[Ste17]

Hi there,
Yesterday i did a cpet test (Cardiopulmonary exercise testing), with a stationary bike and the results are a bit disappoint about my aerobic threshold.
So basically my aerobic threshold is at 121 bpm and the doctor said that for running i can add 5 bpm.
On the other hand my anaerobic threshold is at 162(plus eventually 5 bpm).
The disappointment is because i train since a while and last year and this year my consistency is pretty good. i thought my aerobic threshold would place at least 10 bpm more.
They didn’t take lactate samples and it was on bike (i don’t do bike).
On my Garmin I have 5 zones based on my lactate threshold (158 bpm) so basically my up end of the z2 is 137/138 bpm; with those results from yesterday do I have to reconsider my zones?
thanks a lot

Topic

[thierryw203]

thierryw203 on March 26, 2024 at 6:50 am #85780

I think the biggest factor is that you using a bike and your not use to riding. That for sure can give you a different result.

[Ste17]

Ste17 on March 26, 2024 at 7:06 am #85782

I hope so, I need to do some test with lactate sample; or do you suggest any other test? thanks a lot

[Jane Mackay]

Jane Mackay on March 27, 2024 at 2:24 am #85791

Ste17,
As theirryw203 noted, the HR zones for one modality don’t necessarily transfer to a different modality. To get an appropriate result for running, I would recommend either redoing the lab test on a treadmill, or doing the DIY AeT test: https://uphillathlete.com/aerobic-training/aerobic-anaerobic-threshold-self-assessment/

Jane

[Ste17]

Ste17 on March 27, 2024 at 2:28 am #85792

Thanks a lot Jane, i thought so, but at the lab they told me that they prefer stationary bike because the reading is more stable. Anyway i will try the DIY AeT test.
Thanks again.

[Ste17]

Ste17 on April 1, 2024 at 1:07 am #85939

Hi there, this morning I tried a drift test. But I think I didn’t do it properly. On the site runalyze my Pa:HR shows a 2.4% as the image . So I think I can push my BPM a bit further, but if I calculate the average of the two half segments, the first is 135,3 and the second is 140,8 and this way is clore to the 5% drift. Am I right ? Thanks a lot

Attachments:

You must be logged in to view attached files.

[Jane Mackay]

Jane Mackay on April 1, 2024 at 2:44 am #85988

It’s hard for me to tell from this graph. Can you get a graph that shows time on the x (horizontal) axis and HR on the y (vertical) axis?

[Ste17]

Ste17 on April 1, 2024 at 2:50 am #85989

I have this from Garmin it shows HR and time with average of 139 white line. Thanks a lot

Attachments:

You must be logged in to view attached files.

[Jane Mackay]

Jane Mackay on April 1, 2024 at 3:10 am #86026

Did you start the recording at the beginning of the warmup or after the warmup?

[Ste17]

Ste17 on April 1, 2024 at 4:24 am #86135

I forgot to mention it, I did 2 separate activity, 15 minutes warmup and then I started the 1 hour workout as on the graph.

[Jane Mackay]

Jane Mackay on April 1, 2024 at 8:17 am #86140

That difference works out at 4%, so I think you could take 139 as your AeT for now. It’s better to err on the lower side, in any case, to avoid pushing too hard in Z2 workouts. Taking your AnT as 162, that’s a 17% differential, so you want to prioritise training in Z2.

You could train with 139 as your AeT for a month or two and see how it feels. Over time, you’ll start to get a sense of when you’re nearing the top of Z2 even without the HR data. It’d be good to retest in 2 or 3 months.

Jane

[Ste17]

Ste17 on April 1, 2024 at 1:10 pm #86151

Thanks a lot Jane for replying, I’m gonna retest it in a while as in 4 weeks I have my first race a so I’m gonna prioritise my workouts in the an. threshold. Anyway I like the journey ?.