[Keymaster]

Scott Semple on December 10, 2019 at 2:28 pm · in reply to: Why would HR go down on a steep hill ? #34090

“…which I bought for the accuracy of its wrist hr monitor and it seems on so far.”

How do you know? What calibrated, accurate device output did you compare it to?

It’s highly unlikely that the wrist monitor is accurate. Don’t use wrist monitors for proper endurance training. There’s only one way to make it better: Get a chest strap.

My legs burn early and I end up hiking.

That’s normal. Very few humans can actually run uphill, especially at AeT. “Mountain running” is more good marketing than anything. “Hiking races” just doesn’t have the same ring… 🙂

…legs are burning to the max but HR is still showing about my AeT (140) though my perceived exertion was much much more than during that test.

You were using a wrist monitor.

Then equally bizarre going back downhill running fast my HR goes way up (157).

You were using a wrist monitor.

Or do I just need to suck it up and order the HR chest strap?

Yes.

[Keymaster]

Scott Semple on December 10, 2019 at 2:18 pm · in reply to: [AeT Drift Test] Hard to dial in initial HR #34087

It does look that way. How did you test your AnT?

[Keymaster]

Scott Semple on December 10, 2019 at 2:11 pm · in reply to: Doubts on lactate test results #34086

Either way, I’m curious about their method.

It looks like they’re drawing a line tangent to the ~4mM mark and then a parallel line to that through your peak lactate. Coincidentally, that parallel line also intersects the 1.75 mM mark.

Did they explain their method at all?

[Keymaster]

Scott Semple on December 10, 2019 at 2:07 pm · in reply to: AeT #34085

What @jan said!

[Keymaster]

Scott Semple on December 10, 2019 at 2:04 pm · in reply to: Runalyze #34083

I wouldn’t use CTL or ATL to diagnose overtraining. It’s a lot more nuanced than what two generic metrics can capture.

[Keymaster]

Scott Semple on December 10, 2019 at 2:02 pm · in reply to: pa:hr on Training Peaks free version #34082

Did you mean 1.056? 1.56 would be a 56% spread…

A ceiling of 5% is where you want to stay. I wouldn’t adjust anything if you’re right at the limit.

[Keymaster]

Scott Semple on December 10, 2019 at 2:00 pm · in reply to: Aerobic climbing sessions / Max hangs #34081

Ideally, yes. If your general aerobic work creates general fatigue, you won’t get as much out of the climbing sessions. Whereas the climbing sessions won’t create as much general fatigue, there’s a lower chance that they’ll negatively impact the endurance work.

[Keymaster]

Scott Semple on December 10, 2019 at 1:58 pm · in reply to: AeT Test Results and Questions #34080

It depends. It’s better to underestimate a warm-up than overestimate, especially for a lactate test.

[Keymaster]

Scott Semple on December 8, 2019 at 5:06 am · in reply to: Aerobic climbing sessions / Max hangs #33906

1) Do you mean the transition and base periods for general endurance? I think you can keep the max hangs. Your legs won’t notice… 🙂

2) No. Likewise, your legs won’t notice the ARC sessions. They’re too local (focused on the forearms.)

The biggest thing to consider is fatigue. The climbing will be more of a recovery workout for your legs, but not vice versa. A lot of general aerobic work could fatigue you for the technical climbing. So those sessions are best done fresh, after a rest day, the first workout of the day, etc.

[Keymaster]

Scott Semple on December 7, 2019 at 5:31 pm · in reply to: AeT Test Results and Questions #33897

The rise-then-drop is normal and common. Your aerobic system was still warming up. Then once it was, it reduced the lactate in your bloodstream. The aerobic system uses three fuels: oxygen, fat, and lactate (pyruvate).

I think you’re safe to use 155 as your AeT HR (the upper limit of Z2).

Did the test go any higher? Did it record HR at ~4 mM or MLSS?

[Keymaster]

Scott Semple on December 7, 2019 at 5:26 pm · in reply to: Runalyze #33896

I’ve never used Runalyze, but I would love to see Training Peaks have a viable competitor. So far I haven’t seen it though…

[Keymaster]

Scott Semple on December 6, 2019 at 2:36 pm · in reply to: HR Zone Sanity Check #33852

And with severe ADS, you don’t need to fine-tune your zones. That can wait.

Just use:

• Z1: < = 110
• Z2: 110 – 125
• Z2+: >125 (Don’t go here.)

Unless you have a race you’re preparing for, spend all of your time in Z2. And be patient! It will improve based on:

1. Personal response (impossible to predict);
2. Volume of Z2 work (as much as your mind and life can tolerate); and
3. The discipline to avoid going above Z2, even if your friends do.

[Keymaster]

Scott Semple on December 6, 2019 at 2:20 pm · in reply to: HR Zone Sanity Check #33851

LT is often used for both thresholds. Fun times with terminology.

In this case, LT refers to your AeT. Your drift test was over but close to 5%, and this test pegs it at 125. I think you’re safe to use it as your AeT HR.

[Keymaster]

Scott Semple on December 6, 2019 at 2:15 pm · in reply to: Cycling as a mean to build AeT #33850

To me, the most telling fact in this all-too-common discussion is, why does no one ever ask if they can train as a runner for a cycling race?

I’ve heard the cycling question a million times, and I’ve never heard the opposite once. Why? Because cycling is more popular.

More than anything, that says that people are trying to justify their preferences over reality. It’s a common mistake we all make.

[Keymaster]

Scott Semple on December 6, 2019 at 2:11 pm · in reply to: Cycling as a mean to build AeT #33849

Again, this is a sample of one “within one”.

Saying “so-and-so is badass so what they do must be the best option” is an erroneous conclusion. For that conclusion to be valid, we need to compare not John against the world, but John The Cyclist versus John The Sport-Specific-Trainer.

But that’s obviously impossible. We can’t compare alternative futures of one person. So the next best thing is to examine the training methodologies of world-class athletes by world-class coaches in more mature sports. The vast, vast majority of which train specifically. For example, endurance sports in Norway would be a good place to start (and end).

It’s a sample of one versus a sample of tens of thousands over decades.

“Joe Badass trains non-specifically so it must work so I will too” is just confirmation bias I’m afraid…

It would be more intellectually honest to say, “Doing something I enjoy is more important to me than doing something I don’t, even if it has a statistically lower chance of optimizing my performance.”

Because I like biking a hell of a lot more than running, that’s my approach starting this year. I’m knowingly using sub-optimal training methods (for skimo) because my priorities have changed.