I love that this question is coming up.
Not because you ask for a cook book for a workout , but you hit an incredible crucial section for all readers who look at the difference between live physiological workouts and classical based speculative training and intensity ideas.
Unfortunate we only can over time understand this concept , when we start to look at more critical existing ideas as they relate to this crucial question. But before I show an incredible greta section Of V. Billats presentation
Yes more than 20 years back and we are not further in fact we have groups abusing the myth of LT to , for me at teals, destroy the incredible benefit NIRS could bring into a training concept based on individual live ideas.
I have a rather naive question. If one is to do intervals to stimulate
lactate shuttle or lactate energy system:
It is a key question how we function with physiological training. BUT it iss not a lactate system on its own.
The training idea have different goals as we so often look at.
1. Do we like to " shuttle lactate in and out of muscle areas so do we stimulate the production of proteins and the 2 more famous once are MCT 1 and MCT4 or
2. do we " shuttle " or better shift blood from one area of the body to another area so with this as well O2 supply as this is always what we look for. or
3. Do we try to shift energy in from of lactate form the upper body to the lows body for example.
This three example s to keep the cook book on a starter flame burning. So all three demand a very specific physiological situation, that they can take place and that thee idea is stimulate initially functional and than over time structural. Now
Seboo the grpah below explains your reaction there is always initially a functional reaction and that progress is relative fast. To actually stabilize the progress you have to get into the time frame of a structural adaptation and that is what we see with regular calibration in workouts with MOXY
Now if we look at lactate w e may have to accept thet LT is a useless concept based on a lot of believes and 25 different churches as we have 25 different LT concepts. Her from a much smarter person a simple summary of what is going wrong again and again.
As long we do not understand the faith of lactate and what it is used or not used for we can not move forward to a physiological idea , where classical ideas simply can not accept .
Many scientists and coaches use the label "anaerobic threshold" interchangeably with these concepts confusing what is supposed to be a scientific coaching principle. Just because the same label is used does not mean analogous concepts are being discussed. Since there would be different coaching and performance implications from each of the above concepts, the blanket use of this term will foster many erroneous coaching prescriptions and procedures.
Lactate accumulation indicates a shift from solely oxidative to an additional glycolytic energy supply. Lactic acid production is due to the activation of glycolysis which is more rapid than activation of oxidative phosphorylation. This is indicated by a steep non-linear increase of blood lactate in relation to power output and time. That accumulation can be attributed to disparities in the rate of lactate production and removal, even for work intensities under those which elicit VO2max. Lactate production is not related to oxygen deficit but rather to the increase of the glycolysis flux. (p. 159)
Lactate is produced constantly, not just during hard exercise. It may be the most dynamic metabolite produced during exercise since its appearance exceeds that of any other metabolite studied. The constancy of the blood lactate level means that entry into and removal of lactate from the blood are in balance.
The turnover of lactic acid during exercise is several times greater for a given blood lactate level than at rest. For a given blood lactate level, lactate removal is several times greater in trained than in untrained persons.
Several factors are responsible for the lactate inflection point during graded exercise.
- Contraction stimulates glycogenolysis and lactate production.
- Hormone recruitment affects both glycogenolysis and glycolysis.
- Recruitment of glycolytic fast-twitch fibers increases lactate production.
- Blood-flow redistribution from lactate-removing gluconeogenic tissues to lactate-producing glycolytic tissues causes lactate levels to rise as exercise requires continually increasing power output.
Lactate values differ according to several variables: the activity being performed, the site from where the blood sample is taken, the environment itself (both physical and its effect on the athlete's psychology), and the state of glycogen stores prior to testing. Unless these variables and others, such as day-to-day cycles in general physiology, as well as variations in test administration and athlete performance of each test segment, can be controlled and made consistent between test administrations it is likely that score differences will be unreliable. The practice of attributing any observed lactate-test differences, no matter how small, to training effects or as revealing the trained state is extremely dubious at best.
When scientists cannot agree upon a concept's definition, let alone the appropriate label to use, as well as the appropriate method/protocol of assessment, then the practical use of the "general implications" of the concept is foundationally prohibited. Until this situation is clarified and discrepancies removed, field testing for "lactate-threshold" should be avoided. There are more profitable and useful activities for athletes and coaches to be engaged in.
