Question about excercise and fat loss

I thought that the lactate threshold was the point at which you started to accumulate lactic acid? Which is about the same as the anerobi/aerobic threshold is?

I'm only at arround 175W according to the power measurements on the gym bikes (no blood tests but that was sustained for half an hour before my thighs started to burn which I took to be the very slow accumulation of lactic acid so arround the threshold).

I pedal at a high cadence though so I probably flush a lot of it out and int other muscles rather than lettign it build up in my legs doing slow but stronger pedal strokes.

Hmm.. interesting.. it seems that the point at which the blood lactate levels rise in the lactate test is termed onset of blood lactate accumulation.

But a steady state must be reached even with elevated levels since I could exercise for a good few hours at just above OBLA and not feel the same as if I'd sprinted for 30 seconds.

TJ, when were you 'taught'? maybe in the mid 80's. maybe basic physiology that hadn't been updated – like the medical profession tend to get fed….

Muscle cells use carbohydrates without oxygen for energy, producing lactate as a byproduct, but then burn the lactate with oxygen to create far more energy. The heart in particular has a good appetite for lactate as fuel

I'm only at arround 175W according to the power measurements on the gym bikes

As I understand it, your anaerobic threshold is usually measured as your power level for a 10 mile time trial or 30 minute effort. But those gym bikes are way out, since 175W woudl really be a pretty gentle pace even for a weekend biker.

Muscle cells use carbohydrates without oxygen for energy, producing lactate as a byproduct, but then burn the lactate with oxygen to create far more energy.

Right, that explains a lot.. missing piece in my jigsaw. Explains why levels can be elevated but steady.

Molgrips, OBLA has been a known concept since the mid-80's

I'm only at arround 175W according to the power measurements on the gym bikes (no blood tests but that was sustained for half an hour before my thighs started to burn which I took to be the very slow accumulation of lactic acid so arround the threshold).

Well that sounds like a really scientific test – must remember to try it sometime.

As I missunderstand it, your anaerobic threshold is usually sometimes measured by some people as your power level for a 10 mile time trial or 30 minute effort.

is it 10 miles or 30 minutes? there can be quite a difference…..

InterestingiDave. A quick google agrees with you. Every day is a school day on STW.

30 minutes. That better?

EDIT: so you'll google to agree with iDave, but I have to do my own googling which you then ignore?

Too many crikeys, I really need to change my user name…

Yes, iDave I was using 'lactate threshold' because that other boy said it, and I am aware that lactate is used as a fuel.

What I was getting at was that the idea that 'fat burning' as a discrete process is not connected with the onset of accumulation of lactate and/or aerobic or anaerobic metabolism.

Fat is storage of energy, like wardrobes are storage for clothes, when you need more clothes, you can take them out of your wardrobe, but the way you wear those clothes doesn't affect the clothes still in the wardrobe. And if you keep buying clothes and putting them in your wardrobe, your wardrobe will stay full of clothes.

Best to wear more clothes and not buy as many.

(the above may well be a very poor metaphor, or absolute genius…)

why is it thirty mins?

so can you sustain that 30 min level of effort (power output) for 90 mins?

if so, could you have gone faster for the 30 mins?

or is there more than one threshold?

and we haven't even touched on the pysch' aspects……

Fat is storage of energy, but it can only be released at a certain rate. As I understand it…

…..or build a bigger wardrobe

Molgrips – because what you say is often simply wrong. I don't ignore what you say.

You may just be explaining yourself poorly but often you appear to have basic concepts confused.

It seems to me (from my own experience) that if I go over the power level I can sustain for 30 mins then my time to exhaustion falls off a cliff.

When I was on form I could do 330W for 30 minutes, but 350W for only 3 minutes.

Perhaps that's why coaches use the 30 minute test.

I'm very curious tho.. I'm listening if you want to give me more information or suggest reading. The idea of more thresholds seems sensible – from what I've read and heard, some coaches split the common zones 1-5 into sub-zones so perhaps this is why.

but often you appear to have basic concepts confused.

As do you. I've lost count of the number of times a 'quick google' has proved you wrong and me right. But you don't seem to follow up.

and some coaches don't use 'zones' at all

Damn – suckered back in

Molgrips. How many folk on these thread have agreed with you? How many have pointed out basic errors you have made?

Dave clearly has good knowledge. His approach is from a different direction to mine and I don't agree with some of his conclusions but his grasp of the basic science is clearly good.

Hmm TJ/Molgrips pack it in. It appears Molgrips has accepted his errors and is now graciously moving on, I don't think he needs any further beatings.

I looked at HRM 'zones' in some detail, along with weight loss, when I was racing, but came to the conclusion that, for me, they didn't really offer a great deal.

I appreciate I'll probably wind up iDave by saying this, but I feel that so many of the modern training aids tend to focus on the watts or the calories or the power to weight ratios and overlook the basic hard work and, most importantly, the actual results achieved in races.

I tried training as scientifically as I could (ie not very well at all says iDave..) but ultimately I got better results from learning how to race rather than learning how to train well.

What I'm trying to say is that training has become an end in itself, rather than being seen as a way to get good results.

Sorry toys *doffs cap*

and some coaches don't use 'zones' at all

That'd be interesting. How'd you separate base training from speed training? Or would you not?

ultimately I got better results from learning how to race rather than learning how to train well.

Tis a good point, you definitely need both. A good coach recognises this of course.. first few XC races I entered when I gave up on the enduro stuff I found terribly mentally difficult. The pressure of having someone on my wheel for an hour waiting to pounce on any let-off or corner run wide freaked me out a bit 🙂

How many have pointed out basic errors you have made?

You certainly didn't.. all you said was 'molgrips you're an idiot' without ever offering any detailed information of your own.

Btw my questions are not arsey I'm-right-you-must-be-wrong questions – they are honest questions and I appreciate the answers.

iDave – Member
and some coaches don't use 'zones' at all

Dave – are you talking specifically about HR zones?

I'd agree (if this is what you're saying)that HR zones are fairly arbitrary, but I'd still have thought any coach would need some basis on which to differentiate intensity.

Even without slavishly following HR numbers (or watts) I'd still think of "easy", "quite hard" and "all out effort" as zones.

So why do sprinter have lower body fat than marathon runners? At Olympic level it's about 6-10% for the former and 8-12% for the latter.

Clenbuterol, usually.

Molgrips. How many folk on these thread have agreed with you? How many have pointed out basic errors you have made?

Sorry TJ I have to stick up for molgrips there. As an observer who has found these threads highly amusing it has to be said a lot of what molgrips says is true even if not explained well.

And i think its due to the sometimes jumbled explanations that you fail to understand when he is correct. This is not always his fault, often yours for having no patience.

Well thanks phil 🙂