Just got finished with my first RQ--Vo2max test. That was fun, interesting, and very informative. I haven't run that hard in awhile. The tester gave me results, his interpretation, and what zones he thought I should be working in, and lots of info about how it all worked. Worth the money.
I took two tests. One was a resting RQ test, and the other was a running test. I'll iinclude a brief synopsis of the results and the actual report. The deflection point in HR and CO2 consumption appears to be around 6.5 minutes into the test. This is around 127-134ish. My current MAF with adjustments is 128bpm. WIthout is 133bpm (180-age).
What do you gals and guys see? What do you think the deflection point below .85 is?
The tester said my anearobic capacity was pretty good. I told him I haven't run anaerobically since November, and that I've been working exclusively below 128 bpm. He was surprised, as he thought from the test that I've been doing a lot of anaerobic work. He also said that I could raise my .85, or what he calls Aerobic Base, closer to my AT.
My Anaerobic threshold (176 bpm) was exactly what I've been using for awhile when I do lactate threshold runs. The machine says mine was at .92. He explained why it wasn't 1.0. , at the moment, I can't remember how he put it.
My MHR was about right. Last time I measured was 2006, and it was 199 then. In the ballpark, and good enough for anaerobic work. 90%MHR would put me at 176 bpm, my AT.
My Vo2max (the formula that includes weight) was 43.1, which was above average. I can raise that by losing weight and/or increasing oxygen consumption.
I can't find the results of the resting metabolic test. I think he said I had a .85 RQ at rest, and I burn about 2000 calories just being a blob.
That's all I can think of right now. Please go to town with this. I'll take any insights, advice, help, etc.
--Jimmy
Data:
Temp 76º
Noon
Humidity 60%
Dewpoint 62º
Tm
weight 185 lbs.
Aerobic Base HR @ RQ .85 (50%fat/50% sugar) 148 bpm
Anearobic Threshold HR @ .92 176 bpm
Raw Data:
running log / profile / Crusted Salt / running of the bulls / plays
Your deflection point correlates well with the 180-Formula. Not sure what you’re asking regarding the deflection point below .85.
Not surprising that the tester thought you were doing a lot of anaerobic work – the power of the aerobic base!
VO2max is as meaningful as max HR, and you can raise it, as the tester said, by burning off more body fat and increasing oxygen uptake. In other words, get more aerobic function.
Much of my work with these evaluations also comes in the form of observing someone's gait during the test. This provides various things, but especially looking for changes in the gait which reflects muscle imbalance. This is a whole other component of what I used to do with athletes, but if I see a change from a nice smooth gait to a more irregular gait at a certain heart rate, it provides important information. Correcting these imbalances is as important as the fat burning aspect of training (and is another example of a significant stress that could slow aerobic progress).
Sorry there’s not much more I can add – great job finding this place. Can you tell us the name of it and the guy who did the test? Also, please email me at my website as I have one other question.
Phil
For some reason, I thought the MAF HR was the HR where you should be burning 50% fat and 50% carb? I think I misunderstood.
So, it is at this deflection point? Jimmy could you explain more about what is meant by the deflection point? In the graphs, is it just the place where the curve seems to jump around? Thanks!
Great Stuff!
Thanks for posting. Please explain what a deflection point is and how it coorelates to the MAF formula. Also, what isthe significance of the aerobic base HR? I thought the MAF formula was suppose to correlate with a 50/50 fat/sugar ratio.
Edit to add: It looks like Run beat me to it. Same questions..
I don`t have much to add as far as analysis goes, but I do have a few questions.
What does RQ stand for?
How much did the test cost? Sounds like something I'd be interested in doing.
I assume that as your aerobic capacity improves, the ratio between fat burning and sugar burning will shift even further towards the fat side. It would be really interesting to see how these numbers change before and after a base building period.
Thanks for sharing your info!
Jimmy, looks like you found a good place and a good person to have this evaluation. Great that you had a resting RQ. Very important to know your fat and sugar burning at rest as sometimes it’s too high (poor fat burning) even if the running RQ is OK. But you want to improve this (get it lower). Your deflection point correlates well with the 180-Formula. Not sure what you’re asking regarding the deflection point below .85. Not surprising that the tester thought you were doing a lot of anaerobic work – the power of the aerobic base! All the other information is a good baseline, but not nearly as important unless you go to a lot of parties and want to impress people. The test should give you incentive to really get more aerobic speed by building more base, and looking more at the other factors that could allow your aerobic system to blossom (such as diet). VO2max is as meaningful as max HR, and you can raise it, as the tester said, by burning off more body fat and increasing oxygen uptake. In other words, get more aerobic function. Much of my work with these evaluations also comes in the form of observing someone's gait during the test. This provides various things, but especially looking for changes in the gait which reflects muscle imbalance. This is a whole other component of what I used to do with athletes, but if I see a change from a nice smooth gait to a more irregular gait at a certain heart rate, it provides important information. Correcting these imbalances is as important as the fat burning aspect of training (and is another example of a significant stress that could slow aerobic progress). Sorry there’s not much more I can add – great job finding this place. Can you tell us the name of it and the guy who did the test? Also, please email me at my website as I have one other question. Phil
Thanks, Phil.
