Lactate readings are taken after a 20′ piece at constant power and stroke rate.
| day | Date | slides | power | SPM | HR | % HRR | Lactate |
| 7 | 2/7/2015 | no | 190.0 | 19 | 138.3 | 67% | 1.7 |
| 1 | 2/8/2015 | no | 190.0 | 19 | 134.8 | 64% | 1.8 |
| 7 | 2/14/2105 | no | 195.0 | 19 | 139.9 | 68% | 1.8 |
| 1 | 2/15/2015 | no | 196.0 | 19 | 134.6 | 64% | 1.7 |
| 3 | 2/24/2015 | yes | 186.0 | 20 | 132.3 | 62% | 2.3 |
| 4 | 2/25/2015 | yes | 185.5 | 20 | 138.2 | 67% | 2.1 |
| 5 | 2/26/2015 | yes | 183.1 | 20 | 137.0 | 66% | 2.4 |
| 6 | 2/27/2015 | yes | 184.1 | 20 | 141.2 | 69% | 2.5 |
| 3 | 3/3/2015 | no | 185.2 | 17.9 | 144.3 | 71% | 2.5 |
| 5 | 3/5/2015 | yes | 176.4 | 20 | 134.4 | 64% | 1.5 |
| 6 | 3/6/2015 | yes | 178.4 | 20 | 134.1 | 64% | 1.7 |
| 7 | 3/7/2015 | no | 185.2 | 17.9 | 144.3 | 71% | 2.2 |
| 1 | 3/8/2015 | no | 182.9 | 19.7 | 138.8 | 67% | 1.9 |
| 2 | 3/9/2015 | no | 183.4 | 19.3 | 135.1 | 64% | 1.8 |
| 3 | 3/10/2015 | yes | 178.8 | 20 | 134.1 | 64% | 1.5 |
| 4 | 3/11/2015 | yes | 180.0 | 20 | 138.4 | 67% | 1.1 |
| 5 | 3/12/2015 | yes | 182.1 | 20 | 140 | 68% | 1.3 |
| 6 | 3/13/2015 | yes | 184.5 | 20 | 140.0 | 68% | 2.2 |
| 7 | 3/14/2015 | no | 185.8 | 20 | 133.8 | 63% | 2.4 |
| 1 | 3/15/2015 | no | 186.7 | 19.1 | 136.9 | 66% | 1.7 |
| 4 | 3/18/2015 | no | 188.1 | 18.9 | 137.7 | 66% | 1.7 |
| 5 | 3/19/2015 | yes | 190.0 | 20 | 140.1 | 68% | 1.7 |
| 6 | 3/20/2015 | no | 190.4 | 18.6 | 138.3 | 67% | 2.0 |
| 7 | 3/21/2015 | no | 190.7 | 18.9 | 141.0 | 69% | 1.9 |
| 1 | 3/22/2015 | no | 190.6 | 19.3 | 144.4 | 71% | 1.8 |
| 2 | 3/23/2015 | yes | 190.4 | 20 | 144 | 71% | 1.9 |
| 3 | 3/24/2015 | yes | 191.9 | 20 | 144.2 | 71% | 1.5 |
| 4 | 3/25/2015 | yes | 193.0 | 20 | 150.2 | 75% | 1.9 |
| 5 | 3/26/2015 | yes | 192.0 | 20 | 150.3 | 75% | 2.3 |
| 6 | 3/27/2015 | yes | 190.1 | 20 | 151 | 76% | 1.7 |
| 7 | 3/28/2015 | no | 191.2 | 19 | 138.2 | 67% | 1.3 |
| 2 | 3/30/2015 | yes | 191.2 | 20 | 140.6 | 68% | 2.5 |
| 3 | 3/31/2015 | no | 191.4 | 19 | 144.6 | 71% | 2.6 |
| 4 | 4/1/2015 | yes | 187.3 | 19 | 147.1 | 73% | 1.6 |
| 5 | 4/2/2015 | yes | 186.9 | 18 | 142.9 | 70% | 1.6 |
| 6 | 4/3/2015 | no | 186.7 | 17.8 | 145.1 | 72% | 1.9 |
| 7 | 4/4/2015 | no | 186.7 | 19 | 137.1 | 66% | 2.2 |
| 1 | 4/5/2015 | no | 187.0 | 19 | 135.1 | 64% | 1.7 |
| 3 | 4/7/2015 | no | 192.0 | 19 | 138.4 | 67% | |
| 4 | 4/8/2015 | no | 197.0 | 19 | 147 | 73% | |
| 5 | 4/9/2015 | yes | 193.1 | 20 | 144.6 | 71% | 2.4 |
* Average HR for last 5 minutes of 20′ piece
Quantified Rowing 
Would love to get your current thinking about lactate based training. On the one hand I like the quantified approach, on the other hand I am wondering if it is worth it:
– The readings vary from day to day
– We know nothing special is happening at 2.0 in terms of training effect. One can do steady state, threshold rows and hard intervals with the same effect without knowing lactage
on the other hand I am intrigued by the ability to do regular step tests and determine lactate during steady state rows …
LikeLike
Just about all physiological measurements are subject to error. In my case, the most important thing that I use either HR or lactate measurements for is to establish the most effective intensity for endurance training. From what I have read, the greatest gains in endurance occur if you exercise at an intensity that mainly depends upon the metabolism of fat as the energy source. Some carbohydrates are used and lactate is generated from this process, but another metabolic pathway uses lactate as a fuel, and the trick is to find an intensity that results in lactates achieving a steady state level, versus increasing over time.
The advantage of lactate is that it is a direct measurement of this process, versus, say HR, which may be correlated, but is not directly connected to this metabolic process.
The way that I use lactate measurements has evolved over time. I found over time that measuring lactates at 20 minutes was not an accurate method to determine that I was at the right intensity for a long 80 minute session. I found that I could be below 2.0mmol/l at 20 minutes, but way higher (like >5.0mmol/l) at the end of 80 minutes. So, I now measure at 60 minutes and I have found good correlation and a ow error rate.
There are three main disadvantages of lactate measurement. The first is that it is not continuous like a HR measurement, so it is tough to look at changes during a workout. The second is that the test strips are expensive. The third is that it is a little weird to stop and take a blood sample in the middle of a workout in a gym. It definitely puts you on the lunatic fringe.
The other way I intend to use lactates is something called a 2 speed test. This is a mini step test where you do 2 pieces, one a bit above endurance power, and a second one at something close to head race pace. Then by plotting the power and the lactate you can draw a line on a graph. Over time the position and slope of that line generally shows you if you are getting better or worse. I intend to start doing more formal testing at the conclusion of the OTW and OTE seasons, with this as a part of it. I guess I just want to watch in horror as it gets worse as I get older. Lactate is just a cheap way to do what a VO2 test would do.
Now, if you have a good discipline around doing steady state at a low enough intensity, the value of lactate testing is probably not that high, but I am a habitual “black hole” citizen, and this OTW season is a good example. When I returned to lactate testing I found that my “watts at lactate” had declined markedly because I was pushing my steady states too hard.
LikeLike