Athlete Login
Persistent AnT test failures
- This topic has 3 replies, 2 voices, and was last updated 10 months, 1 week ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Hey there,
In order to assess improvements in both my aerobic and anaerobic capacities, I performed a second batch of AeT and AnT tests (7 months after the first batch of these tests that had been done when I started my training program with Evoke Endurance). While the AeT tests have been performed successfully during both batches (i.e., technically speaking, my coached and I had no issue when it came to determining my AeT), my AnT tests were inconclusive. In a nutshell, for unknown reasons(s), I have the impression I cannot produce a sustained effort (i.e., above my AeT) for longer than 20 min… My coach said that my aerobic capacity is relatively well-developed (no ADS, as my AeT is at 167 HR while my AnT should be around 175 HR).
I have some clues to explain my lack of ability to produce a sustained effort (in terms of HR) for longer than 20 minutes, but I am not knowledgeable enough to conclude anything. Hereunder are some supposed (by me) potential explanations. Any hint concerning these suppositions is highly appreciated! Thanks 🙂
Plausible explanations:
1. I NEED TO PACE MYSELF: I think I didn’t pace myself correctly when I started the AnT test. The reality is that I am not used to giving everything I have while I run. So, I think it’s hard to evaluate what might be an adapted anaerobic pace for me, as I hardly go anaerobic for more than 5 minutes during my workouts. So, I sat a starting benchmark in terms of HR that was equivalent to my supposed HR AnT, which should be around 175-178. So, I tried to maintain this HR during the test. Then, I realized it was too much for me (both in terms of breathing and ME in my legs). I then reduced the pace. From this point onwards, I think the limitation was my legs’ ME rather than my breathing (this is at least what my relatively low average HR of 159 is telling me — an HR equivalent to the middle of my Z2).
2. RUNNING EFFICIENCY: I was dumb enough to choose the path of a “Vertical K Race” (Fully, Switzerland) instead of sticking to my usual path. This vertical K race consists of 1km of elevation gain for only 1.92 km of actual running distance… Obviously, the slope is very aggressive, and I am not used to “racing” on such steep slopes. I guess the effort efficiency differs from a 15% slope (my legs’ ME might yield better performance on less steep slopes?)… This vertical K race is supposed (according to their website) to be the steepest sky race in the world (I doubt that, but the average slope is indeed 50%!). I mean, testing the AeT on a treadmill with a 15% slope is different than testing an AnT on natural terrain with a 50% slope!
3. LACK OF LEGS’ ME: I am amused to witness the fact that I might have underdeveloped legs’ ME for such steep slopes. When I say “underdeveloped”, I mean that my aerobic capacity was not the limiter here, as I was in the middle of my Z2. This is funny, as I’ve been doing quite a lot of legs’ ME workouts… I think that an explanation for that Is the steepness of the chosen path (I might not be used to giving everything on such a steep terrain, and therefore, my effort efficiency on a 50% slope is lower than on a 15% slope). Do you agree? What’s your take on that?
4. NOT ENOUGH RESTED: I was dumb enough to transform the leisurely walk prescribed two days before my Ant test into a 20km run with roughly 1000m of elevation gain. This workout drained “a bit” of my energy and brought fatigue (not ideal before an AnT test)…
Bottom line: Given my HR AeT of 167, an average HR of 159 is ridiculous for an AnT test, as it is not even close to the upper part of my AeT! Something is really wrong here. I mean, is there such a thing as “anaerobic deficiency”? I think I can’t sustain an anaerobic pace for long… Do you have any explanation for that? I am a bit lost 😛
Anyways… I started doing the first 330m elevation gain in 15 minutes. I could do the 1000 m elevation gain at this pace in 45 minutes. But nope. I must say I am a bit frustrated, as I believe this is a poor performance (for me) both in terms of vertical gain per hour and HR numbers. I mean, if you extrapolate the AeT test I did a couple of days ago, running at 8km/h on a 15% slope yields an elevation gain of 1200 meters per hour while being fully aerobic… Nothing related to the performance I did today for an AnT threshold test…
Any hints/ remarks? Thank you!
