[rnate]

Hi,

I’m trying to determine if my Aerobic Threshold Test is valid. 160 HR actually feels like I’m working pretty hard. I just want to verify that I really am in zone 2, AeT, and not AnT.

Down at the local track:
I did a 20 min warm up.
I then slowly increased my pace to get my target HR of 160.(Nose breathing verified)
I then started the test by turning on two GPS devices paired to a chest strap heart monitor.
I ran for 1 hr. 20 sec. and did my best to keep my HR at 160.

Minimum HR 155
Average HR 162
Max HR 168

Training Peaks Pa:Hr 4.02%

Here’s the link below. I no longer have a premium TP membership so the Pa:Hr ratio doesn’t show up on my computer based workout values any more, it dose show up on the mobile app though. I hope you’ll be able to see that value on your end.

http://tpks.ws/DYAEJTRECCFQ7XGPW24ULDRCUA

Thanks for taking a look. Any guidance or advice would be greatly appreciated.

Attachments:

You must be logged in to view attached files.

Topic

[Anonymous]

Anonymous on January 29, 2020 at 2:54 pm #37075

You had next to no drift at all (only 1 BPM) between the two halves.

To compare the two halves, go to the public page. Click and drag from the end of the test to the 30′ mark. Note the average that’s calculated for the second half. Next, click and drag in the same manner for the first half. Divide the second-half average by the first-half average: 162 / 161 = Damn close to zero.

BUT…

If you were near/at your anaerobic threshold, then you could get a very similar result. I would follow this up with an anaerobic test to compare the results.

(Heart rates are very individual. ~160 BPM could be AeT for some and AnT for others, so the actual number doesn’t tell us anything unless it’s compared to another data point.)

[rnate]

rnate on January 29, 2020 at 9:44 pm #37090

Thanks Scott, I’ll be doing an Anaerobic Test in the morning. I will post the results.

[rnate]

rnate on January 31, 2020 at 11:12 am #37177

Thanks for your expertise Scott,

It definitively looks like you were right about my AeT Test results, HR 160, actually being my AnT, HR 162.

I did my Anaerobic Threshold Test this morning.
I started with a 20 min warm up.
I then ran at my maximal effort for 31 mins. 19 sec. average HR 162.
AnT HR 162

Below is the TP link:

http://tpks.ws/2ZSIIRNKV3S6OIKDMI64OHJ72U

It looks like I should try for an AeT Test with a target HR 145 to 150.

Thanks Scott

[Anonymous]

Anonymous on January 31, 2020 at 1:12 pm #37188

Phew! I’m glad we caught that one. If I had sent you off thinking that AnT was AeT… that would have been bad.

It’s hard to predict where to start for an AeT test. 145 to 150 may be too high. In general, we suggest a “conversational pace” for the first attempt. So an intensity where you could carry easily talk without gasping.

[rnate]

rnate on February 1, 2020 at 10:25 am #37215

Well, here it is. I did a 20 min warm up and I nose breathed through the entirety of the 1 hour 23 sec. run.

http://tpks.ws/UXH4QNIGEW5E6LXTM7Q4SF3ZVA

Training Peaks Pa:Hr 0.07%
My target AeT heart rate was 145
My average HR was 146
My max HR was 153

This was a GPS AeT test, not a treadmill AeT test. So am I correct in that I should see a drop in my pace with a constant heart rate? It should be the opposite from the treadmill test where you would see an increase in heart rate with a constant pace?

Anything under 5% is supposedly under AeT? I’m at 0.07%, so my actual AeT would be higher?

In the 10% test, my AnT of 162-16=146? My AeT to AnT ratio should be 10% or less?

Thanks

P.S. I’m going to get professionally tested soon.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous on February 3, 2020 at 9:00 am #37295

Yes, correct. Well done. Because the terrain was flat and the pace very steady, you can use the number that TP comes up with.

Because Pa:HR was so low, your AeT is probably higher. But you’re also very close to AnT, so it pays to be conservative.

I would use 150 for AeT and 160 for AnT. There’s no disadvantage in using BPM values that are slightly less, while there’s a big disadvantage in any errors to the high side.

(Note: We use AeT as the denominator, not AnT: AnT / AeT. It’s a small difference in the result when threshold are close, but it’s more conservative (which is good.))

It’d be great to see what your lab test results are and how they compare.

[rnate]

rnate on February 19, 2020 at 7:34 pm #38441

So, I went and got lab tested. The results are still a little iffy to me. According to the heart rate zone portion of the test, Aet is 145 and Ant is 160.

The problem I have in when I look at the numbers the inflection point seems to be at a heart rate of 141 at 14:30. I’m not really sure how it calculated my Ant. Take a look.

Thanks

[rnate]

rnate on February 20, 2020 at 12:37 am #38465

Test results

Attachments:

You must be logged in to view attached files.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous on February 22, 2020 at 2:00 pm #38639

Yes, 145 is where you exceeded an RER of 0.85 and stayed above 0.85 thereafter. FatMax (peak fat burning) occurred at 141. You could use either, but I would use 140 for now.

I’m not sure how AnT was calculated. An RER of 1.0 was at 165. I’m not sure why they went with 160. Did you ask how it was calculated?

Lastly, good job on the test. Thirty minutes is on the long side and a final RER of 1.12 is very high. That must have been tough.

[rnate]

rnate on February 24, 2020 at 4:33 pm #38713

Wow!
Thank you so much for your expertise and for taking the time to interpret my test.

I was totally uneducated about how the RER value was the determining factor for the heart rate zones. So to recap, the point at which RER is sustained above .85 is AeT and an RER of 1.0 is AnT?

So, AnT is 165 and AeT is 145, the difference is greater than 10%. I should still be focusing on curing myself of ADS and stop all high intensity training?

Why would you use 141hr over 145hr?

Thank you so much for your time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous on February 25, 2020 at 10:02 am #38738

I don’t think RER values define thresholds, but they do inform the estimation.

Before committing to an AnT HR, ask the lab why they determined it to be 160. It pays to be conservative, so that may be a better value to use. (I’m curious as well.)

For AeT, as I mentioned, FatMax was at 141, so I would use 140 as AeT HR.

If AnT/AeT is 160/140, the spread is 14%, so yes, the priority should be to close the gap to at least less than 10%.