Advice on interval training - am a bit lost!

Alex_Simmons/RST

Depends on what you mean by threshold.

Usually LT is a level determined via testing of blood lactate concentration in an incremental test and is defined as the power / HR reached when the BL level rises 1mmol/L above baseline levels or approx 2.5mmol/L

Functional threshold power (i.e. roughly 1 hour time trial pace) occurs at a higher level than that. Typically 10-15% higher power, and a correspondingly higher HR range as well.

It is a bit confusing because there are a multitude of "thresholds" bandied about and are often misleading.

For the purposes of setting some training levels, then a TT is fine. You can use that HR as the anchor point to define training levels.

KnightOfTheLongTights

Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:

For the purposes of setting some training levels, then a TT is fine. You can use that HR as the anchor point to define training levels.

Ok cheers Alex, but I'm working on the basis this is a boundary of some sort, as the word threshold implies - we always talk of sub-lactate, super-lactate etc.

So should I set my MHR (for this system at my spin class which calculates zones by MHR) so that my 177 LTHR is at 85% or 92% or somewhere in between, or is it impossible to say with any accuracy?

Tom Dean

KnightOfTheLongTights wrote:

In that we are told that the HR you can sustain for the second 20 mins of a 40-min 'hard-as-poss' effort - is your LHR.

Is this the test you did to come up with your figure of 177bpm?

Aside from the confusion over definitions of 'threshold', this test will surely give a higher figure than lactate threshold OR FT.

KnightOfTheLongTights

Tom Dean wrote:

KnightOfTheLongTights wrote:

In that we are told that the HR you can sustain for the second 20 mins of a 40-min 'hard-as-poss' effort - is your LHR.

Is this the test you did to come up with your figure of 177bpm?

yes - or rather the average heart rate over the second 20 mins of a 40-min hard-as-poss effort

I was under the impression that that was a pretty standard LTHR test.

Tom Dean

KnightOfTheLongTights wrote:

Tom Dean wrote:

KnightOfTheLongTights wrote:

In that we are told that the HR you can sustain for the second 20 mins of a 40-min 'hard-as-poss' effort - is your LHR.

Is this the test you did to come up with your figure of 177bpm?

yes - or rather the average heart rate over the second 20 mins of a 40-min hard-as-poss effort

I was under the impression that that was a pretty standard LTHR test.

You're right - I had a look in the Joe Friel book an this basically the test he suggests. I think the terminology is wrong though as per Alex's post. The definition Friel gives for LT describes Maximal Lactate Steady State.

amaferanga

KnightOfTheLongTights wrote:

Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:

For the purposes of setting some training levels, then a TT is fine. You can use that HR as the anchor point to define training levels.

Ok cheers Alex, but I'm working on the basis this is a boundary of some sort, as the word threshold implies - we always talk of sub-lactate, super-lactate etc.

So should I set my MHR (for this system at my spin class which calculates zones by MHR) so that my 177 LTHR is at 85% or 92% or somewhere in between, or is it impossible to say with any accuracy?

Why do a threshold test and then try to use that to estimate your maximum heart rate?

If you want to know your maximum heart rate then do a test for it otherwise forget about it and use your threshold heart rate! I can't help but think your making this seem much more complicated than it is....

Alex_Simmons/RST

KnightOfTheLongTights wrote:

Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:

For the purposes of setting some training levels, then a TT is fine. You can use that HR as the anchor point to define training levels.

Ok cheers Alex, but I'm working on the basis this is a boundary of some sort, as the word threshold implies - we always talk of sub-lactate, super-lactate etc.

So should I set my MHR (for this system at my spin class which calculates zones by MHR) so that my 177 LTHR is at 85% or 92% or somewhere in between, or is it impossible to say with any accuracy?

When riding at threshold, we will experience a range of HRs, both during an effort and with day to day variability in HR response, so can't say really.

I suppose if you add 10-12% to that 20-min TT average it'll be in the ball park for setting training levels using MHR. If you then find those levels are too high/low, then just adjust them.

