Lactate Threshold (Read 433 times)

    I know this is probably a bit too generalized, but adding 30 - 40 seconds to the recent 5K or 15-20 seconds to 10K is much easy to gauge. And, of course, people don't race 5K or 10K so often.

     

    Reference: http://www.runnersworld.com/running-tips/your-perfect-tempo?page=single

    5k - 20:56 (09/12), 7k - 28:40 (11/12), 10k trial - 43:08  (03/13), 42:05 (05/13), FM - 3:09:28 (05/13), HM - 1:28:20 (05/14), Failed 10K trial - avg 6:10/mi for 4mi (29/08/14), FM - 3:03 (13/09/14)

       

      Its worth pointing out that for most people working near race pace over a given distance heart rate will tend to increase at a constant pace. Conversely at a constant heart rate pace will decrease.

       

      On the other hand if you run at an easy pace then at constant heart rate you'll usually have constant pace.

      Race pace depends on race duration and resistances (hills, wind, snow, footing). It's very different for a 30-min race vs a 6-hr race.

       

      Pace and heart rate are constant only if it's flat, calm (or constant wind), no snow (or constant snow conditions).

      "So many people get stuck in the routine of life that their dreams waste away. This is about living the dream." - Cave Dog

        I know the recovery time for different people is different, but I just wonder if next day your legs are as fresh as normal, does that mean you haven't run fast enough for the tempo run?

         

        I do feel many run tempos too fast  based on an exact pace but you have to consider weather, wind, heat, humidity or just how your body is feeling that day. Trying to hit a certain pace may be too fast that day. Think of a solid pace but you are not flailing and you could feel like you could keep running when done. If you are beat to hell, you know it is too hard or race like OR if you are very sore the next day, you ran it too hard. You may feel a bit fatigued the next day but nothing crazy. If you had to do another "work out" 48 hrs later, you should be able to do it! Remember, you are still getting benefits if your pace is a bit slower on tempo day if you are feeling like you are working at "tempo" pace.

        Those who try, fail! Those who do what it takes to succeed, succeed!!

          Its worth pointing out that for most people working near race pace over a given distance heart rate will tend to increase at a constant pace. Conversely at a constant heart rate pace will decrease.

           

          On the other hand if you run at an easy pace then at constant heart rate you'll usually have constant pace.

          I've never heard of this--I'm not arguing, it could very well be the case.  Do you have any source?  Why is it that way?  I thought the HR would stay relatively the same--steady; and that's why we call this Steady State.


          Pura Vida

            I've never heard of this--I'm not arguing, it could very well be the case.  Do you have any source?  Why is it that way?  I thought the HR would stay relatively the same--steady; and that's why we call this Steady State.

             

            This sounds like the VO2Slow that I was reading about recently.  A quick google pulled up this article which makes the following statement:

             

            "The existence of the VO2 slow component means that the assumption that a steady state in oxygen uptake will always be attained irrespective of the speed at which an individual is exercising is untenable. Rather, for any individual, there will be a wide range of exercise speeds for which a steady state in oxygen uptake or HR cannot be attained.  This obviously has important implications for the design of training sessions. For example, if a coach asks an athlete to perform a continuous exercise session at a constant speed and at a HR corresponding to, say, 90% of the maximum, it will not be possible for the athlete to satisfy both requests. If the athlete maintains the desired exercise speed, then the HR will increase over time from 90% early in the session towards the maximum as the session proceeds. Alternatively, if the athlete sticks rigidly to the prescribed HR, then he or she would have to gradually reduce the exercising speed during the training session."

            PRs: 5K: 25:35 / 10K: 53:03 / 10mi: 1:26:15 / HM: 1:55:02

            Upcoming: Beat the Blerch 10K 9/21, Portland Marathon (debut) 10/5

              I've always based my LT runs based on HR and not a specific pace. That helps eliminate some of the outside factors (wind, hills etc). My max HR is 182, I try to run my LT/Tempo runs in the 85-92% of that. So 154-167.

               

              HR isn't a perfect science either, that can vary based on a lot of other factors too. But it works for me.

               

              85-92% of HR max is not LT pace.  If you are holding 92% of your HR max for 4, 6 or 7 miles, then you don't really know what your HR max is.

                Quote from RunningNut on 3/20/2013 at 7:41 AM:

                I've always based my LT runs based on HR and not a specific pace. That helps eliminate some of the outside factors (wind, hills etc). My max HR is 182, I try to run my LT/Tempo runs in the 85-92% of that. So 154-167.

                 

                HR isn't a perfect science either, that can vary based on a lot of other factors too. But it works for me.

                 

                heelgrad92 posted:

                 

                85-92% of HR max is not LT pace.  If you are holding 92% of your HR max for 4, 6 or 7 miles, then you don't really know what your HR max is.

