[Colin Simon]

Last weekend I ran a very hilly 50k and collected some fun data. My previously lab-tested AeT was 149bpm(that was a year ago), and the TrainingPeaks calculator(bottom right) shows I averaged 155bpm for as long as 3 hours. By another metric, I spent 4 hours 27 minutes in zone 3, which suggests that isn’t accurate anymore.

Is it safe to say that my AeT has substantially moved, to around 155-157bpm?

I was reasonably well-rested for this event and there were plenty aid stations to load up on food. Still, you can see at 6:45 where I ran out of food going up hill and started to tank.

Attachments:

You must be logged in to view attached files.

Topic

[Anonymous]

Anonymous on July 24, 2018 at 3:15 pm #10909

I would keep training as if your AeT were ~150 or, better yet, get another lab test if you want to know for sure.

I’m not sure how reliable a race context would be to select training intensities or benchmarks. On the contrary, if AeT was estimated at 149, and you can average 155 in a race, then that sounds about right. My AeT and AnT are about ten beats apart and in a 2-hour skimo race, I usually average right in the middle.

Also, six beats is only a ~3% difference. You’d be splitting hairs to argue 155 versus 149. More importantly, the downside of over-estimating AeT is many times greater than the upside of being super precise about where it actually lies. It will also vary day-to-day, test-to-test.

Using ~150 and getting 97% or more of the benefit is much better than over-estimating AeT, training at too high an intensity, and gradually eroding aerobic capacity.

I hope that helps.

[Colin Simon]

Colin Simon on July 24, 2018 at 4:05 pm #10911

True, 6-8bpm on its own is a small difference, but if I am using it in reference to my AnT, that makes a material difference in whether or not I am within the “10% rule” for including some HIIT.

That could also be 7:45 minutes/mile versus 8:30 minutes/mile, which could mean the difference between, “yes, I’m happy to go run with y’all today” or “no, I am going to train at my own pace”

I could get another lab test, but if race data suggests “your AeT must be at least X” then that seems dramatically easier than a lab test. Besides the cost of the test, the waitlist is usually about 2 months here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous on July 24, 2018 at 4:27 pm #10913

Colin:
I suggest using this simple and quite accurate way of testing AeT HR https://uphillathlete.com/heart-rate-drift/. No need for a fancy lab test.

The nice thing about this is the ease of re-testing. Do it on a treadmill set to a fixed grade or on a pretty flat outdoor course.

Scott