Last week, I emailed one of the world’s renowned coaches with a few questions. I had a pretty darn good idea of the answer, but it cannot hurt to ask for a second opinion, right? Afterall, even the top athletes with the best sports medicine and orthopedist doctors seek out second and third opinions. To become the best, you have to learn from the best and be willing to be open minded towards other opinions. What I was asking, was how he exactly defined lactate threshold as the scientific community still has not had a conclusive definition, and if a field test we have been performing for years to determine training zones was in fact accurate. I wanted to hear him defend his methods, why it was good, why it is valid, and what is the reasoning behind it. Purpose of this? To learn. The day you think you know everything, is the day you in fact, know nothing. As Socrates stated, “The only true wisdom is in knowing you know nothing.” Words such as that have fueled me to learn as much as I can, from every person I can reach out too, every book I can read, and every seminar I can watch.
To my surprise, I got a response from the coach within 6 hours. When I saw the email I was very excited. This quickly faded however. The new equipment Ascension Multisport ordered was a portable lactate analyzer (Lactate Plus, Nova Medical), a treadmill, and a computrainer. Testing is the best method to determine zones due to it being a direct measurement. It is not an indirect assumption, nor an estimation with formula that is geared for one standard deviation of the population. With a good well thought out protocol; good equipment; and smart coach- the testing is simple, and accurate. If you are missing any part of the three, you will either have useless data, flawed data, or no way of accurately interpreting the data.
His response did not answer any of my questions, but insisted that the equipment is not useful due to accuracy issues of measurement, and also being in a lab setting not real world. The remainder of the response said that field testing (i.e. estimations and assumptions) is better and more accurate due to the previously mentioned lab setting/accuracy issues. It almost came off as a sales pitch to buy his books (which I already own, have read numerous times, and wrote in the email that I have purchased/read). Hmmmm… Let’s break down his response further.
While I am open minded to his answer, I do have several issues with it. His field testing is something I have been doing for years, so I am not opposed to it and it typically will be close enough to give the athlete results, but are they the best results you can get? Probably not. If you are complacent with what you have, you will never improve. In this case, we have something that works, but here is an option that can and will work better. Why should we not adapt to new knowledge, new technology, and new schools of thought? Read the “About Us” page and you’ll learn that I am all about maximal improvements, hitting your potential, and then becoming even better than that. I do not require my athletes to get the lab testing done, it is solely an option I provide and HIGHLY recommend to help you ascend to your peak capabilities. My main issue with his answer can be summed up in a single counter argument for each. There are less variables to be controlled in a lab setting, and also the equipment is scientifically backed.
When researching equipment, we wanted reliability and accuracy. This meaning, it is going to give us correct data, and be able to test with a high degree of repeatability. In researching lactate analyzers there were four options. Lacate Plus (LP), Lactate Pro, Lactate Scout (LS), and Accutrend. We discovered that out of the four options, only two were available for sale in the US. Accutrend (discontinued) and Lactate Pro (Version 1 discontinued but available, will soon be obsolete, and version 2 not approved for sale in US) were immediately removed from the list. This left us with two, the Lactate Plus and Lactate Scout units. In the research on these devices, the LP had a slightly larger range of measurement, less features (i.e. less to go wrong), more affordable testing strips, the analyzer itself was a lower price point, longer shelf life for test strips, and most importantly? It was more accurate. In the first study I found is out of Australia by Tanner, Fuller, and Ross. They compared the LS, LP and Lactate Pro. Lactate Pro and LP were found to be significantly accurate and reliable, and the LS was reliable, but not as accurate or reliable as the other two. This was striking to me, as the fancier device with more features, higher price point, and higher running cost was actually the least viable option? Funny how that works out, isn’t it?
