[Reed]

Reed on February 24, 2020 at 7:06 pm · in reply to: Training Zones Help #38722

Hi Craig,

Do you have any details on the test protocol that you could share, or even the detailed data from the test itself? You might want to go back to the lab and ask for clarification – typically anaerobic threshold and lactate threshold are used pretty interchangeably. The only distinction I’ve heard of is using LT to specifically refer to 4mmol/L blood lactate, but depending on the protocol that might not be useful information.

It seems unlikely to me that your AeT is 144, AnT is 158, and your max heart rate is 183. The top-end heart rate range above AnT seems too large.

The most conservative reading of this information would be that your anaerobic threshold is 144bpm, and your aerobic threshold is 177bpm. That would mean that your AnT is 23% higher than your AeT, and that you should spend several months accruing hours of training below 144bpm.

[Reed]

Reed on February 23, 2020 at 5:33 pm · in reply to: IF based on HR (Trainingpeaks) #38674

If you really want to back into TrainingPeaks’ calculation of a “wrong” and not super relevant metric, you can! Add a 1-hour run workout to TrainingPeaks, and then add in a value for average heart rate. When you hit “Save,” it’ll fill in a value for TSS and IF. Plug and check, just like high school math. I eagerly await your findings. 😉

[Reed]

Reed on February 13, 2020 at 10:29 am · in reply to: IF based on HR (Trainingpeaks) #38126

With a power meter on a bike or a run on roads, it’s not too difficult to measure rapid changes in effort – for example, a sprint or a hill climb. The TrainingPeaks calculations for rTSS and power-based TSS rely on normalized graded pace, normalized power, etc. The heart rate response to that acceleration will be delayed at best, and might not surface much at all. If you’re doing a sprint workout and have your AnT pace dialed in, rTSS might be more accurate.

I generally find that TrainingPeaks calculates zone 1-2 runs as 0.60 to 0.70 intensity factor and roughly 40-50 TSS per hour. Intensity factor is interesting but hasn’t been that useful for me either.

Estimating Training Stress Score (TSS)

[Reed]

Reed on January 31, 2020 at 3:40 pm · in reply to: Massage Guns? #37192

I recently got a set of jigsaw bits and a cordless jigsaw. The $25 was a lot more appealing than $300+. E.g., https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B07WPSTHRW/, https://www.mobilitybit.com/, etc. The jigsaw has other uses, assuming this doesn’t destroy it. 🙂 So far, it’s just another tool in the mobility & self myofascial release toolkit.

The most useful things I have are the Rogue 80mm SuperNova and Travell & Simons’ books on myofacial pain and dysfunction. Calf tightness might be referred from a knot in glute minimus, for instance (see image below). Jill Miller / The Roll Model book and foam balls are also great. No affiliation, just my opinion.

Attachments:

You must be logged in to view attached files.

[Reed]

Reed on January 22, 2020 at 10:34 am · in reply to: Surprisingly low aerobic threshold (drift test) #36705

In my first experience following a structured endurance-focused training plan, my anaerobic threshold (AnT) heart rate increased by 20bpm over a 3-month period. My aerobic threshold (Aet) heart rate at the end of that training block was equal to my AnT heart rate at the beginning. My years of intermittent running & powerlifting did not translate into a high AeT.

It sounds like you’ve been methodical about dialing in your AeT. You could consider getting a second opinion via a lactate test (I believe many people on this forum have gone to the lab at CU Boulder). Or base your training on these results, and spend a few months training below 110bpm, and re-test.

The age-based heart rate ratios apply to populations but with huge individual variance – best to ignore those.

[Reed]

Reed on January 19, 2020 at 3:11 pm · in reply to: Z1/Z2 caloric burn #36534

One thing to consider trying would be increasing the amount of fat in your diet. Sounds like you’re getting plenty of protein to handle strength training and general muscle repair. Fat will tend to help satiate hunger, and you might find that you eat fewer calories overall. If your diet was 30% protein, 20% carb, 50% fat rather than the numbers you listed, I think you’d experience a difference. Extra virgin olive oil, avocados, oily fish (salmon, sardines), full-fat yogurt… A mix of monounsaturated and polyunsaturated fats. Saturated fat from eating a nice fatty steak is probably not going to kill you. And if you’re getting sugar from sports drinks, processed foods, frappuccinos, etc., cut that source down a bit.

