Alway anaerobic shortage

Tisztul_A_Visztula said:

I mean whatever I do, either I increase the number of sprints, or the duration of those sprints, or do shorter, but really all-out sprints, it is almost impossible to go over 3.5

Yep, it is hard to predict how the evaluation will turn out. I end up trying different workouts.

Interestingly, a very long ride with some sporadic serious climbs can get you to anaerobic >4.0. So, the story of intervals works in mysterious ways...

Etupes25 said:

This is a very good ratio, assuming that your HR Max value is accurate, of course.

Interestingly I never had a doubt that my HRmax was set to low, just the opposite.

Originally my HR max was set up during lab tests, both cycling and running. It was measured by both HR strap and ECG thingamies. At that time I was 40-42 years old. The numbers were always between 188-190 bpm.

Parallelly I tested it on my own, so there was no guidance, just a HR strap and I had checked what was the proposed method to get the real max. These times were really painful,  after them I had a kind of burning hurt in my lungs for at leasr a day.

Thus I decided to give up the regular test of my HR max to avoid any potential harm caused to myself. But nevertheless since then I tested it a couple of times, mainly for running.. So not regularly, but when I had doubt whether my HRmax was still so high, because I had read that normally it should have decreased by age.

But  I could get practically the same numbers for running for a long while , although maybe from 2020. it started to slip just a bit, so it is set to 186 now. But I cannot exclude that it is maybe still 188, but I am more than sure that it is not more.

Interestingly my cycling HRmax has been decreasing as it is said to have to be, approximately 1 bpm/year.  

Since I am 51.5 now, one can figure out that my HR max for running has been decreasing just by 1/6-1/3 bpm per year, which is quite peculiar, I guess. Especially because I do sports just like a hobby, sometimes more, sometimes I put them away for long weeks. Maybe my lower capabilities as regards  ventillation is the root cause why my heart became strong, I mean to compensate the weaker and smaller than normal lungs.

Etupes25 said:

This approach is not perfect. I had slow strength training recording as anaerobic because of false HR spikes during sets, but with enough intervals and repetition.

Sure, but it proves not the imperfectness of the approach, but that of wrist/optical HR measurement.

I wear always a HR strap when recording an activity, even when hiking/walking but I must confess that I gave it up for strength, too. The OHR of my F6x went mad just few times, while my F5+ and F3HR gave me so many false spikes. The secret is that F6X is biased toward underestimation, at least my device behaves this way in the gym.

I had this issue.  The only thing that works for me is intervals.  Something that gets your heart rate to the max so say 30 second sprints as fast as you can, then walk for 1 min to let heart rate drop then do it again. Repeat this about 10 times, that’ll get it shifted 

Garmin, can I have a suggestion? These types of questions are frequent in the forums. It's obvious that people don't understand what they have to do to do more X-type (for me it's high aerobic that's in shortage) exercises. Wouldn't it be possible to also include a link to a webpage that explains about the 3 types, and what an average Garmin user should do to achieve the missing type of excercise?

flocsy🤠 said:

Wouldn't it be possible to also include a link to a webpage that explains about the 3 types, and what an average Garmin user should do to achieve the missing type of excercise?

You mean this one?: What Is the Training Effect Feature on My Garmin Device? | Garmin Customer Support

The examples in the chart at the bottom are not sufficient?

R U guessing or do you know this? Either way it's clearly not the "right" table. The problem this and the hundred similar questions are about is what we see in either the watch or in Garmin Connect app, and has one of the following 3 categories "Low aerobic" "High aerobic" or "Anaerobic". Maybe the table in the link could answer the question for someone who has "Anaerobic shortage" but clearly it doesn't answer for people like me who struggle with either "low aerobic" or "high aerobic" shortage. The table in the link seemingly talks about a different type of categorization. And by using some of the words in more than one categorization just makes it even more confusing.

BTW my situation is this: I know how to run "Low aerobic" (most of my runs end up there), And whenever I try to "jump up 1 category" I end up in "Anaerobic" and can't nail it to be "only" "High aerobic"

Ah, and BTW we do intervals. Although the intervals are shorter (that's the place we have), around 200-250m, so I'm not sure if that can be a problem, or that I run too fast.

flocsy🤠 said:

R U guessing or do you know this?

I am not guessing anything. It was a screenshot from the official article on Garmin's support web.

flocsy🤠 said:

Maybe the table in the link could answer the question for someone who has "Anaerobic shortage"

Yes, that is the question in the title of this thread.

As for high and low aerobic effect, have a look at this document: What Is the Training Load Feature on My Garmin Device? | Garmin Customer Support

Low Aerobic Shortage – Try adding more low aerobic activities to provide recovery and balance for your higher intensity activities.

High Aerobic Shortage – Try adding more high aerobic activities to help improve your lactate threshold and VO2 max over time.

Anaerobic Shortage – Try adding a few more intense, anaerobic activities to improve your speed and anaerobic capacity over time.