It seems to me you have been trying to test your AnT using something that resembles a ME workout. To ever get close to your AnT on a course that incredibly steep you would need to do some very specific training or at least use poles efficiently.
Remember that all heartrate based thresholds are sport and terrain specific. It will be different on flat terrain compared to steep terrain, as they are completely different movement patterns. Just as it will be different on a bike or XC skis.
So you need to find the theshold heartrate zones for the training environment(s) that are relevant to your goals. If that´s the VK of Fully than you know what you need to work on 😉
I agree with you; the steepness of the slope is part of the explanation. But even more relevant is the fact that I “clogged” myself. This is what my coach told me, and it makes perfect sense. Here is a very interesting article written by Scott Semple that explains the phenomenon:
In summary, I went too hard at the very beginning of the test (too hard, meaning even higher than my AnT), and therefore, I was producing more lactate than my body could eliminate. When this happens, the body forces you to slow down in order to use the lactate shuttle to eliminate the lactate excess. The rest of the phenomenon is explained in the article: “To speed the clearing process, extremely slow speeds are required. So, in a race context, if you start too fast, your average speed for the event will be much slower. If you start without the burst, you avoid the initial flood of lactate and the slow reabsorption period.” This is exactly what happened. My system was overflowed by metabolic byproducts (mainly lactate). Consequently, I was forced to slow down at a much lighter pace than my AeT.
It is funny to witness how this phenomenon destroys performance. During my last AeT test, I was able to climb 1260 meters of elevation gain in one hour. During this failed AnT test, I “only” climbed 1080 meters of elevation gain in one hour. And, of course, when you run at AnT, you’re supposed to perform better than when you run at AeT.
The following chart represents the measured test’s HR, clustered by my personal HR zones (colors). It illustrates the “clogging” effect:
Red: Zone 4
Orange: Zone 3 (in which I was supposed to stay during the majority of the test)
Yellow: Zone 2
Green: Zone 1
The first 7 minutes of my test were performed within Zone 4 (i.e., way too high). During this time-lapse, I was producing much more lactate than my body could clean or vacuum. Consequently, I “clogged” (i.e., accumulated too much lactate in my muscles). As I couldn’t sustain such a pace (precisely because the lactate level was too high for my body to work properly), my body reacted by forcing itself to slow down (in order to be able to clean the lactate excess through the lactate shuttle, which is precisely situated at the top of my zone 2). Consequently, I only stayed 2 to 3 minutes in Zone 3; as such pace was not sufficient to clean the excess of lactate precisely because I accumulated too much of it during my initial Zone 4 effort. The rest of the test shows a slow decline into Zone 2 until steady-stating at the middle of my Zone 2 (approximatively at 155 HR for me). If I had started the test at the bottom of Zone 3, the lactate production would have been low enough for my body to clear it by using this metabolic byproduct to propel my muscle fibers. But this is not what happened, as I started too hard. As a final consequence, I could not even reach the performance that I was supposed to reach by only using my aerobic metabolism (i.e., staying in Zone 2 — which corresponds, for me, to gain circa 1260 meters of elevation per hour). I was thus supposed to gain more than 1260 meters per hour at my AnT. But this is not what happened. The funny thing was that, during the effort, I was not able to explain what was actually happening: I was not feeling out of breath (I was mainly in the middle part of my Zone 2), and I did not feel that it was too hard in terms of muscular endurance (no burn in my legs or whatsoever). It was like a bad dream in which you are unable to run at your desired speed 😛
Pragmatic lessons:
1. Pace yourself (i.e., stay at the low part of your supposed Zone 3 to start the test, and then increase a bit the effort if you feel you can do it),
2. Select a path that is similar to the training environment you’re used to.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.