Let us dig deeper, is there anything that will establish more for the LP before we invest? The answer is yes. Wheaton College out of Illinois (2013) tested the LP unit for reliability and accuracy. While it was found to be more accurate when tested out of capillary tube rather than directly from the finger, it was still found to correlate with or without use of the capillary tube. While there was a difference found between how the sample was obtained, the methods section of the study does not indicate how the finger stick was done. In the scientific community, it is known that “milking” the finger for a sample may dilute the sample and throw off the reading. The initial drop that comes out is also not going to be most accurate due to sweat on the finger, and it is best to wipe away the first drop and then re sample. It does not state if this was done. It also says that the first sample from each reading was for the portable analyzer. If this first drop was not wiped away, it would explain the difference between sampling method. Either way, it still correlated and was found to be reliable and accurate.
As for testing outside, there are too many factors that cannot be controlled or maintained throughout the entire test. In cycling and running, one of the biggest factors is weather. In a lab, you get data that has no outside factors, no change in variables, therefor you get un-adultered data. This data then, is able to be adjusted as needed for weather. Throughout the test there is great range of variables that may change. When setting the zones, we do not want variables to change, we want consistency. Even more importantly, as most amateur cyclists don’t have one, if you do not have a power meter: you cannot have a guaranteed sustained power output throughout the test, and there will be a degree of variability present. The Computrainer solves this through what is called “ergo” mode. Ergo mode is where it will adjust resistance to maintain a certain power as specified by the tester, regardless of cadence/gearing. If you slow down cadence, it increases resistance and vice versa. This is crucial in testing as the intensity of the effort will determine the lactate production.
Testing on a treadmill is not anecdotally ideal. Most outdoor runners hate treadmill, and most indoor runners hate running outside. As someone who has a tough time running on a treadmill- I get that. Digging into the research however, the reasons to not test on a treadmill are slim. A 1% grade is viable for replacing the cost of overcoming wind resistance; even at large inclines energy cost was similar between both conditions; RPE has been shown to not be a good indicator for testing, necessitating a way to quantify the work being done; and different surfaces have different energy costs. To truly test accurately outside, weather has to be mild, it has to be a small loop that will allow for testing roughly every 3 minutes (yet the distance covered in that time changes as speed increases), the individual must be experienced with pacing, and other equipment such as a GPS watch and a track are necessary, effort level will typically not be equal throughout all portions of the loop, and it is much harder to stay organized without a place to dispose of test strips/lancets, hold all the required materials, etc. Testing is capable of being performed outside, it is just much more difficult. With running speeds being much lower than in cycling, there will be less effect from weather. However it still will have an effect, and the smaller the amount of variables that need to be controlled, the better off you will be.
To my surprise, I got a response from the coach within 6 hours. When I saw the email I was very excited. This quickly faded however. The new equipment Ascension Multisport ordered was a portable lactate analyzer (Lactate Plus, Nova Medical), a treadmill, and a computrainer. Testing is the best method to determine zones due to it being a direct measurement. It is not an indirect assumption, nor an estimation with formula that is geared for one standard deviation of the population. With a good well thought out protocol; good equipment; and smart coach- the testing is simple, and accurate. If you are missing any part of the three, you will either have useless data, flawed data, or no way of accurately interpreting the data.
His response did not answer any of my questions, but insisted that the equipment is not useful due to accuracy issues of measurement, and also being in a lab setting not real world. The remainder of the response said that field testing (i.e. estimations and assumptions) is better and more accurate due to the previously mentioned lab setting/accuracy issues. It almost came off as a sales pitch to buy his books (which I already own, have read numerous times, and wrote in the email that I have purchased/read). Hmmmm… Let’s break down his response further.
While I am open minded to his answer, I do have several issues with it. His field testing is something I have been doing for years, so I am not opposed to it and it typically will be close enough to give the athlete results, but are they the best results you can get? Probably not. If you are complacent with what you have, you will never improve. In this case, we have something that works, but here is an option that can and will work better. Why should we not adapt to new knowledge, new technology, and new schools of thought? Read the “About Us” page and you’ll learn that I am all about maximal improvements, hitting your potential, and then becoming even better than that. I do not require my athletes to get the lab testing done, it is solely an option I provide and HIGHLY recommend to help you ascend to your peak capabilities. My main issue with his answer can be summed up in a single counter argument for each. There are less variables to be controlled in a lab setting, and also the equipment is scientifically backed.