"The deflection point below .RQ .85" is something a few people that post here said to look for. The only place on the HR chart I saw a deflection below that was between 6-7:00 minutes. I'm not savvy at all on graphs and deflection points. Did you look at my test results or one of the charts (if so, which chart)? And is it the beginning of the deflection or the end?
Is this it? If it is, then it is right on with the MAF formula calculation.
My resting RQ needs to improve. At first, because I was a bit anxious about getting anxiety about the mask (I'm slightly claustrophobic), he thought my RQ was 100% sugar. He left me alone, and I meditated and relax, and it came down to the .85.
I've put on about 8-10 pounds with this relocation, and will be taking it off. Too many refined carbs during that time.
I plan to wear my Vo2max at gatherings to impress people.
For some reason, I thought the MAF HR was the HR where you should be burning 50% fat and 50% carb? I think I misunderstood. So, it is at this deflection point? Jimmy could you explain more about what is meant by the deflection point? In the graphs, is it just the place where the curve seems to jump around? Thanks! Great Stuff!
The "deflection point" as my wife explained with a ruler is where you see a sudden steep rise, then resumes back to a normal curve.
Jesse, Dave, and a few others have explained about the deflection point, as well as an earlier post by Dr. Phil.
The tester called the 50/50 point the aerobic base (AB). In his way of training, and what he offers to his testees, anything below the aerobic base number would be for recovery only, and that most of my time should be spent between .85 and my AT (for me 148-176). Basically what Pfitzinger and Jack Daniels have in their books. When I told him that I've been working out twenty beats lower than my "AB", and that my current anaerobic capacity has been maintained by it exclusively since November, he didn't seem to grok it, or register it, or believe it, I'm not sure, he didn't spend much time asking me about it, that I know.
I don`t have much to add as far as analysis goes, but I do have a few questions. What does RQ stand for? How much did the test cost? Sounds like something I'd be interested in doing. I assume that as your aerobic capacity improves, the ratio between fat burning and sugar burning will shift even further towards the fat side. It would be really interesting to see how these numbers change before and after a base building period. Thanks for sharing your info!
Respiratory Quotient
My carbon dioxide (Co2) output was measured. Seems that when you burn fat, a certain amount of Co2 and water is exhaled. .70 on the scale is 100% fat-burning, and 1.0 is 100% carb burning. If you look at my RQ column, you can see that (after I got stable) that my RQ was .7 when my HR was 106, then moved higher as my HR got higher, toward 1.0.
The test cost 125.00 and I keep the mask. He came to my place because I had a TM. He doesn't work out of a gym anymore. You'll pay up to 175.00, and you must make sure they measure Co2, so you can get RQ.
As aerobic function improves, the MAF RQ (and the AB) will move closer to the AT RQ.
Thanks Jimmy for the explanation. It appears that your aerobic system is in really good shape after all. Most of us are probably not burning two thirds fat and one third carbs at our MAF number like you are.
You're welcome.
I still have a long way to go. Relative to where I once was, it isn't that great. And my resting RQ is borderline.
I remember reading somewhere on this forum not too long ago that the deflection point would ideally be "just below" the 50/50 fat to sugar ratio, RQ=85. Is this the case? If it is, does this mean that as you improve your aerobic fitness over the next 1-2 years, that you could conceivably have a true MAF in the 140s? Also, you mention that you were told that you could get your .85 closer to your AT of 176 BPM. I wonder how much closer? Lets say 160. Assuming that, could the deflection point increase the same number of beats (ie. "just below" 50/50 fat to sugar ratio, RQ=.85)?
Your MAF isn't fixed to a particular HR, as your RQ improves, it can move higher. When i started MAF back in 2005, I was 44, and started with an MAF of 141 (180-age+5). I kept that for 3 years for MAF tests and most base work, with good results. In The Mafffetone Method at the end of Chapter 6, Dr. Phil mentions you can keep the same MAF for up to five years as long as you keep progressing. Since that wasn't the case for me after 3 years, I stopped taking the +5 beats, readjusted to the recent 180-age (180-47) or 133, then subtracted 5 beats for the regression and over-training, or 128bpm. It might be possible, if I really do everything right, and not get into aerobic deficiency again, just using the formula, I woud be able to get to 138 bpm in the next few years (if I see progress for that amount of time). I plan to retest RQ every 4-6 months, and that will show what's really going on, and it could be possible to get to 140+ ....I THINK.
I'm not sure of how progress in MAF HR will relate to progress in what the tester called the "aerobic base" HR. I'll keep uo posted over the next few years! It'll be fun to see the difference in tests.
Interesting. This is where the adjustments to 180-age come in to play. This is probably overlooked by most people who try MAF. There's a 20 beat spread depending on fitness, health, and length of time progressing at a specific HR.
One more question Jimmy. You said your RQ at rest is .85. If that's the case, you burn more sugar sitting on the couch than you do running at you MAF. Why? Too many cookies?
Hi Jimmy,
I found a link to an old thread that talked more about RQ tests and deflection points. It is funny to find that it was a thread you had started because you had questions about it a while back, and you were thnking about doing it then.
http://www.runningahead.com/groups/LOWHRTR/Forum/Post/1effb66152c24768a71ab463b5f33ef0
I can't say I totally understand it, but I know a lot more now than I did before. I guess I am curious why the deflection point occurs. What is physically going on? Is it because another energy system is kicking in at that point?
© 2012 RunningAHEAD.com. All rights reserved. | Privacy