[Reed]

Reed on January 17, 2020 at 2:12 pm · in reply to: Interpreting blood lactate test. Also, zone definitions. #36461

Thanks, Scott! No sabbatical on the horizon, but I do hope to be able to devote another hour or even two per week, ramping up over the course of 2020. Glad to hear that my higher-intensity target is roughly in line with your rule of thumb. I think I know what to do (for now), now I just need to do it!

[Reed]

Reed on January 17, 2020 at 11:35 am · in reply to: AeT Test Results – Help appreciated #36444

Yes, it look like your aerobic threshold is around 162bpm. You could pick a Zone 2 that’s about 15bpm wide, so ~150-165 give or take. It’s not an exact science. The 10% difference between aerobic threshold and anaerobic threshold suggests an opportunity to focus on more volume below AeT. Good work getting your AeT up from 150bpm to 165bpm over the past year and a half!

[Reed]

Reed on January 17, 2020 at 10:06 am · in reply to: Help with Aet Test #36425

Hi Tom,

The fat / carbohydrate crossover point tends to correlate fairly well with aerobic threshold (AeT), from what I have read. The interesting thing about your test is that the percentage contribution from carbohydrates fluctuates above and below 50% as your heart rate increased from 150bpm to 185bpm before finally increasing above that point. Graph from your raw data attached.

You say that you’re training for Denali. I’m curious if you’ve developed a particular efficiency moving at a 5mph on a 6% grade. That might explain some of your test results and could suggest that your AeT might be higher, closer to 180bpm. It might be worth triangulating with a lactate measurement test at constant grade with increasing speeds.

I think the definition of aerobic threshold in the report is wrong, or at least substantially different from the more useful definitions used here and in Scott & Steve’s books. From the report: “Exercise at heart rates below AeT are done for active recovery, not to build fitness.”

My two cents: the zones listed in the report seem fine. Consider your AeT to be the top of Zone 2, or 183bpm. Your AnT is 196, only 7% higher than your AeT, suggesting a solid level of fitness.

-Reed

Attachments:

You must be logged in to view attached files.

[Reed]

Reed on January 17, 2020 at 9:22 am · in reply to: Z1/Z2 caloric burn #36422

It might be helpful to share some more specifics / numbers. Generally speaking, as the volume of training increases the need to restrict calories goes away. For some athletes, making sure to get enough calories is the bigger problem. And for many people, the quality of the food probably matters most. If you’re eating mostly healthy, something like 30% fat / 30% protein / 40% carbohydrates (give or take 10% for any of those), focusing on improving aerobic capacity especially if you have a deficiency will be a big lever to pull.

I have found the diet quality score in Racing Weight [0] to be useful. The simple act of tracking a few numbers during the day can be a powerful psychological tool to help nudge behavior.

[0] https://www.thriftbooks.com/w/racing-weight-how-to-get-lean-for-peak-performance_matt-fitzgerald/264222/#isbn=1934030996&idiq=4694756

[Reed]

Reed on January 16, 2020 at 12:09 pm · in reply to: Do these AeT test results make sense? And how much can AnT change over time? #36375

Hi Zac,

The amount of decoupling (pace : heart rate) is pretty low, and the slight elevation could even account for a bit of that, I think. So, yes, given that you were able to sustain that pace for an hour, it seems that your aerobic threshold (AeT) heart rate is probably not lower than ~145bpm. It might be higher, but there’s no downside to being conservative and targeting a lower heart rate.

It looks like you ran this at a 9:30 min/mi pace. You might see some improvement and grab low-hanging fruit by running 20 miles per week at 10min/mi or <145bpm for a few months. A hard run (anaerobic threshold field test) won’t hurt and might give you useful information; it also won’t be as helpful as more time at lower intensities.