When researching equipment, we wanted reliability and accuracy. This meaning, it is going to give us correct data, and be able to test with a high degree of repeatability. In researching lactate analyzers there were four options. Lacate Plus (LP), Lactate Pro, Lactate Scout (LS), and Accutrend. We discovered that out of the four options, only two were available for sale in the US. Accutrend (discontinued) and Lactate Pro (Version 1 discontinued but available, will soon be obsolete, and version 2 not approved for sale in US) were immediately removed from the list. This left us with two, the Lactate Plus and Lactate Scout units. In the research on these devices, the LP had a slightly larger range of measurement, less features (i.e. less to go wrong), more affordable testing strips, the analyzer itself was a lower price point, longer shelf life for test strips, and most importantly? It was more accurate. In the first study I found is out of Australia by Tanner, Fuller, and Ross. They compared the LS, LP and Lactate Pro. Lactate Pro and LP were found to be significantly accurate and reliable, and the LS was reliable, but not as accurate or reliable as the other two. This was striking to me, as the fancier device with more features, higher price point, and higher running cost was actually the least viable option? Funny how that works out, isn’t it?
Let us dig deeper, is there anything that will establish more for the LP before we invest? The answer is yes. Wheaton College out of Illinois (2013) tested the LP unit for reliability and accuracy. While it was found to be more accurate when tested out of capillary tube rather than directly from the finger, it was still found to correlate with or without use of the capillary tube. While there was a difference found between how the sample was obtained, the methods section of the study does not indicate how the finger stick was done. In the scientific community, it is known that “milking” the finger for a sample may dilute the sample and throw off the reading. The initial drop that comes out is also not going to be most accurate due to sweat on the finger, and it is best to wipe away the first drop and then re sample. It does not state if this was done. It also says that the first sample from each reading was for the portable analyzer. If this first drop was not wiped away, it would explain the difference between sampling method. Either way, it still correlated and was found to be reliable and accurate.
As for testing outside, there are too many factors that cannot be controlled or maintained throughout the entire test. In cycling and running, one of the biggest factors is weather. In a lab, you get data that has no outside factors, no change in variables, therefor you get un-adultered data. This data then, is able to be adjusted as needed for weather. Throughout the test there is great range of variables that may change. When setting the zones, we do not want variables to change, we want consistency. Even more importantly, as most amateur cyclists don’t have one, if you do not have a power meter: you cannot have a guaranteed sustained power output throughout the test, and there will be a degree of variability present. The Computrainer solves this through what is called “ergo” mode. Ergo mode is where it will adjust resistance to maintain a certain power as specified by the tester, regardless of cadence/gearing. If you slow down cadence, it increases resistance and vice versa. This is crucial in testing as the intensity of the effort will determine the lactate production.
Testing on a treadmill is not anecdotally ideal. Most outdoor runners hate treadmill, and most indoor runners hate running outside. As someone who has a tough time running on a treadmill- I get that. Digging into the research however, the reasons to not test on a treadmill are slim. A 1% grade is viable for replacing the cost of overcoming wind resistance; even at large inclines energy cost was similar between both conditions; RPE has been shown to not be a good indicator for testing, necessitating a way to quantify the work being done; and different surfaces have different energy costs. To truly test accurately outside, weather has to be mild, it has to be a small loop that will allow for testing roughly every 3 minutes (yet the distance covered in that time changes as speed increases), the individual must be experienced with pacing, and other equipment such as a GPS watch and a track are necessary, effort level will typically not be equal throughout all portions of the loop, and it is much harder to stay organized without a place to dispose of test strips/lancets, hold all the required materials, etc. Testing is capable of being performed outside, it is just much more difficult. With running speeds being much lower than in cycling, there will be less effect from weather. However it still will have an effect, and the smaller the amount of variables that need to be controlled, the better off you will be.