Ed Eyestone - Crack smoker or coaching genius?

[bluegoose]

In talking to my cousin this morning about some training issues, I was reminded about an article I read in the February edition of Runners World by our very own Ed Eyestone.

Beyond the Burn

In this article he talks about the body's ability to adapt to lactic acid through lactate threshold training. There was one paragraph in particular that caught my attention.

In a 2006 study at the University of Western Australia, researchers found that athletes who worked out at 120 to 140 percent of lactate threshold three days a week for five weeks improved their ability to buffer hydrogen ions by about 25 percent. In athletes who worked at a lower intensity-95 percent of lactate threshold-buffer capacity stayed the same.

Here is the only abstract that I could find:


http://ajpregu.physiology.org/cgi/content/abstract/00863.2007v1


I don't remember enough muscle physiology to know if any of this makes sense. But the way I understand things, my anaerobic (lactate) threshold is right around 172 bpm. My estimated max HR (by 220 – age, as well in training practice) is 186. The point that Eyestone takes from this research is that in order to improve my lactate training tolerance, I need to do intervals 3 times weekly at a HR between 206-241 bpm. I think this is physiologically impossible, is it not?


So what am I missing? Is the research flawed, is Eyestone interpretation of the results messed up, or am I just a freakin training pansy who needs to suck it up and increase my training intensity by 40%?

[ERCougar]

In talking to my cousin this morning about some training issues, I was reminded about an article I read in the February edition of Runners World by our very own Ed Eyestone.

Beyond the Burn

In this article he talks about the body's ability to adapt to lactic acid through lactate threshold training. There was one paragraph in particular that caught my attention.






Here is the only abstract that I could find:


http://ajpregu.physiology.org/cgi/content/abstract/00863.2007v1


I don't remember enough muscle physiology to know if any of this makes sense. But the way I understand things, my anaerobic (lactate) threshold is right around 172 bpm. My estimated max HR (by 220 – age, as well in training practice) is 186. The point that Eyestone takes from this research is that in order to improve my lactate training tolerance, I need to do intervals 3 times weekly at a HR between 206-241 bpm. I think this is physiologically impossible, is it not?


So what am I missing? Is the research flawed, is Eyestone interpretation of the results messed up, or am I just a freakin training pansy who needs to suck it up and increase my training intensity by 40%?

I tried searching too and can't figure out what the heck he's talking about. It's not the study you pulled, as you probably know.

This is one of the reasons journalists bug me. They pull this sloppy sourcing crap (if they source at all) all the time. The other thing they continually mess up is causation and association. We end up with a lot of bad statistics and ideas perpetuated.

I guess Eyestone's not a journalist, so I'll give him a pass.

[bluegoose]

I tried searching too and can't figure out what the heck he's talking about. It's not the study you pulled, as you probably know.

You're right, I linked the wrong article. Now I can't find the one that I had read earlier.

Either way, what do think of the suggestion of training at 120-140% of lactate threshold? Is that even possible?

[ERCougar]

You're right, I linked the wrong article. Now I can't find the one that I had read earlier.

Either way, what do think of the suggestion of training at 120-140% of lactate threshold? Is that even possible?

I don't see how it would be.