LT1 has a somewhat murky definition of a lactate of 2 based on studies, of relatively low statistical power, in athletes (ie these are not population studies). LT1 can then be softly associated with AeT HR or pace, but they are not equivalent. So based on this number your AeT HR would be somewhere in the 130-145 range (as Reed suggested, using a HR of 140 is a reasonable estimate because your lactate was 2.0 at 139). However, it may have reached 2.0 anywhere in the 130s. For arguments sake, let’s say your LT1 is 140, then this may be used as an estimate of your AeT. But your actual AeT, which is likely a range anyway, and probably a larger range due to confounding factors affecting HR, may be somewhere between 135-145–I’m guessing.
If this is a once-off lactate test, I would use the value of 140 as just one estimate of your AeT. You could then just average it with the other ones you obtained from other AeT testing methods, like the AeT test, the AeT drift test, MAF, and/or percent AnT/maxHR, etc. I am not convinced that an AeT HR extrapolated from LT1 on a single lactate test is any more accurate than any of the other ways to determine AeT. With time and repeated testing a reliable estimate for AeT can be obtained.
Regarding Ant: I thing it is indeterminate based on your test results–there aren’t enough data points to reliably note a change, or deflection point, in the slope of the lactate vs HR/Pace curve, which determines LT2 (ie, AnT).
It’s curious that they gave you (or the computer they used gave you) an AeT of 120 at a lactate of 1.3, when your average person not exercising can have a lactate that high (a normal resting lactate is considered 0.5-1.0; but stressors and inflammation could easily make it creep higher up to 1.5 (many labs consider 0.5-1.5 to be ‘normal’). (Sometimes these algorithms use your age, resting HR, HR variability, and/or %HR range (max HR-resting HR) without you knowing, to determine AeT, which is not what we are looking for in a lactate test.)
