The talk test.....

The Talk Test and its relationship with the ventilatory and lactate thresholds

Data showed that the Talk Test related best to the lactate threshold as compared to the ventilatory threshold

"Everybody's thought that the Talk Test related well to the ventilatory threshold," Quinn says. "And it does, to a certain degree. But different physiological phenomena occur at each threshold, and it is the phenomena associated with the lactate threshold that relate better to the different levels of the Talk Test."

Quinn says these findings on the relationship of the Talk Test to the lactate threshold make the Talk Test relevant to endurance athletes as well as beginning exercisers. "In order to enhance endurance performance, some training has to occur around the lactate threshold intensity level. When subjects in the study had difficulty talking, they were very close to that lactate threshold intensity. Because of this, athletes could gauge their intensity based on ability to talk comfortably."

"If you are beginning an exercise program and can still talk while you're exercising, you're doing OK," Quinn says. "But if you really want to improve, you've got to push a little bit harder."

Frowning

I spotted an interesting study today about frowning.

One of the things that I will be  writing about in my columns for TGO (a UK hillwalking magazine) is pace in hillwalking.

Talk Test

I've already mentioned the different metabolic / energy pathways.  It is all really simplified but in basic terms you either burn fat - virtually unlimited - or sugar, which is in limited supply.    Sugar needs more oxygen and burns dirty, producing lactic acid.  (I know this is all simplified too much).  In terms of endurance you need to stay aerobic / fat burning.  As you work harder the fat burning pathway can;t keep up - you do not take in enough oxygen, so you switch to sugar burning / anaerobic.  You will not be able to go for long, since you will run out of fuel and the muck produced by burning sugar will stop you.  Anaerobic - intense intervals etc - are good at making you more efficient and fitter, better at burning fat but they are for training, not long efforts.

So it is about pace.   Use a pace at which you can stay in the aerobic zone, burning fat not sugar.  you can use heart rate measures or respiratory quotient, but one simple way to assess where you are is via the "talk test".  Exercising at a pace in which you can hold a conversation is an indicator that you are still burning fat not sugar.

Frowning

There is another idea though, that of frowning.  I saw this study which says that frowning is an indicator of exercise intensity.  I wonder if there is any correlation between the onset of frowning and the aerobic threshold?

Clarence Bass expounds the power law....

That may not be the way in which he would present it, but I have just read a really interesting piece by the great Clarence Bass, which I think illustrates on of Art Devany's principles about physical training: the power law.



Art Devany explains it thus: The power law shown here (frequency is on the y axis and intensity on the x axis....so you have a high frequency of low intensity stuff, while you have a low frequency of high intensity stuff) is the signature of nature's strategy of organization and one humans followed for millenia. It is one I follow today. Note the frequency versus intensity scaling and the lack of a central tendancy. The mean is not a good indicator of the typical activity, in fact the mode is over at the far left where languid ease is the rule. The variance is infinite, which is the same thing as saying it does not exist. Constant variation but within a pattern of constrained novelty is the human condition until very recently.

Mix brief, intermittent episodes of highly intense physical action with languid periods and play.

Art Explains more in the essay

Clarence is commenting on the apparent contradiction between the high intensity crowd - e.g. Doug McGuff - and those that favour long easy aerobics, like Phil Maffetone. (both athletes and writers that I really respect and incidentally, both trainers who favour a low carb diet).

It is really worth reading Clarence's article - McGuff’s Brief Muscular Effort and Maffetone’s Slow Aerobics, Never the Twain Shall Meet? - you can combine the two he concludes.

"If you took McGuff’s ideas and combine them with Maffetone’s ideas, you would perform one extremely hard anaerobic workout every seven to ten days, and the rest of the time would be very low intensity aerobic workouts,” Dr. Johnston suggested in an email message. Far fetched as it sounded at the time, I believe he’s on to something. Maffetone is off base on high-intensity training, and McGuff is out of the strike zone on aerobic exercise. The combination of the two, however, may very well be a home run.

One commonality that comes to mind is that McGuff and Maffetone are both risk averse. Both claim that their system prevents injury. Low intensity aerobic exercise and slow lifting are both about preventing wear and tear on muscles and joints. That’s one for a combined system.

My earlier suggestion (two months back) that McGuff’s Big-5 workout might work well with a walking program now makes even more sense. Consider doing the Big-5 workout on day 1, walk on days 3, 4, and 5, rest on days 2 and 6, and then repeat. That would be an upgrade on either system alone. Recovery from the 12-minutes of strength training would be enhanced by walking, and walking during the week would build aerobic fitness and lower the risk of cardiovascular disease and early mortality. Sounds like a win-win to me.

It is the power law again.....lots of low intensity easy stuff, coupled with a few brief, infrequent really hard sessions. It is natural.....

It is also Mark Sisson's approach summed up in 3 of his primal laws:

• Primal Blueprint Law #3: Move Frequently at a Slow Pace
• Primal Blueprint Law #4: Lift Heavy Things
• Primal Blueprint Law #5: Sprint Once in a While