The key component to Road Racing: LT?

[quote="Toks"][quote="Robh"]
Even Coggan doesn't understand!
Rob

[Toks]

[quote="Robh"]

Of course he wouldn't understand most of Juerg's posts...I assume he's doesn't have like most of us here a Phd in physiology .

[quote="Toks"][quote="Robh"]

Of course he wouldn't understand most of Juerg's posts...I assume he's doesn't have like most of us here a Phd in physiology .

[Toks]

Rob have you seen this thread on the wattage forum -
"Performing LT test with a power meter and a standard magnetic trainer Options"

[Robh]

[quote="Toks"]Rob have you seen this thread on the wattage forum -
"Performing LT test with a power meter and a standard magnetic trainer Options"

[quote="Robh"][quote="Toks"]Rob have you seen this thread on the wattage forum -
"Performing LT test with a power meter and a standard magnetic trainer Options"

[quote="Toks"][quote="Robh"][quote="Toks"]Rob have you seen this thread on the wattage forum -
"Performing LT test with a power meter and a standard magnetic trainer Options"

[Toks]

There's already a mention from FaCT's Hunter Allen. I'll post later when the debate develops some more

[Robh]

Just joined forum again...

[Robh]

From Hunter Allen co-author of Training and Racing with a Power Meter book :-

Because there is a difference between MLSS and FTP.
And the percentage that changes between the two is significant and helps you to better understand the type of training an athlete needs. The only BL test that I think is worthy is the FACT test out of Canada.

That's a test that makes sense to me and I have used it for years with hundreds of athletes. It most of the times tells me more than what a PM can. Sometimes it doesn't. Check out http://www.FACT-CANADA.com

My January webinar for coaches is going to incorporate some thoughts on this(I call it my bathtub theory).

[Toks]

[quote="Robh"]From Hunter Allen co-author of Training and Racing with a Power Meter book :-

Because there is a difference between MLSS and FTP.
And the percentage that changes between the two is significant and helps you to better understand the type of training an athlete needs. The only BL test that I think is worthy is the FACT test out of Canada.

That's a test that makes sense to me and I have used it for years with hundreds of athletes. It most of the times tells me more than what a PM can. Sometimes it doesn't. Check out http://www.FACT-CANADA.com

My January webinar for coaches is going to incorporate some thoughts on this(I call it my bathtub theory).

[Robh]

Yes your right I'm DESPERATE!!!! Come on Toks....Your funny! Well your not going to post it are ya so I might aswell .

Ther'es nothing neagtive to post as the FaCT test is a tool just like your Kurt Kinetic turbo trainer with power is Ok?

I don't need to sell it...People can decide for themselves. It's a nice hobby I enjoy doing.

[Robh]

I emailed Hunter Allen and asked him about the test in March Toks when I saw he was level I certified, he gave praised it so I could have pulled that one out of the bag ages ok.

But I didn't...

Hi Juerg

[quote]Great discussion , and I like te comparison from the swiss sun and the spanish sun.
In both cases , if you go and stay too often and too long in the sun you have a perfect example of an functional reaction going wrong , due to an overload. You get red , blister and burn.

[Juerg FaCT]

1. First to Tok. Hey your suggestion is really great.I did that many many years back in our initial discussion on FaCT and 2 and 4mmol and other classical testing.It is unfortunately in Germand , but you are right I should take the time and get it translated in english .
I thinkit is great to have this positive critics and I will try to improve( despite my age).

2. To Paul : Don't worry I confuse myself more often , when I read my own "swenglish" explanations"
LBP - 20 and an effective training intensity. Paul you are right. Using LBP - 20 or any number is about the same "bad"idea asusing % of max. H and or Max .Wattage.
15 years back wehad no better solutions, but using LBP and than - some HR beats.
Today we try to use respiration rate toperhaps find trends, where STF and FTF may come close to a change in intensity.
You could seepossible sometrends as wellwith CO2 testing.
Here the possible explanation why respiration rate may be used.
As the body has to try to find amore eficient way of producing ATP it may shift from mainly ( but not only) fat to mainly but not only glucose, the CO2 production will go up, who than will stimmulate the RR. (some people willuse this asthe VT = ventilatory threshold) In some but not allcases we seeachange in RRand short before or after a change in SpO2.This is , what we use asatrend info when we choose STF trainingversus FTF a training.
Nowthe interesting part is :
Burning Fat needs more O2 thanburning glucose.
So we believe, that just on the place where we switch this physioloical reaction may be the best stimmulus forthat particular idea( overload ) just above the level where we see thsi trend. (Overload of O2 useas apotential stimmulus of mitochondria development due to relative hypoxia )

Last but not least toTOK.
Yes I willstart touse full names with explanations in Bracket for better understanding.
So let's start here:
PBP = please be patient.