Ok. Sounds different than what Marco and Bruce recommended in the above thread. 6 min stages, establishing steady state. Maybe that’s changed and if so, cool. It has been over a year it was early back then. As you can see, I found good agreement.
After experimenting with day to day usage, I moved on and hadn’t thought about it much until it came up again in this thread (due to Marco tweet).
That was what i remembered as well, but he did say it several times that you don’t want hr to stabilize during the ramp. The tr ramp is still good for his discussion with Mikael since then an alpa-1 value of .5 is approximately lt2.
I noticed bruce did use language that made it seem like the .75 and .5 vague values were more representative of the population average vs each individual.
@Bioteknik Yep, sounds like it. He even mentioned TR and Zwift. @JoeX Good ear, Joe. 
About 22:00 into podcast. This has definitely changed. He does mention the second way (longer intervals, stable HR) but Mikael follows up.
Agree. if I establish good population number but it’s highly variable, less useful in a coaching context (individual athlete). Standard issue with that.
I’m not really going to pursue this anyway but somewhat interesting to see it unfold.
I have tried dfa1 with bike power and running pace.
The first test for each 5 mintue steps and 6 minute steps, bike and run, seemed to return the HR I was expecting +/- 2 bpm.
Further testing gave more varied results which I didnt trust so much… I came to the conclusion that you couldnt use pace or power for anything meaningful in day to day training… environmental factors had too much of an impact on power and pace. Stepped HR might be better.
Personally from what I have seen I think you are better to just stick with the following, unless for the individual you have evidence to the contrary.
Good enough? LT trainings
Ps… checked a couple of 1 minute step ramp test (TR ramp) and it looks like not enough resolution and too much margin of error to be sure of a decent number.
Dfa1, interesting but atm not useful imo.
Giving the podcast I linked a listen now see if I change my mind. Lol
You’re going to hear this when you listen to the podcast but check whether you were using ant+ or bluetooth for HR. Evidently the correct answer is “bluetooth” 
I have a running bet that you will not change your mind. Come on back and tell us what you think. Prove me wrong, and win some money. 
I meant to mention that as well. I have tried both… only because I forgot to switch back from Bluetooth from Ant+
I actually had fewer artifacts (only just) with Ant+ (this was while running) and got the same result. I couldnt see a difference.
Edit: I rare looked at data over 145 bpm so that might explain why I saw no difference. Think he said it was an issue at higher HRs i.e in the 140s and above.
That podcast was from older info:
I feel like some have an expectation that alpha 1 = .75 must be LT1 and if it isn’t, this is a completely useless metric. (also notice the studies saying its not .75 only tried one type of ramp) And there are also lots of people who think they don’t have to use more accurate HR sensors or deal with artifacts so some people are looking at just bad data. This doesn’t seem fair. We are past the point of finding low hanging fruit of very easy data to collect that also gives clear numbers.
Is alpha 1 useful should just fall back on if alpha 1 shows how much stress/strain you’re under better than power or hr. If it can find threshold that would be great but even if it can’t it could still be useful
Or RPE.
I surmise the answer is a resounding “NO”, particularly as pertains to my suggestion. You can spend all day staring at a DFA a1 field on your computer, or you can just figure out how you feel, just as with HR and power.
IMO because day-to-day human physiology is imprecise anyway, good enough is good enough.
Who said anything about doing it in your head? None of what I posted was easy to do just by looking at the data field. As I said, alpha 1 metrics are past the area of low hanging fruit. Having the computer analyze it for us can give much better results as evidence by adaptive training. Improving adaptive training requires more data into their calculations and models. (i.e. lots can be improved in the background without the user needing the understand why things are done a certain way)
If you only want to deal with the low hanging fruit, great. But that doesn’t mean we’ve reached the peak of what can be improved on so may as well stop doing research on how to further improve.
So do the various apps, HRV logger etc record the workout and tell you the LT1, LT2 or do you have to look for the 0.75, 0.5 values and look at another app for the corresponding HR/power/whatever…or do you analyse after the test?
—-
Having read the Alpha HRV app it look like it can display on your watch while training and also see graphs on GC afterwards. So I think it’s just install the app and go…
I cant see anything recent about running protocol, not sure the podcast mentioned it either, so a running ramp test on a treadmill?
Apparently so.
Basically analyze it post test. Helpful if you start the app at the same time you start ramp test or come up with a little marker. For example. “2 mins into ramp I started HRV recording on app”. Would recommend starting at top of minute so you can compare later. You will basically have two files to manually inspect.
And the apps aren’t going to say LT1 or whatever because you’re not measuring lactate. Up to you to find a .75 or .50 or whatever.
TR should record your data as usual and you would just have HR connected to app via the other signal (ant+ or Bluetooth). You are essentially double recording HR, unless for some reason you would not record HR in ride file generated by TR. I see reason to do that. Keep it simple
FWIW recording indoor workouts on my Garmin 530 with HRV enabled, I’m seeing very few artifacts and a lot of clean data. Maybe I’m looking at it wrong, either that or its clean data. Single ANT+ connection from Garmin dual HRM to my 530. Also I get fairly clean HRV data from most outside rides, specifically the steady-state endurance rides.
Didn’t say we should stop researching. Only that that’s what scientists are for, not my athletes or myself. YMMV.
What about using alphaHRV while riding and keeping the pace around 0.75 when doing ISM endurance rides?
Came down with a heavy cold yesterday so won’t be resting for a while. Thanks for the tips so far though.
You need to be resting… was that meant to be testing?
You are correct. I havent changed my mind. Still better and easier ways to do the same thing that are practical in the real world training environment.
Still interesting, and will look at the r-r intervals / dfa1 data occassional after the odd session when there might be something going on that I might want an insight to or to see if there is correlation with dfa1 and what I think is going on… dehydration, illness, dropping form or rising etc.
The most interesting part for me was about fatigue… I have noticed how much quicker you get to 0.75 or below on double days, even if you feel totally recovered.