Calculating lactate threshold heartrate?

Check out this thread, it has a lot of useful information and people who are testing  for this method.

http://www.beginnertriathlete.com/discussion/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=25733&start=1

Edited by lifeisgood 2005-10-05 12:43 PM

There are two ways to estimate LT to establish training zones.  Clinical tests where you get hooked up to machines and have blood drawn and field tests...both produce similar results.  The field tests are obviously cheaper...all you need is a HRM and the ability to push yourself.  Coach Mike can help with the details: http://www.beginnertriathlete.com/discussion/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=25733&posts=143

Sorry, same link Ivan just posted.

Edited by TH3_FRB 2005-10-05 1:14 PM

Lab testing provides the most comprehensive and precise results http://www.fitness-concepts.com/voxmax.htm

The best field test is a one hour time trial, NOT in a race, measuring average HR over the final 30 minutes.

I'll be happy to send the chapter on intensity from my book The Triathete's Guide to Run Training to anyone who writes me at [email protected]

Ken

Who mentioned a race?  I've been told by some very credible coaches that the field test (done properly) produces results virtually the same as lab testing.  Although it would certainly be interesting to do both and compare...which is what I plan on doing in the spring.

Thanks! There is some great reading here. I don't really have access to lab testing, so I will have to go out and do it myself. But it sounds like it is certainly doable, and I should be able to get useful results.

Thanks again.

Most athletes are able to go harder and faster in a race. LT is generally about 75 minute race pace for a well trained athlete and most are able to hold this for about an hour without the motivation of a race setting.

Field testing provides a pretty good estimate of LT if conducted properly, but lab testing by a qualified technician also provides aerobic threshold, which we don't have any reliable field testing for. We generally use a percentage of LT, but this varies dramatically betweeen individuals based on muscle fiber type (athletes with a lot of ST fibers will have an AeT that is closer to LT) and recent training. Almost every athlete I have tested (over 6,700) overestimates AeT.

If you have some friends who would like to be tested, we could make a trip down to you when you'd like to be tested (we're in Fairfax). Information on our testing is (hopefully) attached.

Ken

Ken

Thanks Ken...good point about the AeT.  I certainly plan to get the lab testing done. I had planned to make a trip up to your place since I have friends in DC I can visit but your suggestion of coming down here is very interesting.  I'll PM you about this.

Ken

Do you think a 60 minute time trial is too long for newbies? I would suspect that most would have much trouble with pacing a TT that is that long. I prefer 30 minute TT tests. The 60 min trial is probably a better indicator if you can pace it right but not too many will be able to do that.

Mike

Hi Mike,

Good point. If I were going to use a 30 minute test, I would use something less than 100% of the average HR for the test.

Training slightly over LT is an extremely inefficient intensity ... at which lactate accumulates slowly enough that you can keep going, but it does accumulate. The sustained accumulation of lactate increases the cost of the workout dramatically, in terms of physical recovery and psychological cost ... all for a very slightly greater workload. The benefit of going 1% harder is very small while the cost is great.

Except for a peaking phase for a high level athlete who will race above LT, zone 5a is a no man's land and a 30 min TT falls in zone 5a. I would subtract about 3% from the average HR for a 30 min TT.

What do you think?

Ken

Ken

I am not sure about the numbers but that sounds about right to me. Really would not be too much difference between 30 min and 60 min TT HRs if they are both paced right. Especially true for fit athletes. I would say that the 3% number would be a good one to start with and it can be adjusted slightly through observation of HR during training. More advanced athletes should not have a problem with a 60 min TT.

Have you ever used sub-maximal testing with athletes (i.e., running pace at a given HR or a graded test while measuring HR on the treadmill or Computrainer)? In this case I am thinking about measuring progress without hard efforts on the road. Sort of a low cost, low impact way of measuring progress that is less stressful than a TT.

Mike

I will have athetes perform an aerobic time trial where they run either at a set HR or goal race pace. This is very effective for monitoring improvement, but not for generating HR or power zones.

Ken