                 

                It's probably not far off. RunningNut didn't indicate his pace at that effort or how long he held it. If it's 8min/mi, then 7 miles would take 56min, a little long for LT run, but not unrealistic to hold for 85% of HRmax. (I didn't see anything about 4, 6, or 7 miles in his post so not sure where that came from.) LT runs / tempo are typically 20-40min "comfortably hard". It would also depend on what definition you're using for LT and what protocols for determining it. But pace a person can race in a 1-hr race is a typical functional definition for LT pace. As you're aware, pace and effort are very different things unless you're on flat terrain without snow and wind.

                 

                For curiosity, have you had your LT tested in a lab and related that to your HRmax and pace to know that it's not possible?

                "So many people get stuck in the routine of life that their dreams waste away. This is about living the dream." - Cave Dog

                  The only odd thing about runningnut's post is the huge range that he lists for his LT.  I don't find it odd that it could be anywhere from 85 to 92 percent, but for me my LT seems to be a much more narrow range.  I haven't had my threshold tested, but from my limited experience it seems like my number is somewhere right around 173 to 175 HR.  175 is right at 90% of my Max HR of 194.

                   

                  Here's an example from a recent race.

                   

                  Splits (GPS Interval)
                   TypeDistance Split settingsDurationTotal DurationPaceAvg HRMax HRNotes
                  1 Manual 1 mi 7:49.68 7:49.68 7:50 160 169  
                  2 Manual 1 mi 7:46.35 15:36.03 7:47 165 172  
                  3 Manual 1 mi 7:50.22 23:26.25 7:51 168 172  
                  4 Manual 1 mi 7:51.53 31:17.78 7:52 170 174  
                  5 Manual 1 mi 8:01.96 39:19.74 8:02 173 178  
                  6 Manual 1 mi 8:45.99 48:05.73 8:46 177 182  
                  7 Manual 1 mi 8:55.43 57:01.16 8:56 174 177  
                  8 Manual 1 mi 7:48.38 1:04:49.54 7:49 175 180  
                  9 Manual 0.71 mi 5:09.46 1:09:59 7:16 179

                  184

                   

                  At mile 4.9 we turned into a 30+ mph headwind and I kept pushing it into the wind.  My HR kept climbing through mile 5 and I went over what I think my LT is and knew I couldn't sustain that pace the rest of the way and had to back off a little to get it back down under 175.  Once I got it back under 175, I was able to keep it there for another couple miles and then push it in that last mile.

                  Age: 46 Weight: 205 Height: 6'2" (Goal weight 195)

                  Current PR's:  Mara 3:48:09; HM 1:43:26; 10K 43:59; 5K 21:27

                    Quote from RunningNut on 3/20/2013 at 7:41 AM:

                     

                    heelgrad92 posted:

                     

                    It's probably not far off. RunningNut didn't indicate his pace at that effort or how long he held it. If it's 8min/mi, then 7 miles would take 56min, a little long for LT run, but not unrealistic to hold for 85% of HRmax. (I didn't see anything about 4, 6, or 7 miles in his post so not sure where that came from.) LT runs / tempo are typically 20-40min "comfortably hard". It would also depend on what definition you're using for LT and what protocols for determining it. But pace a person can race in a 1-hr race is a typical functional definition for LT pace. As you're aware, pace and effort are very different things unless you're on flat terrain without snow and wind.

                     

                    For curiosity, have you had your LT tested in a lab and related that to your HRmax and pace to know that it's not possible?

                     

                    On the HR range, Pfitzinger disagrees with you as does just about every other source I have read about it.  If you are running 90-95% of your HR max, you are running a 5K race, not a tempo run.  I know exactly what my HR max is from several 5K races as well as a cardiac stress test I took, but I confess I have not had my blood lactate levels measured while I run.  I don't need to.  I have been in that 90% and 92% of HR max many times in 5K races as a per mile HR average, and that is not a tempo effort.

                      What's the difference between Lactate Threshold, Anaerobic Threshold, and Aerobic Threshold?

                       

                      It seems like many people talk about Lactate Threshold in a way similar to how I think of Anaerobic Threshold. (I guess I admit I may be wrong in my understanding)

                      I think about Lactate Threshold as the point where Lactate first becomes greater than O2 (lactate levels in your blood are greater than what your body can process)

                       

                      FWIW, I did have a lactate threshold test in mid-February, and was told that the point where Lactate > O2 is at 155 bpm.


                      I believe that npaden's LT (as I define LT) is well below the 173-175bpm number he describes in his post.  Yes, he ran 1 hour at a HR level at or above 173 but if that number is the baseline for him to use and say something to the effect of "do xx% of my training below LT", then I have a feeling that the line in the sand is at the wrong place.

                      The problem (as I see it) is that people that are reading posts by people like me (or many others) begin to interpret things and create a plan without understanding what they are reading.

                      Oh well...

                      (npaden... nothing personal.  Just providing my thoughts and questions after reading your post)

                      2014 Goals:

                      #1: Do what I can do. <DOING>

                      #2: 365 Hours training <NOPE, INJURED>

                       


                      Finally PRed!!!

