Rolling back/manually adjusting Lactate Threshold

Sorry, but I don't get what you're saying.

My FR630 detects LT pace and LTHR automatically. If I don't like what it tells me, I can always manually override the HR Zone thresholds in the device settings in Garmin Connect. I don't believe the detected LT pace actually affects anything in terms of what the watch calculates from time to time, though, other than perhaps the colour and the direction of the arrow.

At the end of the day, I run how I want to run, and I'm not dictated to by the watch. There is absolutely no need for the watch and you as the ‘athlete’ or user to agree on the numbers; you can just treat what the watch tells you (is your LT pace and/or your LTHR) as someone else's opinion.

Trying to get some other entity (whether it's the watch you ‘own’, or some other person in the forum community) to agree with you and/or achieve consensus on the Objective Truthat all times is folly.

You can manually set LTHR in Settings, User Profile but I would also question why you might want to do it. Only really matters if your HR zones are based on it.

It probably computed it before the final reps anyway although would question the accuracy in 1km reps as not really long enough.

If you are unsure do the guided test and see what that brings. Alternatively check your most recent 10K and HM races - LTHR and pace is typically between the two.

My reasons for wanting to change it are neither here nor there, the question was whether or not it could be done. But I'll bite. I intend to periodically review my LT by running the tests, and see if it ties in with how I feel. So I want the numbers to be accurate. But I don't want to redo the test immediately if I can avoid it because frankly it doesn't fit smoothly into my workout pattern this week.

As I said in my first post, I used the numbers it generated to structure certain workouts and - judging by feel - those workouts have been perfect, so I don't think it's that silly to want the numbers to be as accurate as I can reasonably make them.

Thanks for the answer TimGrose, that worked.

Alternatively check your most recent 10K and HM races - LTHR and pace is typically between the two.

True. The funny thing is that the estimated VO2Max for me is way off too high and at same time the watch predicts a 10k/HM finish time that is so much faster than the measured LT pace that it is getting ridiculous. A little bit of sanity checking would be good :cool:.

Up to you of course but accurate is a bit subjective if you don't agree with what the watch tells you it thinks it is.

Most common reason for too high VO2 Max is having your max HR too high on the watch. It should be what you have actually got to recently or at least very close.

Up to you of course but accurate is a bit subjective if you don't agree with what the watch tells you it thinks it is.

Most common reason for too high VO2 Max is having your max HR too high on the watch. It should be what you have actually got to recently or at least very close.

Can't be the case, I know my max HR quite good from a lot of occasions and have set it. For instance (example from my F3), I had a VO2Max of 62 and a measured LT Pace of 3:57 at a HR of 89,6%, which latter is quite plausible, the VO2Max absolutely not. Got the predictions for it not handy, but I think this was a 10k time of 34:xx or something, meaning 10k race pace is 30 secs faster than measured LT pace.

On my 735, my VO2Max started last week at 47 and is now moving in the upper 50 region. Still too high. Though I know that my running economics are not good enough to bring the VO2Max power to pace. That's why Jack Daniels invented VDOT, btw.

As I said in my first post, I used the numbers it generated to structure certain workouts and - judging by feel - those workouts have been perfect, so I don't think it's that silly to want the numbers to be as accurate as I can reasonably make them.

It's not at all silly to want data/information to be accurate. I'm not sure your “feel” is (or can be) more accurate, when a metric is represented by an absolute number, than an instrument designed to produce that number.

As Tim has rightly suggested, you can measure it again and overwrite the most recent number on record. However, procedurally rolling back to an earlier reading (presumably because you like that number better because it fits your “feel” and/or view, irrespective of uncaring, objective accuracy) is a different matter altogether.

It's not at all silly to want data/information to be accurate. I'm not sure your “feel” is (or can be) more accurate, when a metric is represented by an absolute number, than an instrument designed to produce that number.

As Tim has rightly suggested, you can measure it again and overwrite the most recent number on record. However, procedurally rolling back to an earlier reading (presumably because you like that number better because it fits your “feel” and/or view, irrespective of uncaring, objective accuracy) is a different matter altogether.

Have you even read my post? I don't want it rolling back because I like the number more, I want to roll it back because it's based in inaccurate input - unless you're suggesting that Firstbeat have somehow come up with a way of measuring the fact I had a stitch for 1/4 of my efforts?

Inaccurate in, inaccurate out - hence why I wanted to roll back to the LT test, which is still recent and based on a solid and consistent effort. And yes, I can do another test to recalibrate/reset - but that's not convenient right now as it would take the place of an actual workout.

The 'feel,' was that the workout - structured around the data from the previous LT test - felt like it was at the right level of intensity for the workout that I had planned, not that I 'felt' my LT number should be any different. I won't follow Garmin blindly if the workouts - based on their numbers - don't feel like they're at the level that I wanted. But so far they have so I'm happy to use the LT estimate as a basis for them.

OK perhaps we have answered your question but personally I find this stuff far more interesting than endless pages about watch straps and screen protectors so I like to delve a bit deeper if you are willing to.

So, out of interest, how did the LTHR achieved in your session compare to what you had before and can you point to the part of the session where it was actually achieved? You should be able to read off the point where HR and pace matched what they gave you.

Don't know about you I would find 1K reps not ideal for computing this stuff as I would typically do them harder than LT effort and so spend very little time there.

It's not a totally flat course - flattish, and the best option I've got but still quite difficult to maintain a perfectly steady pace (variance of about 0:25/km pace during the effort spells - keep in mind that the workout includes a variance of 0:10/km in the effort step.) But if I smooth the dips, with the recovery time being short I'd say it was around the 5th rep that my LTHR and LT pace came into alignment. But I was within 3-5 bpm of my LTHR during each 1km effort prior to that point.

In relation to the actual workout itself, I can't remember exactly where I came across them - I've only started doing 'proper' intervals (as opposed to fartlek) since owning the 935. I went hunting for different interval sessions to use, and came across that as one of a few workouts I've now added. Is there something you'd suggest as an alternative? I'm trying to work on my marathon time (although using that as a basis for overall time on ultra's, not for a road marathon.)

Oh, and you mentioned HM and 10K paces earlier - I'm doing more road running but I'm firmly an off-roader, my last road HM race was about a year ago and it's years since I ran a 10K. So my HM & 10K paces are rough guestimates - I've got a solid 5K pace at least from a recent event but that's about it.