Blog 1 - Case Study 1

---

This month, we take a look at how lactate testing has benefit two different athletes

---

We will compare two very different athletes who both sought guidance on their training zones.  Each athlete undertook a lactate test, utilising the resulting training guidance from Blake Performance Lab to develop their rowing machine scores.

Through respect of confidentiality, both athletes (athlete 1 and athlete 2) consented to use of their data for this case study whilst remaining anonymous in name.

Athlete 1, a young senior athlete had noted a plateau in development of their steady state (UT2) training splits, and no development in their program staple of fortnightly 30 minute tests.  An athlete plateau-ing at an age between junior and senior can result from many causes, however lactate testing could provide the valuable insight into how the body is responding at specific intensities, and therefore identify optimum training zones.

Athlete 2, an older athlete with over 10 years in the sport (rowing).  Athlete 2 had consistently improved year on year, although progression had slowed down - in line with understanding that higher level rowing machine /500m split times require significant increases in watts as speed increases, and unsurprisingly, the aspect we can’t avoid - age.  This athlete felt their heart rate zone training was not accurately correlating with the correct physiological intensities for improvement. They had also commenced new medication, a side effect of which increased heart rate. Where medication can affect heart rate, lactate testing identifies specific training intensities that stimulate targeted adaptations, reducing the potential errors of heart rate training alone. I note, heart rate training is a good reference for training, but lactate testing provides more specific and narrower ranges.  Essentially, heart rate zones are prescribed from averages of large data sets, with many athletes across populations, lactate data is the powerful tool that guides individuals to their specific, personalised, training for optimal development.

Both athletes completed rowing lactate test protocols.  Each presented anxious as to how they would perform, with one having pushed a fast commute to attend due to lateness. After a lactate flush, the tests provided valuable data, that confirmed neither athlete was training in their optimal lactate zone.   

The above graphs show Athlete 1’s lactate profile against watts for test 1 and test 2 after 7 weeks training.  Athlete 1 was prescribed specific lactate training zones and set sessions by Sean, guiding how they can develop their body’s ability to move between aerobic and anaerobic outputs.  The training yielded positive results, noting a 24 watts increase in their 2.0 mmol/L threshold.  The significant shift occurred at the anaerobic 4.0 mmol/L threshold value.  For the same lactate production, athlete 1 now produces 27 watts more, equating to 3 splits per 500m average on the rowing machine. The subsequent effect of the increase in values and consistent training at the prescribed zones, is that they now also have a more shallow accumulation of lactic acid above the 4.0 mmol/L threshold turning point. Their body is more efficient than at their first test!

Athlete 2 required specific review of their training zones together with heart rate data to determine if they could maintain more specific intensities for their training sessions. Heart rate and lactate data recorded in tandem (as is protocol for my testing) confirmed that heart rate training alone was not meeting their requirements.

For the heart rate zone Athlete 2 was using for their UT2 aerobic training, they were accumulating 1.3 mmol/L at 1:59/500m (207.7 watts). After a lactate test, the athlete was prescribed a training zone of 1:56 to 1:53/500m splits (224.2 to 242.6 watts).  This in line with optimum values for beneficial physiological adaptations to be stimulated. The Athlete had been training slower than their ideal output, due to medication prematurely elevating their heart rate as opposed to the ideal training intensity elevating their heart rate to the desired range. Essentially, the medication led to a higher heart rate earlier, and so the athlete was not increasing their output to elevate their heart rate and so would remain too light to lift their heart rate to the ideal zone. This was noticed with their heart rate elevating, but their splits remaining slower than their pre-medication training.

Athlete 2’s anaerobic UT1 training had been at 1:43.9/500m (312 watts) for 3 x 10 minutes, and 2 x 15 minutes, although this often resulted from a positive split in longer pieces, wherein the athlete would set off at 1:41 before slowing down and seeing their average drawn to a slower split for each 500m.  Their 30 minute rate 20 personal best, 1:43.6/500m (314.8). Given their lactate test results, the athlete was prescribed a slower split for UT1 anaerobic training to ensure they we were working within their ideal zone - accounting for their inappropriate pacing too.

After prescribing accurate anaerobic training intensity guidance, the athlete was able to complete consistent sessions, with good quality.  Coaching was provided to assist in how this athlete can better pace their anaerobic threshold training. After 7 weeks, the second lactate test displayed positive progression at both aerobic and anaerobic threshold values with increased watts for the same lactate values.  Their 30 minute rate 20 personal best now sits 5 watts higher, at 319 watts. This equates to a 1:43.1 average split.  As with athlete 1, athlete 2’s body is now more efficient!

Athlete progression varies from individual to individual.  We won’t always see large jumps to watts, but what targeted training following a lactate test does supply, is individual specific development.  With consistent and accurate training intensity, athletes maximise their opportunities to develop their efficiency and their scores.