Aerobic or anaerobic zone? Look at the pictures!

Thanks for all your answers and explanations :-)

Anyway it still seems strange to me that my HR (around 180 which is almost my max HR) is not anaerobic
:)

It is anaerobic, its well passed you LT, just that it does not improve your anaerobic system that way (steady-pace), which is what the training effect measures, not how much you have been in the aerobic or anaerobic zone.

I have a related question if I may...
I am 63 and have started running as a real beginner last September (with a break from November till February). When using the standard max HR of 157 my zone 5 starts at 141. Now I‘m running about an hour with an average HR of 149. I assume this is not really possible and means that the max HR is underestimated? When looking at the recorded max HR (with Garmin Run chest belt) it gives something up to 159 but I never felt really like I‘m almost collapsing ;-)
When adjusting my max HR to something like 165 (in line with some other formulas), my typcal average heart rate would just be in zone 4 which makes much more sense to me.
Besides interested in KPIs in general I want to ensure I am training in the correct zones.
Is my assumption and conclusion correct?
Thank you!
J.

Jumanji, for that hour long run at 149, how much effort was it? It is not possible to run for more than ten minutes in what I consider to be a true zone 5. If your run was easy then Zone 2, not so easy is zone 3, race pace zone 4, last five minutes of effort at the end of a 5k at max effort is zone 5. The bulk of your training should be in zone 2.

I also recommend you complete a Max HR test - just have a search for a suitable description of how to complete one.

@OnlyTwo: interesting read, thank you
@TrippyZ: It was a 7km trail run, so it was not at race speed (don‘t do races anyway, just want to improve my cardio fitness), however it was the maximum effort I could deliver for this extended period of time and certainly more than ‚not so easy‘. So I think you agree with it can‘t be zone 5 which means 157 can‘t be a realistic max heart rate. Maybe ine of these days I will do a professional test but so far I was only interested in a plausibility check. Keep in mind my age and that I‘m not running to compete but for improving may cardio system. Thanks
J.

P.S. ... do you think it may have read as such a high aneorobic score just because of the "gaps" in the data make it look like my heart-rate is going from 70 to 160 and back to 70 every 20 seconds? :D

Thanks for the update. Based on the missing data, it looked like perhaps you'd recorded it with the onboard optical sensor which was getting shifted around during the session, but I couldn't figure out how you'd have been able to wear a watch during jujitsu training. Hadn't thought about the belt getting moved around, but it makes perfect sense.

Regarding the dropouts, I was wondering the same thing myself. It certainly doesn't help, that's for sure.

I would certainly hope that they would be recognized as bad signal data, and be filtered out.... but if there are enough of them - it is possible that they could artificially inflate your AnTE.

That said, even without the drops, it still looks a workout that would produce a good Anaerobic Training Effect - but maybe not one that would hit the top of the scale.

I have a related question if I may...
I am 63 and have started running as a real beginner last September (with a break from November till February). When using the standard max HR of 157 my zone 5 starts at 141. Now I‘m running about an hour with an average HR of 149. I assume this is not really possible and means that the max HR is underestimated? When looking at the recorded max HR (with Garmin Run chest belt) it gives something up to 159 but I never felt really like I‘m almost collapsing ;-)
When adjusting my max HR to something like 165 (in line with some other formulas), my typcal average heart rate would just be in zone 4 which makes much more sense to me.
Besides interested in KPIs in general I want to ensure I am training in the correct zones.
Is my assumption and conclusion correct?
Thank you!
J.

You could set your zones based on your lactic threshold instead of your maxHR, at least until you obtain a fairly accurate maxHR value. If you have done runs outside at that intensity (above your LT) then the watch will have already calculated your lactic threshold, which seems fairly accurate at doing that, all you have to do is go into your user settings in the connect app, in the Configure Heartrate zones, and there set them based on the LT%. That should give you a pretty accurate estimate of when you are in zone 5 or 4.

GC tells me a Lactate value of 141, but to be honest I have no idea where that is coming from (entered or calculated). Based on that value zone 5 were 141-157, so with 149 I‘d be in the middle of zone 5.
J.

GC tells me a Lactate value of 141, but to be honest I have no idea where that is coming from (entered or calculated). Based on that value zone 5 were 141-157, so with 149 I‘d be in the middle of zone 5.
J.

Take a look at the Garmin connect app, in the Performance Stats section, in there you will find the Lactate Threshold page, that page will show the calculated lactate threshold according to the registered data from your runs, that is the value you want (it will update with subsequent runs so keep checking it). Enter that value in the Configure Heart Rate Zones and set the Lactate Threshold % as the method for the zones.

Then in the watch-face of the running app in the watch you can set the LT Zone in one of the fields, so you can see in which zone you are according to your LT as you are running.

Thanks C966,

however it shows a straight line with an unchanged value of 141 since the beginning. Given that I started running then I have little trust in that figure, even less than in the max HR figure ;-)
I will perform a lactate test next weekend and see what it is going to tell me...
J.