Lactate threshold test not working - always "workout ended, threshold not found"

I have my Stryd configured as a footpod for distance and pace. On a 400 mtr track it is more accurate then gps with or without gallileo or glonass. See the picture on the replyto jmto. It usues its internal sensors so if you are running in a forest or nearby high rise buildings it doesn’t matter.  I live in the west part in the Netherlands so i don’t have any mountains so I run mostly on flat surface. But we have artificial hills and sand dunes near the coast. If you do a steady pace then the power goes up even before your heart rate does so you now then when you overshoot building up lactate. I never had any issues like drop outs with my 945. There’s a very active Facebook group where the customer service actively participates in questions. Garmin should take an example if on that. It even can function stand alone, you can synchronize with your phone at home. Then you obviously don’t have the Garmin mertics and gps tracks but distance , pace and powermetrics, as well as  groundcontacttime steps per minute 

jmto said:

Ok, so CP with it's imaginary number replaces LT.

I'm curious as to why you've referred to critical power as an "imaginary" number three times in your replies?  Is it because you don't buy in on the concept of running power or you're just not familiar with it?   Critical power doesn't replace Lactate Threshold, per se, as they're the same thing.  When using running power, CP= threshold.  Other terms used are functional threshold, lactate threshold, or anaerobic threshold.  If you're really interested, read Run With Power by Jim Vance, chapter 4.  It goes into great detail.

Do you use it more for running in flat routs or also in the mountains uphill?

I'm a huge advocate for training with run power.  I think there's nothing better when running in hilly terrain.  Training by heart rate has it's flaws mainly because HR lags and it's not telling you what's currently going on.  For example, depending on the hill you climb, your HR may not catch up until your on your descent.  HR is also affected by diet, temperature or stress.  Training with pace is better, but it also has it's challenges.  Terrain, wind and temperatures all factor in.  Another example, if running an incline while trying to maintain a certain pace may result in over exertion and be detrimental in the long run especially during a race.  Running power is output and doesn't have these challenges when they arise.  I've tried training by pace and/or HR and saw little gains.  I've been using run power for awhile now and my improvements are significant.

tess said:

Is it because you don't buy in on the concept of running power

It is because, we can't compare different companies running power numbers, they doesn't really measure directly the power, they are just doing guessing based on some calculations, so to me that's imaginary number. You can look at the trends of that imaginary number, but the face value of it, isn't really anything. Measuring the real wattage of your running is not easily done.

It does not compare to bicycle power meters which have direct point where they are measuring the power and different companies comes up with same numbers.

Let me explain this with Ray's old post: https://www.dcrainmaker.com/2017/12/garmin-running-power-good.html  "The Bad" section.

Your point about comparing different companies power numbers is valid, however most people don't use different company's power meters interchangeably. The goal of measuring power is to try and capture the effort output without the lag of HR. To say running power is imaginary because companies can't agree on the measure is being disingenuous.

Even cycling power meters don't have a consistent "direct point" that they measure. Some measure force at the pedal. Some measure angular force, some measure at the crank, and some measure the hub. Polar at one point even measured the chain, This is why DC Rainmaker wrote the DC Analyzer, because bicycle power meters also vary. The technology is in its infancy. That doesn't make it imaginary.

When you refer to the face value of a number, the same applies to cycling. I put out 237 watts over 20 minutes. What does that mean? Absolutely nothing. But if I say four weeks ago I was putting out 201 watts over 20 minutes, that starts to mean something. Then if I add context of my weight being 63kg, it means a little more. Then I can add in my age, the conditions under which I'm testing, the outside temperature... all of these things combine to make a picture with which we can make decisions as to the effectiveness of our training program. 

See https://www.researchgate.net/publication/340217807_Are_we_ready_to_measure_running_power_Repeatability_and_concurrent_validity_of_five_commercial_technologies

It provides a thorough breakdown of five running power meters and their efficacy at measuring power. At no point do they consider the numbers imaginary, they do however compare repeatability.

To skip to the conclusion

"Since of the main goal of PW measurement is to determine the real effort being incurred during an endurance training, coaches should guarantee that the device used is repeatable enough to ensure that changes in PW are due to improvements/decrements in athletes’ performance, instead of measurement errors of the technology. Therefore, based on the higher repeatability and relationship with the VO2of the Stryd technology, we encourage practitioners to use this device for PW measurement in running activities"

Piquet_H said:

To say running power is imaginary because companies can't agree on the measure is being disingenuous.

Well said. 

Piquet_H said:

we encourage practitioners to use this device for PW measurement in running activities

Running activities is pretty wide and contains all kind of running, trail running, orienteering etc. I highly doubt that it is so. Cycling power is the same on the trails or on the road. I'm highly doubt that those can accurately measure how the surface or vegetation affects it.

Piquet_H said:

Even cycling power meters don't have a consistent "direct point" that they measure.

I see that differently. The differences are explained by the point where they are measuring it as the powertrain isn't 100% efficient there are losses which explains the differences.

Fair enough. That's different to calling it an imaginary number. In a forum where people are asking genuine questions and providing their experience and alternatives, it's poor form to go out and call their training metric an imaginary number just because you see it differently than the scientific study.