This is very encouraging, I’m on a similar path, but volume is very low about 4-5h a week right now. I will ramp it up once I can go outdoors. My target events are in July. That being said I started doing a bit of tempo, using HR limiter (160bpm). I had my first session on Monday. I was afraid it was going to suck, but It felt really easy on the legs and breathing.
So if you got to 75% of 375W for VT1 wouldn’t that be World Tour Pro level?
I asked in the thread on MAP but there is something I’m missing about these “translations” from VO2max to power.
(Sorry for cross posting but wasn’t sure if you’re tracking the MAP thread)
Just catching up. Thanks for flagging. Reading the other thread it makes sense. I was (blindly) following Alan’s numbers.
Sounds like 75% FTP for VT1 will be a good proxy.
The ongoing education and learning on this forum is excellent 
Does the LT1 HR goes higher with training, or is it just the wattage that you can put at the same heartrate?
The second one.
It was all here right in our noses.
The issue with that study is that lt2 wasnt reported, just tte at 88% vo2 max. With how they define lt1, it is going to overestimate it using 2 minute steps so it would have been beneficial to see the estimate for lt2 using the same protocol.
If you look at the 30 minute bout at 80% of vo2max, even the high lt group was mostly around 2.5 mmol, which could easily be above lt1 for most people, or at least the very top of it if you want to say it is a range from baseline up to 1 mmol above it, assuming their baseline was 1.5, its still on the high side of that threshold. Then 88% vo2 was approximately mlss, so still a fairly normal distance between the two.
At the moment, I’m enjoying the new Skiba’s book, it has a ton of references and it has a good blend of theory and practice. He doesn’t seem to make any distinction between LT1 and LT2, his model of physiology has LT, CP and W’. It appears that in very well trained cyclists (w/kg >4.5), the distinction of LT1/LT2 is useless and correlates ok with FTP.
The usual caveat is that all these LT analysis are conditional on the testing methodology used.
He says this or you are saying this?
I’m paraphrasing, but Skiba is saying this and he is supporting it with the study I referenced.
I guess the revelation is that LT1 = LT2 for highly trained athletes.
I don’t have full access, but it is discussing ftp = lt2 in well-trained cyclists, but ftp is lower than lt2 in recreational cyclists.
Cp is generally a little higher than lt2, as if you try to maintain power at Cp, you will be above Cp about half the time and experience increasing lactate concentrations.
Cp is used because it is easier to measure, lt2 is still a bit of a black box while lt1 is fairly easy and reproducible to test.
I have been trying out with estimating Cp with the 3 minute all out test, which is ime less taxing than the ramp test but is still quite demanding. Then i subtract 15 watts to use in tr for setting my workouts. Been working well so far, but vo2 work at 120% of that number is not freaky feasible since it is 20-30 watts higher than my 6 minute best.
I listend to Skiba on a podcast recently (That Triathlon Show probably). I seem to recall him saying that LT1 wasn’t a factor for him. He also prescribes middle intensities.
I have the new book on order.
After clearly defining LT as de rise in lactate of 1 (nmol)…Never talking about LT1, LT2, he goes to say, when talking about FTP:
it is strongly correlated with, and not significantly different from the lactate threshold.
…the quote is in page 37.
I don’t know how can you interpret it different. If you follow what he is saying. He never makes a distinction between LT1 and LT2. And he defines LT clearly:
as de rise in lactate of 1 (nmol)
How is LT2 defined?
Yep, me too. That paper (among others I’m sure) demonstrates strong relationship between LT2 and FTP.
Agree, and I think it also comes down to their belief that you don’t have to train at or near max fax oxidation to improve fat utilization. IOW, all training at or under LT (and even certain types >LT) improves fat oxidation.
I see what you’re saying @Quaestor and I’m not trying to “shoot the messenger” (you). I just think if he says LT1 ~= LT2 (for elites) I’m going to need to see more.
Look at ISM metabolic flexibility paper and in WT Pro cyclists LT1 is not LT2. But as usual, language and methodologies…also inflection point or 2mmol/L or 4mmol/L? Need to see how Skiba defines.
He doesn’t use LT2, he uses CP as the ‘second threshold’
It seems that there’s a ZOO of thresholds and we could be lost in definitions.
@BJRMD Mr. Bruce has a nice article regarding this pickle
Seems like we have a nomenclature issue.
I don’t think what you guys call LT2 is what you think it is:
Maybe listening too much Seiler is the issue.