[maiermw]

maiermw on January 18, 2022 at 4:42 pm · in reply to: Trainability of AeT, AnT, etc. #62317

Thank you Scott and Seth. Very interesting answers. My takeaway is that you both believe that pace at AeT, and how long you can hold it, is ultimately the most important metric. And it can be improved for “large” amounts for pretty much everybody. Saying “everybody” with a population as diverse as humans would be a bad idea, but you view is that it is a very trainable attribute, and the one to ultimately focus on. So, if my pace at AeT gets better things are going well, and how well lab results approximate an idea is kind of interesting but is not getting to the core issue. The most important metric, pace at AeT and how long I can hold it, may get better even if the lab results are only an approximation of an ideal. Is that gisting it okay?

[maiermw]

maiermw on August 19, 2020 at 10:02 pm · in reply to: Getting “Tired but not fitter” #44405

Thanks to all for some answers. Let me build on the answer’s, especially Scott’s, with an example. Suppose my AnT is 160 and my AeT is 140. By the UphillAthlete standards that would be a little bit Aerobic Deficient, as I understand it. Compare two workouts. First, two hours on the trails at an HR around 130. Second, a slow hike with my Boy Scouts for six hours at 90-100. I think if I put both into Training Peaks that the second would have a higher TSS, and it might well leave me more tired. But you’re saying that the first would have a better training effect, at least as far as impact on raising AeT and making for a more sustainable AeT or AeT+ plus pace?

Makes sense to me, but it does indicate that the Training Peaks score is only a loose guide to fitness achieved. Hours in Zone 1-2 might be a better metric?