HR is really only a guide for sub-TT training levels anyway. Above that it really has very limited utility and is pretty useless as a guide to effort level.

vs

Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:

joe2008 wrote:

Any high heart rate training before the aerobic base is fully developed will simply cancel out the benefits so don't do it! The time will eventually come when I will want you to raise your effort but it isn't now."

That's just wrong.

or maybe not...

From http://www.cycling-inform.com/general-t ... -a-cyclist

"Also, when riding base training you can throw in a very limited amount of high intensity efforts (above 90% of HMR) to keep you fresh. These efforts should be very brief (1-2 mins), done at a higher cadence 100-140rpm and very limited (only a few a week).

The reason for limiting these high intensity efforts is that they undo some of the effects of base training by destroying the high number of intricate and complex vascular capillaries that you are working so hard to build up in your base training."

Alex_Simmons/RST

vs wrote:

Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:

joe2008 wrote:

Any high heart rate training before the aerobic base is fully developed will simply cancel out the benefits so don't do it! The time will eventually come when I will want you to raise your effort but it isn't now."

That's just wrong.

or maybe not...

From http://www.cycling-inform.com/general-t ... -a-cyclist

"Also, when riding base training you can throw in a very limited amount of high intensity efforts (above 90% of HMR) to keep you fresh. These efforts should be very brief (1-2 mins), done at a higher cadence 100-140rpm and very limited (only a few a week).

The reason for limiting these high intensity efforts is that they undo some of the effects of base training by destroying the high number of intricate and complex vascular capillaries that you are working so hard to build up in your base training."

That has to be one of the oldest and most ridiculous training myths ever purveyed.

amaferanga

joe2008 wrote:

Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:

That has to be one of the oldest and most ridiculous training myths ever purveyed.

Well, I've now seen this 'myth' in 3 places: 'The Black Book by Pete Reed', 'Base Building for Cyclists by Thomas Chapple' and now that web link.

So do I believe those sources or some random 'know it all' on an internet forum slagging them off?

Why not get in touch with those sources and ask about their evidence for the statements? Or do a search of the literature yourself. I doubt you'll find anything conclusive....

Btw Alex isn't just some random know it all. Check out the links in his signature

keef66

Any links to peer reviewed scientific publications that support this 'theory' that high intensity training results in destruction of capillaries??

My instinct is that the reverse should be true, but I'd similarly want to see scientific evidence before stating it publicly as fact.

ut_och_cykla

not an expert of any kind but very hard exercise /pysical violence would cause capillary and blood cell damage. Marathon runners have been measured post race with levels of hormones (?) similar to those after car accidents due to the punishment their bodies have been given. But quite how a few minutes of intervals a week (on a bike!) would do this is beyond me.
Crushing blood cells causes the body to make more by releasing its own EPO so a certain amount of punishment might be good from that point of view. Something that regular massage might achieve - but now I'm just guessing!
For me good training is amuch about having an appropriate mix as much as anything else. Can't see how going fast (TT fast) is going to benefit only from LSD or how your bum is going to get used to dealing with 12 hr endurance races if its only ever done 60 min turbo sessions - but that's just me

Alex_Simmons/RST

keef66 wrote:

Any links to peer reviewed scientific publications that support this 'theory' that high intensity training results in destruction of capillaries??

My instinct is that the reverse should be true, but I'd similarly want to see scientific evidence before stating it publicly as fact.

I doubt you'll find any, but you find stuff like this that shows training at various intensities, including high intensity, promotes capillary growth (angiogenesis):
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15020701
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12429896
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17446405
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14517399

you'll also find that even passive training can do same thing:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20693292

Alex_Simmons/RST

meant to post this link too, handy doc on the topic:
http://www.springerlink.com/content/774 ... lltext.pdf

keef66

Thanks for those; v. interesting, especially the last one.
This bit says it all for me

"Hypoxia: This is one of the most potent stimuli that
initiate capillary angiogenesis"

Not going to induce hypoxia in tissue by just pootling along.....

shockedsoshocked

keef66 wrote:

Not going to induce hypoxia in tissue by just pootling along.....

Depends if you're pootling along at 2.500m or not....

keef66

In Suffolk??

keef66

Actually, thinking about it, I may have been doing this inadvertently; recently been diagnosed as anaemic! Feeling stronger on the iron tablets!