platforms that has WT teams on it. I have seen first hand many riders actual training data, most aren't doing double threshold days, barely even double ride days. They just aren't... high volume, but not double days. This is what I've seen
I understand lactate, I did a whole unit on it at university, discussed it offline with other coaches, I can see how you mistake my view on the topic for being ill informed. Again, my point is that you can easily track a riders performance without lactate measurement. You can easily track training intensity without lactate measurement. You're mistaken in thinking I'm critiquing others for doing so. I never said any triathlete, San Millan or any other world tour rider is incorrect for testing or tracking lactate...
I've uploaded 171 videos to this TH-cam channel, openly discussing a range of training topics. I'm clearly not shy about my approach to training, whether you agree with any of it or not.
But you've said I use sub-par coaching methods, can you explain what those are? And also that I have sub-par training methods, can you explain what those are? I made a 40 minute video outlining in detail my training approach for our National Championships in 2023. Feel free to make a reaction video to that showing which training methods were sub-par...
If I am mistaken in my take on your position, I apologize. To me, your video comes off as very reductive towards the work of others, but again, if that is just me, I apologize. From how I view the video, you are reducing the work of others to something you can do just as well by another method. It should be obvious for everyone that relying on FTP-based methodologies are inferior to lactate-based ones. All the best, Niklas @@nerocoaching
These new training methoda can be just smoke & mirrors. Like armstrong's 100rpm extra efficient climbing bullshit.
You need to read up on the model. Or talk to someone who knows it.
If you are a normal human, like 99,999% of us are, then heart rate and RPE are enough. If you are an international level athlete at cycling/running/cross-country skiing or any endurance sport really, that's where the lactate measuring and other data will make you improve your training. It's not rocket science.
@jesse what % of max hr should you be at fir zone 2?
99,999 percent of human have their FTPs over estimated and creep every ride into the sweet spot telling themselves it is a zone 2
And do threshold intervals in vomax zone😂
You are getting several things wrong here. You might want to have a closer look at where the method is being used and where it originated. At the same time I would agree with you that it might not be the right tool for amateur cycling.
Vitamin E also helps
Ingebrocson, blumenfeld, and Gustav iden
Or a TH-camr
Hmmmmm who knows better ??????!?
I think your concerns with lactate testing in the field are a bit irrational. It's probably a conservative estimate, that 99% of people who buy a lactate meter to test themselves, own an indoor trainer....
You should switch to an approach where you use alot of tools and not few. A lot of tools can give more insight eventhough they´re not useful as a single tool.
& lactate is used by the norwegians mostly for HIT. Not for LIT.
My problem with RPE is that it's subjective.