Of significance to coaching is the concept itself. The common misunderstanding that the anaerobic threshold is the state where aerobic activity is dominant and maximal and anaerobic activity constant but "insignificant" is very prevalent. There are few competitive activities or events where such a circumstance is desirable.
Most activities do not require all body parts to be involved in an activity at the same intensity level. A cyclist will work the legs extremely hard but, by comparison, the rest of the body will function comfortably in an aerobic zone of metabolic activity. A swimmer pounding out stroke after stroke in a 1500 m race works the arms at an intensity that employs a high level of anaerobic energy supply but the rest of the body is "relaxed" and functioning at quite a basic aerobic level. Even in running, in a marathon the legs work hard while the arms and upper body "save energy." In these activities, lactate is produced by the primary working muscles and resynthesized by the muscles engaged in mild supportive activity. Those muscles cleanse or "sponge" out lactate so that the blood supply to the hard working muscles is quite low in acidity when returned to those muscles. Thus, any lactate measure is a measure of the "general functioning" of the body, not the actual work performed by the primary sporting muscles. Differences in technique most probably would account for a significant portion of many inter-individual differences in lactate assessments than work levels or movement economy.
In many "aerobic" sports the actual prime mover muscle groups work at an anaerobic level rather than aerobically as is inferred from anaerobic threshold testing. The common perception of anaerobic threshold does not give any information or understanding of what actually is happening in important aspects of a performance. Even the slightest improvement in movement economy (technique) in the "anaerobic prime movers" could make a significant difference to performance.
So you can easy see the three options I outlined on the top based on the physiological faith of the lactate shuttle idea. ( Introduced 1985 by the way. G Brooks )
An unavoidable dilemma. Sport scientists are ethically bound to represent the worth of lactate testing and the inferences that are commonly proposed. This is what is known.
- Lactate concepts and measures are limited/specific to each testing protocol.
- Results from one protocol cannot be used to generalize or infer values to other testing protocols.
- If one cannot infer from one lactate testing protocol to another then it is illogical to generalize lactate testing results to a competitive performance.
- It is a greater stretch of the imagination to leap conceptually from an inferentially-limited measure under controlled conditions to the dynamic circumstances of a competitive or practice setting.
- At most, lactate and lactate threshold measurements reveal changes but have limited to possibly non-existent inferential capacities about future performances (even training performances let alone competitive performances).
- Lactate and lactate threshold measurements can reveal that they have changed as a result of training, but, if those changes are unrelated to competitive performances what is their value?
- There are no national or international competitive events that reward medals for lactate threshold changes, levels, or testing protocols.
So you can see the fun task for the future coaches . review what we believe and than critically ad NIRS to it and be open , that many questions will show up , which can not be answered with what we believe in. Below is one of the firsts world wide live assessment with a VO2 equipment which is now paired with MOXY so great to proof what we show since many years as we did not had the luxury of having this in one piece of equipment.
Look the graph below. I will dedicate full thread to this Swiss group, who works with Swinco on this incredible concept but there are some critical information's we have to get over. Look close at the start on SmO2 reaction and VO2 reaction ?????
Now ad lactate to it and take lactate after 30 seconds in this assessment. What values do you get from lactate and from VO2 and what from NIRS. Where do we have the first big fundamental question ?
Last to close this future discussion up . below a lactate " shuttle " or better energy usable interval workout from world class cyclist 10 years ago. What you see are NIRS Portamon ( artinis ) data form 3 interval ideas the top trace green is TSI % The green in the red blue graph is tHb and red is O2HB and blue is HHb as usual
all intervals had the same 400 watt load but we used different recovery modes in between loads.
The lactate was in all three loads tested at the end of the total interval section and than 3 min later again. The key was to proof for us, that we can actually either " burn off " lactate which is a terrible idea, so the idea of cooling down to get rid of lactate or the ideas to massage lactic acid out by massage people sounds great, but it would be a terrible waste of a great energy source if it would be possible..
So you can see, that we successful where able to create a training /recovery idea , where we no just where able to "hold" lactate in the system as an energy source needed for the next sprint or load or workout section, but we actually where able to increase it so not to use it as an energy source.