Hi everyone,
Are there any particular protocols / tests that are of particular appeal in order to determine threshold pace without access to a lactate meter?
Thank you
1 Like
A very commonly used test is a 30-minute time trial. After a sufficient warm up you hit the lap button to begin the test. Run at the fastest (and even) pace you can maintain for a full 30 minutes. This often takes a bit of practice because you can’t go out too fast and bonk OR go too conservative either. Your LT2 pace is usually close to your entire average pace for the entire 30 minute trial. Your LT2 heart rate is close to the average HR over the last 20 minutes of the test. (Can figure that out by either hitting the lap button at the 10 minute mark or from charts of your post-run data on many 3rd party apps).
3 Likes
This is a great protocol to follow.
Another option with estimation is finding LT1 and adding 20 to 30 beats depending on how strong your aerobic fitness is compared to your anerobic ability. Are you a twitchy athlete or a diesel?
You can check out page 3.11 here.
Athletica’s 5KTT in running 
It’s all there in the test week.
MJ
1 Like
Adding more to my own reply since I realized I only gave you the most common test in that response. There are a number of ways to get close enough to your LT2 pace number. I’ll list them in the order of accuracy:
Time Trials:
- 30 minute time trial (went over this one in earlier response)
- Conconi Test (Google it)
The above two will be reasonably close - 5K Time trial
This will usually be about 4-5% faster than your actual LT2 - 3200 Time Trial
Another one that sometimes used, but probably at the bottom of the list
Race Results:
Another method is to take a recent all out race result and many popular online run calculators will have a coresponding prediction for lactate threshold pace. Two popular ones are the McMillan Running Calculator and the V.02 running calculator (Jack Daniels)
Critical Power/Critical Speed Curve Applications:
This method involves putting into a formula a few all out efforts between 2’ and 60’ at varying durations (like an all out 2’, 5’, 20’, 40’) and your populated power/pace curve would compute a critical power or critical speed number. The lactate threshold power/speed is usually close to this or in some cases is said to be about 5% below. This is the model used by Stryd for those that use that system for running power. It sounds like Athletica’s own critical speed model is similar in taking all out efforts over a few varying durations and computing a personal critical speed (and subsequent zone setting off this).
Fitness Watch Method:
Many watches are starting to add LT2 testing right within the watch. The initial method was to run a test on a track from a set workout that your watch will step you through. This also requires a chest strap for accuracy and not an optical sensor. This is a fairly quick test of 4-5 segments lasting 3-4 minutes each of increasing speed. I’ve done it a few times and it’s actually pretty close. Interestingly, many watches are now moving to where no actual test is required and every once in awhile you’ll get a notification that “a new threshold pace was determined” during one of your normal speed sessions. I’m not completely convinced of the accuracy there though, but thought I’d throw that out as well.
Anyway…there are a few more methods 
1 Like
Dear @mgiven, thank you so much for putting in the time to give me such an elaborate and useful response. Personally, I think I am most fond of critical velocity due to its extensive scientific substantiation. I think its only true limitation can be attributed to its substellar ability job to extrapolate performance predictions for events lasting longer than an hour. I am aware that there are different ways to calculate CV, one of which you clearly outline via a few all-out efforts. On the flip side, although I think it would be truly unnecessary to put a recreational athlete through this test, what are your thoughts on the 3min all-out effort? I’ve only seen it applied with cycling but am curious to know whether it is also applicable with running.
2 Likes
Thank you everyone! I truly wish I’d discovered this platform earlier!
2 Likes
Dear Jorge, are you using Athletica with your athletes? All the necessary tests are already in the program. You’ll get pretty nice looking power-duration curves to evaluate where your athletes may need some extra attention, and programming.
Figuring out the training intensity zones are also taken care for you. Simply get your athletes to do the test week, and their zones are updated. Also, as they tick off the training program boxes, and reach new fitness levels, their zones are automatically updated as new benchmarks are reached. Pretty cool!
Coach version is free!
MJ
2 Likes
I don’t know how unnecessary it is to put a recreational athlete through some of those tests. Many platforms will use the 5K time trial, so it’s pretty common. Athletica even puts it right there in the test week, so that couldn’t really be any easier than that!
As far as the 3’ test goes, this is also seen on some other platforms that use a critical power/speed curve method. For example, I’m a Stryd running power coach and their most common run test (if only using one) is a 3’ and 10’ all out test in the same session. With that said, I’d much rather use tests of more varied durations broken up into different sessions over a few test weeks. But this does show that there is still usefulness in the 3’ all-out effort for filling out a curve.
Dear @mgiven, the 3min all out test is actually a unique protocol that differs from the other tests. As opposed to trying to sustain a consistent output, the three min all out test requires you to sprint maximally from the get-go and quite literally “hang on for dear life” until three minutes are up. Hence my remark on its necessity, or lack thereof. Essentially, it is postulated that your pace by the end of those three minutes corresponds exactly to your CV, meaning you don’t even have to plot it on a graph!
Yeah I’ve heard of that one as well and I believe I read an article by Matt Fitzgerald recently on the subject. I believe this all out and non-paced effort that the study used the average pace over the last 30 seconds. There was also a fairly large difference between the results of the lab group (more accurate) and the field test group.
I think we’re losing a bit of focus here. I still would say it’s much better to use a longer duration trial if you were relying on one (such as found in the Athletica test week) or a range or trials at varying durations to form a more complete picture.
1 Like