-Reed

[Reed]

Reed on January 15, 2020 at 1:35 pm · in reply to: Interpreting blood lactate test. Also, zone definitions. #36324

Happy 2020! I don’t have any resolutions for the year, but I do have short update to share. I hope it’s helpful for anyone in similar shoes to me, balancing health / family / career / fitness. It has been fun seeing continued improvement even with the modest time investment I’ve been able to make.

Over the course of 2019, I ended up with a nice round 225 hours of training. Mainly road running, some hiking, some strength, a tiny bit of AT skiing. 98% of my training volume was below aerobic threshold (AeT): 86% Zone 1, 12% Zone 2. I have been using, by the way, a 15-beat-per-minute wide Zone 2 in order to stay on the conservative / easy side. And my Zone 1 extends from ~165bpm down to ~125bpm – probably way too wide, but I found myself getting demoralized when jogging at a Zone 0.9 pace, so I decided to just give myself credit for Zone 1. 🙂 Others might benefit from separately tracking Zone 1 and Recovery.

A lactate test this week showed that my speed at aerobic threshold increased by 9%, to 13kph to 12kph. That was gratifying to see! I’m not ready to run a marathon, but it seems that with that AeT pace I’m within striking distance (a few more quarters of training?) of a Boston-qualifying time. Both my AeT and AnT shifted up by 3bpm, to 183 and 196 respectively.

I’ll be doing half (as a relay) of the Santa Barbara Nine Trails 35-mile race in March. Planning to add in a little bit of intensity, but not much – maybe 15-30 minutes of Z3 per week. I don’t have a need to peak for the race, but it’s a good catalyst for some different workouts.

-Reed

Attachments:

You must be logged in to view attached files.

[Reed]

Reed on August 13, 2019 at 2:48 pm · in reply to: Strange lactate results #26735

I would suggest warming up much more gradually. Start with 20 minutes at well below your expected aerobic threshold pace / heart rate (e.g., 9km/hr, 120bpm), and see if that gets you a lactate reading below 1.5mmol/L. If not, try again the next day even slower.

Also, make sure to use an alcohol swab to clean your finger, and wipe off the first drop of blood. Otherwise, you may end up with sweat contaminating the blood sample and giving bad results.

[Reed]

Reed on May 24, 2019 at 9:02 am · in reply to: Lactate Testing Troubleshooting #22449

Just to echo Scott – for each sample (not just at the beginning of the workout), I do the following:

• Wipe finger with alcohol swab
• Wipe with clean tissue (or air dry, but that’s not as quick)
• Prick finger
• Squeeze out a drop of blood, wipe away with clean tissue
• Squeeze out a second drop, use for lactate test

I have not bothered with a calibration / control solution either.

[Reed]

Reed on May 23, 2019 at 1:19 pm · in reply to: Interpreting blood lactate test. Also, zone definitions. #22424

Hi Scott,

Thanks for the encouragement! Looking forward to adding a bit of time each week, over the coming quarters & years. I’m stoked to have had a pretty consistent 250-hour year, and from there I should safely be able to increase to 300 hours or so over the next year (maybe 350?). 20 hours / week would be fun.

I’ve tracked speed alongside heart rate and lactate. See attached for my two most recent tests plotted like a Conconi test. Nice rightward shift of speed at lactate threshold, to about an 8-minute/mile pace from 9-minute/mile pace. It’ll be interesting to see what that looks like later this summer…

I’ll do as you suggest, and test to higher lactate figures. I have not done a comparison of that treadmill step test with the “field test” (30-45-minute all-out run). That might be useful, too. Perhaps especially since I’d like to get faster at 10-20K distances, so having a clearer view of anaerobic threshold might be more important. That said, one of the lines that stuck out to me in Training for the Uphill Athlete was something like, “If you haven’t clocked 400+ hours of aerobic work each year for the past two years, that’s the biggest lever to pull.”

-Reed

Attachments:

You must be logged in to view attached files.