"The first rise in lactate over baseline" isn't an actual method. We can say "baseline" and know what each other mean but lactate seems to be pretty much exponential, starting at very low intensity, it just appears flat to us, and there is error in each measurement so LT1 must be well defined using math in order to have a standard. IIRC, the closest of the common methods is log-log, then Dmax, B + 0.5, Dmax log-exp, and then OBLA 2 mmol/L which is what is most often used to define LT1 despite the fact that it is far above baseline for most people. Zone 2 as indicated by ISM and Peter Attia is also over baseline, so your anecdotal experience is in direct conflict with that.
So beyond all the confusion about what LT1 means, the issue is that there is not sufficient evidence that any of them actually represent the transition from moderate to heavy, but what would that even mean? Maybe you could look at VT1 and say, oh there is now a very tiny VO2 slow component so we are in the heavy domain, but that has no real impact. Why would I care that I'm at 1.6 mmol/L instead of 1.5? Or 1.1 L/min of O2 instead of 1.0? It's not a functional threshold like critical power or FTP, I'm not suddenly using a different energy pathway, and it's not going to delay my recovery much if any. It has no value to me as an athlete, it's just one point on a continuum. Go slower, get less stimulus, recover faster, or the inverse.
Another issue is that where zone 1 begins cannot be physiologically defined in a way that isn't completely arbitrary, like using a random % of VO2. There is obviously a point where the exercise is not intense enough to stimulate much of anything and it just gets ignored by the cultists because VOLUME = GOOD. Additionally, there is the matter of specificity, the easy pace of elites is mechanically far closer to their racing pace than in most amateurs who literally have to start jogging slowly if they want to stay below 2 mmol and then they have to walk up any hill.