I did today 5x10min threshold intervals - run with HRM Run belt. My HR zones are correctly set up. In the end I get:
|
Z5
|
0:05
|
0%
|
|
Z4
|
36:12
|
40%
|
|
Z3
|
12:44
|
14%
|
|
Z2
|
26:33
|
29%
|
|
Z1
|
12:43
|
14%
|
There's a lot of good thoughts and comments in this thread.
Here's a quick excerpt from the original introduction of Anaerobic Training Effect in our professional team sports platform. I thought of…
This is likely due to a common misconception about these terms (and it’s not like they are unambiguously defined to start with).
Hard effort is not by default anaerobic!
recovery and duration is…
Check out Firstbeat papers on how they calculate anaerobic training affect.
Basically, simply running at or above your anaerobic/lactate threshold isn't sufficient. What they are looking for is up/down…
Average heart rate of 163 if the chart above to be believed and it wasn't too hard? How old are you? 
Unless you are in your 20-25, the average of 163 will be anything but easy. Even a 30 year old is gonna be effectively in Z4, and that's an average. Would be a threshold run for me 
Premise: I don't have a Marq but a FR945, I'm looking also this forum because the FR945 could be thought as the little brother. But if the behaviour of the FR945 has something to do with its new firmware, I should report this in the other forum of the FR945. I was thinking that TE was independent of watch and firmware.
what was an average heart rate for your easy run?
My goal for the run was a run in zone 3 in the recovery periods between sprints (based on %HRR, Garmin says it should be 145-159). I was running with two watches, one the FR610 connected with a Scosche Rhythm+ optical heart rate monitor (yellow in the graph) and one the FR945 with his own optical heart (blue in the graph). As you can see in the graph, both heart rate monitor agree.
rate monitor.
Usually the FR610 and the FR945 with the old watch firmware had similar aerobic training effect, but for this run it was different. The FR610 says: aerobic training effect 3.1 impacting (average heart rate 147 max hr 174). The FR945 says: primary effect base colour green. Aerobic 3,7 impacting aerobic endurance. Anaerobic 2,1 maintaining anaerobic fitness. Exercise load 180 (average heart rate 148 max heart rate 174).
How high did you heart rate get during sprints?
The max hr during intervals were:
FR945 FR610
1 162 161
2 160 162
3 164 164
4 169 168
5 173 171
6 170 170
7 171 171
8 174 172
9 164 162
10 170 173
11 170 168
12 168 166
Are you positive your max HR is correct? Did you get it in the lab or after a all out effort? How often, if ever, do you reach that number in your training?
I never was in a lab. Max heart rate = 192 I had two years ago at the end of a 10 km race.
11 november 2018 during a half marathon I had average heart rate 176 max heart rate185.
18 may 2019 during another half marathon I had average heart rate 173 max heart rate 183.
I never reach the max heart rate of 192 in training, because I usually never go 100% in training and I usually don't do much anaerobic training. Usually during the hardest training sessions (intervals of 1 km or threshold run) I can reach 182-183, but I only reach this number once in a week.
19 jun 2019 I did a threshold test with the new Fr945 and it said: threshold heart rate = 175, that I believe it was correct because it matched the average run of the hal marathon that I did one month before (max heart rate in that run was 180, but I wasn't looking for my max heart rate. After the test I continued to run to complete my training and I run another km at average 177 heart rate).
I tried to do other two test, but after completing the step between 165 and 185 heart rate, the watch asked me to continue to run with heart rate between 180 and 195, but I was too tired and I had to stop the test. I avoided to do other tests because they are too painful and they don't fit good with my usual training.
Also, people on the younger side, like below 30.
I'm 49 years old and when I do anaerobic work and fast tempo run for me are the hardest training, on the other side slow long run are confortable for me.
PS TE of 3.7 for 15 km run with 15 60-sec sprints sounds perfectly valid, even if your heart rate was in low aerobic zones most of the time.
I'm looking at training effect from the time of the FR610, and usually this kind of run gives me a number in the range that the FR610 gave (3.1).
Yesterday I did another run (16km) and for the second time FR610 and FR945 gave very different training effect. I was still tired of the anaerobic work of sunday with the 60 seconds sprints (my perceived effort was a anaerobic TE=4), but I was with a friend who was running fast and I tried to run with him, but in the middle of the run, after 1 km where my friend pushed a bit harder and I had an average heart rate = 176, I burned out and I had to slow down. It was 30°C (86°F) with sun and GarminConnect shows in his graph 12,8°C (55°F) with clouds. The FR945 reported avg hr 159 max heart rate 180 Aerobic TE 4,7 colour orange highly impacting lactate threshold, anaerobic TE0,5 no benefit.
The FR610 connected with the Scosche heart rate monitor reported average 158 hr max hr 178 training effect 3,4 impacting aerobic. This is a huge difference 3,4 against 4,7.
My perceived effort was 4,7 because it was very warm and because in the middle of the run I burned out because probably I was tired of the workout of the day before. For me it was really hard to complete the run, and I was running with heart rate 170 at a pace that usually it's an easy run and where usually my heart rate is about 150. But in a day with normal temperature and if I was well rested, then it should be 3,4 correct. Maybe the FR945 considered the heart rate variability and noted that I was really tired, or the FR945 noted that it was really warm and that the correct temperature was that showed by the internal sensor of the FR945 and not the wrong temperature of GarminConnect?
Anyway the "cruise" and "recovery" portions of the run contribute to load and increased average heart rate, but i think the system over estimates the aerobic TE.
In conclusion, my opinion is that in my case without a coach and without lab test it's too difficult to find my correct max heart rate, my correct zone and do the threshold test of the FR945 is just too painful. I believe that for me it's better to look a bit at training effect and at what the FR945 suggests me in his advices of training load, but it's better to base my training on feeling.
Probably my max heart rate and my heart rate zones change a lot based on the season of the year (summer where I rest, or winter when I prepare race).
I set in the watch that it should find lactate threshold and max heart rate automatic , but if the watch can't do this, the risk that I set something wrong is too high so I can't rely on the suggestion of my watch (until the watch can recognize the correct heart rate zones alone).
I max out around 201 (recorded via chest strap on a hard effort)
Averaged 184 for 1:49:41 on a half marathon aerobic race effort.
I'm 43. So clearly 220-43 doesn't quite work out for me.
The aerobic portion of that run was pretty easy. The surges did get the HR pumping, but were not so hard to maintain. The recovery after the long interval greatly increased the average HR even going rather slow.
Honestly, this is where I have to admit I'm no longer sure what FB is doing: both you and Mirko should clearly be hitting your anaerobic energy system, especially Mirko with his recorded intervals at or above his LT, with subsequent recovery.
I have been wondering for a while if anaerobic TE changed from when it was first introduced in Fenix 5. It got progressively harder to heat higher numbers. But I always felt it was just lazy wuss in me, overbinging on easy aerobic runs and not doing really hard, anaerobic stuff, really.
Now I'm questioning this self-loathing narrative What's worse is if anaerobic TE is off, so goes the load balance and overall training load, both of which I happened to really-really like and which were one of big drivers of buying MARQ.