                         

                        85-92% of HR max is not LT pace.  If you are holding 92% of your HR max for 4, 6 or 7 miles, then you don't really know what your HR max is.

                         

                        Actually Daniels gives the range of about 88-92% of HRmax for threshold runs, and 92% as the approximate HR associated with constant blood-lactate value for trained runners (Daniels' Running Formula, Second Edition, p. 23, pp. 111-112):

                         

                        Pfitz gives the HR range in % HRmax for lactate-threshold workouts as 82-91 (Advanced Marathoning, Second Edition, p. 19).

                         

                        Daniels describes tempo (threshold) runs as efforts 20-30 min long at one-hour race pace. Pfitz gives distances in miles (4-7 as you describe above, which take many of us longer than 20-30 min) so it makes sense that he gives a range of HR values that starts lower. Of course Daniels also has a chart that gives slower paces for longer tempo runs.

                         

                        But I don't really see how/why you can say that runs in range of 85-92% HRmax can't be tempo/threshold runs.

                        PRs: 5K: 22:09, 10K:44:55, 15K: 1:10:35, HM: 1:42:49, M: 3:38:20

                           

                          On the HR range, Pfitzinger disagrees with you as does just about every other source I have read about it.  If you are running 90-95% of your HR max, you are running a 5K race, not a tempo run.  I know exactly what my HR max is from several 5K races as well as a cardiac stress test I took, but I confess I have not had my blood lactate levels measured while I run.  I don't need to.  I have been in that 90% and 92% of HR max many times in 5K races as a per mile HR average, and that is not a tempo effort.

                          The original range mentioned was 85-92% HRmax, iirc. You just changed that to 90-95% HRmax, which is a different zone, probably closer to 5k effort as you suggest. Actually, I thought 5k was closer to 95-98% and above, but could be wrong since I don't use that zone.  I'd suggest that 90-92% HRmax might be on the low end for a 5k based on my reading, or a hilly 5k that takes a bit longer than a regular 5k. Just because 90-95% HRmax overlaps a little with 85-92% HRmax, doesn't invalidate the latter as LT effort. Actually, I'm betting that some folks can hold 90% HRmax for a 10k.

                           

                          As I'm sure you're aware "lactate threshold" has several definitions and a number of protocols to estimate that effort. Similarly "tempo" has many definitions, so it's hard to compare two ambiguities.

                           

                          I do agree with npaden in using a narrower zone for LT.  I have a sweet spot at about 86-87% HRmax that I can hold a bit longer than an hour in a race. If I go much higher than that I risk hyperventilating (atrial arrhythmia kicks in as shown in stress test) unless I'm almost at the finish or it feels ok. (glad I like longer races) So my 30-60min race efforts are fairly similar.

                           

                          Training to improve LT has been variously suggested to be below LT, at LT, or above it - depending upon the stimulus intended. Hence, while 92% HRmax might be closer to 5k effort, I wouldn't exclude it from a broad definition of LT training.

                           

                           

                          Ahh, looks like not too swift looked it up to confirm the zones where I was mostly winging it. thanks. (hadn't read that before posting)

                          "So many people get stuck in the routine of life that their dreams waste away. This is about living the dream." - Cave Dog

                            To the OP (or anyone else getting freaked out by the rat hole this thread has gone down):

                             

                            No, running is not this complicated. "About 1 hour race pace" or "comfortably hard" has worked just fine for generations of runners, from work-a-day hobbyjoggers to Olympic and world champions.

                            Runners run.

                              I agree with Mikey Mike. Effort is most important. I am a numbers freak but I cannot shoot for a certain percentage on a tempo run or I run them too hard-way too hard - race like. My 1st mile yesterday of 5K race avg 86% of my maxHR. My avg HR for the race was 91% and I don't feel I could have run faster (it was very cool BTW).  These percentage vary depending on fitness level of the runner. If not aerobically fit, your HRs will skyrocket and soon......

                               

                              I was running way faster than my tempo pace in this race but still only 86% of max at mile 1.. It is very common for me to be in the low 80s% of max HR my first mile of a tempo but rarely do I get to 90% of max HR in a tempo run even at the end unless it is warm/humid and then I will. It's too fast at least for me in moderate/cool temps. Effort is key and you should always feel like you could run more when done with a tempo work out.

                              Those who try, fail! Those who do what it takes to succeed, succeed!!


                              Feeling the growl again

                                TL*;DR

                                 

                                *Way too many numbers and percentages in this thread.

                                 

                                No offense intended to those who use HRMs and feel they add value to their training, but IMHO HRMs are one of the worst things to happen to newer runners.  Too much data of the wrong kind; this thread is like watching a school of red herrings swim by.

                                "If you want to be a bad a$s, then do what a bad a$s does.  There's your pep talk for today.  Go Run." -- Slo_Hand