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.
4 Likes
He doesn’t use LT2, he uses CP as the ‘second threshold’
1 Like
No, he first defines LT as mentioned, then in the FTP section he references that paper. However, what you say is not true, the paper doesn’t use just a cutoff of ~4nmol it uses the Dmax procedure
In any case, it appears that Mr. Skiba is a bit sloppy in the LT discussion.
1 Like
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.
2 Likes
I don’t think what you guys call LT2 is what you think it is:
Maybe listening too much Seiler is the issue.
The researchers have a decent methodology to select the categories they did. Perhaps they should have included podcasts and youtube?
Concepts were selected as follows: First, published concepts were
retrieved from a review by Faude et al. [9] and by a literature research within the PubMed
database. The database was searched for the search terms ‘lactate threshold’, ‘aerobic threshold’, ‘anaerobic threshold’, ‘endurance performance’ or ‘maximal lactate steady state’ or similar
terms in different combinations. The references of the selected articles were searched for further relevant articles. Secondly, retrieved concepts were divided into seven different categories,
see S1 Table. A few retrieved concepts could not be implemented, reasons being lacking lactate
concentrations in the recovery phase after exercise and no availability of the full text article
describing the method of the concept despite various efforts obtaining it. (S1 Table, listed
under “not selected categories”). From each remaining category, concepts that were representative and were used frequently in other research were selected. If there were multiple concepts
in one category that were commonly used and fundamentally different in methodology, more
than one concept of that category was included in the analysis. Selecting multiple commonly
used, but very similar concepts from one category was not deemed useful for the purpose of
this study. This resulted in a final selection of eight concepts from the five implementable categories for analysis in our study
Well, there’s solid evidence that they are very close for elite Marathon ppl. Why It can be the case for cyclists?
My point is that this elusive, not well understood threshold could be anywhere below FTP, CP, MLSS, LT4, up to a few watts below it, and the performance of world tour cyclist seems to indicate as much.
@tshortt mentioned a paper above:
2 Likes
Yes, LT1 and LT2 will be very close for elite marathoners, however, these are still different physiological turnpoints and only especially close for marathoners (or probably other steady effort sports like triathlon) because their VLmax is very very low and they effectively have less “gears” to work with. It will be quite different for all other than ultra endurance cyclist. Cycling race is not a steady state, even TT depending in course might have turns, hills, etc
3 Likes
lots of time riding around LT1…works for me 
3 Likes
Ok, back on this point… From the San Millan / Brooks 2017 metabolic flexibility paper:
I don’t look at many lactate curves, but it seems like LT1 and LT2 are separated by more than a few watts in the international-level professional endurance athletes.
And those professional endurance athletes were:
world tour pro cyclists.
3 Likes
And it seems like a definition of LT1 could help too…
You read that wrong, that was moderate activity.
This LT1 being very close to LT2 for eltite marathoners is something I’ve read a lot. But I’ve never seen any data. Of course, if they use baseline + 1mmol and a definition for LT2 which yields a lower conc this may be true.
And what is close, this is recent data from the breaking 2h project. I guess these guys can be called elite:
Is this close? I have no idea.
apart from this, I have no idea what you guys actually argue about. Skiba does not use LT1 or LT2 in his training model. Good. And now?
It’s not THAT hard…just ride LT1 'ish for quite a lot of time. Specific enough?
Thanks. Seems like this is some evidence that I’m wrong…however, I see these guys training a lot a 300 watts, and it seems like they could go forever at that pace. It would be better if it we had w/kg data.
Yes, from that paper. If you look at them as % of vo2max. Those speeds look quite close, but vo2 demands of running are not linear with pace.
ok, hard enough so its not too easy, but definitely not hard enough to get in the way of other sessions. Start for a fairly long time and progress steadily until you’re really doing it for quite a long time, pretty regularly.
2 Likes