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?
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?
Great question. I know the Type 1 red fibers use some carbs in the mix, to ignite the fat. Maybe the deflection is, as you say, when the type 2a muscle fibers start to get recruited. Just theorizing. Thanks for searching for that link.
--Jimmy
running log / profile / Crusted Salt / running of the bulls / plays
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?
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?
LOL.
More like sitting in my Poang chair from Ikea, eating way too much granola, corn bread, and tortilla chippees as "dessert" at 10:30 at night.
I guess the resting RQ is your baseline metabolism. I am burning 50% fat, 50% sugar when blobbing. There's a chart in Eating For Endurance and Complimentary Sports Medicine that shows a few cases of resting RQ. The cases start from a 12% fat RQ and goes to a 63% fat RQ, The 12% had all sorts of physical symptoms and problems and the 63% had none. A synopsis of what Dr. Phil had seen during his clinical practice. The higher amount of fat being burned at rest correlated with better health. The 58% fat burning case had a little lower back pain from time to time. The only thing that has ever bothered me in the past year is occasional lower back pain. Nothing bad, and I don't feel it running, but occasionally when I'm sitting or driving. Perhaps, if I can get my resting RQ up to 65% fat burning, that will disappear for good.
Run, thanks again for posting that. That's where I got the "deflection point below .85" info. Also, if we went back to Coolrunning archives, if they still exist, the same thing was probably brought up. Dave (RER) has administered a lot of gas testing over the years (I think at a university) and every now and then he shows up and writes some great posts about his experiences. How RQ and MAF correlate, diet and fat-burning, etc.
Perhaps the deflection point is where another energy system is kicking in. Maybe we start using our "Fat burning" energy system at lower HR levels, and then once we hit the deflection point, our "Carb burning" energy system is kicking in too. So, perhaps by running at an HR just below when the "Carb burning" system is kicking in, is an optimal point.
Taking that theory a little further, we know that the "Fat burning" system still need carbs, so you will still need a fat carb mix, but for the "fat burning" system, the higher the percentage fat, the better and that is what we are training when we stay below MAF. So, Jimmy in your case you are burning two thirds fat to one third carbs at that point, which I would think is a really good ratio.
That is just a theory that helps fill the holes for me. It helps me to have some explanation as to why it is the deflection point that indicates the optimal training point rather than just using the fat carb ratio. It sounds like the ratio can vary a lot between individuals at the deflection point. If we just went by fat carb ratio, then 50-50 sounds like a really good point, but it would have you running easy runs at 148. And we know that HR would be too high for you to do easy runs at, and gain aerobic benefits.
Jimmy,
you got the deflection point about right in your graph (with the big arrow). Ideally, this point is smaller, and yours is a bit wide. I think it's because you didn't warm up enough. This made the chart below the d point is a little higher, and the chart levels out a bit before making the bigger upward change.
The test is really unnatural for the body, and I try to encourage those giving the test to have the athlete warm up, plus provide a good idea of time (like a race -- you know when it's going to be over). This way, your brain/body function is more natural. The problem with VO2max tests is that they're not natural so the brain doesn't know when the test is going to be over -- in other words, you remove the brain's function from the test. Tim Noakes writes about this as a big reason VO2max tests are so overrated.
Overall, your test was well done and it gave you some good information, including confirming your 180-Formula derrived aerobic max HR. That's about what you can expect from such a test; and also it serves as a baseline for future tests.
Something people are asking above is how things change with training -- RQ changes, HR changes, deflection point closer to VO2max, etc. Lots of things change but the most important training effect is quite simple. You get faster at the same heart rate. That's it!
As you get faster at the same heart rate, a number of other things happen: you can race faster, you burn more fat, you get healthier, etc.
Phil
Dr. Phil, I'm very interested in this comment you made. I think this could be key to when I have gotten an injury in the past, (or have avoided them). Are there methods for finding the pace at which the gait becomes unsteady, other than coming to your house and having you watch a person run?
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). Phil
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).
I saw this chart at the following link: http://www.brianmac.co.uk/esource.htm
I think this chart answered some questions about my preconceptions. It shows a 50-50 fat carb ratio in the zone most people consider to be the easy running zone. It shows a 60-40 ratio in the zone below it, which is usually considered the recovery zone.
The recovery zone is where most people's MAF number falls. And in reading some past posts, some people have defined the MAF zone as the zone where you are burning mostly fat and the 60-40 ratio was mentioned. Jimmy's happens to have that fat-carb ratio at his MAFnumber.
So, this just lends more evidence to me that the MAF number has us training at a slightly easier pace for easy runs. Just getting at a low enough HR is really the key for good aerobic development.
I definitely believe that the 180 formula is the best way to find your MAF zone, but I thought this chart was good because it is a connection to the training zones based on max HR, which most of the rest of the world uses for determining training zones. Of coarse this chart is based on averages and ranges, and applies to people with somewhat typical max HRs. It appears to me that the 180 formula is more precise because of the fact that max HRs can vary widely.
It's very difficult to know when your gait begins to be irregular until it's more obvious. Before that, it changes slowly and in a very subtle way. The problem is usually muscle imbalance. This can exist before you start running, or develop while you're running (due to fatigue, localized stresses, etc.). Sometimes I can feel these imbalances developing in the very early stages because I feel some joint not moving just right or some very slight muscle ache. Warming up can correct muscle imbalance (and prevent it from occurring sooner), so compare the way you feel before and after a warm up, and that's a good idea of the feeling you're looking for.
You can also look at your shoe insert for irregular wear, and outer wear from the sole, which may indicate muscle imbalance. When I ran barefoot I could evaluate my footprints, which can give clues too (can't go barefoot in Arizona because of all the stickers).
Muscle imbalance is best evaluated with an EMG device, and/or with manual muscle testing, both common procedures by a variety of different health professionals.Finding the imbalance is the more difficult part -- once found, correcting it is generally easy. Self correcting muscle imbalance can often be done with respiratory biofeedback, which you can do on your own. I have an article about this on my website (it's also called The 5-Minute Power Break).
Phil,
Why did you choose the deflection point as MAF? What happens at that point? Why the deflection? We were discussing it and we theoorized that it was the point that the type 2 fibers and/or anaerobic system started to be recruited. That below the MAF, it is just Type 1 fibers and that the carbs being used is the amount the type 1 need to burn the fat, as the mitochondria uses some carbs.
In addition to the treadmill test being unnatural as I mentioned above, the RQ and max oxygen uptake (VO2max) don’t correlate specifically, even though they’re measured during the same test (the protocol is for VO2max not really for RQ and fat burning). VO2max correlates with sugar burning and not fat burning (and RQ correlates with both). During these evaluations, RQ is usually measured as a secondary factor as most people focus on max oxygen uptake – this despite the irrelevancy of VO2max. But this test is also a standard in physiology, making it easier to make comparisons within a given athlete over time and between athletes.
The best way to measure fat burning is at sub max levels – at MAF – for longer periods. Running at this pace for 30-60 minutes, for example, would plot the same fat and sugar burning process, but the focus would be on how efficient fat burning is during this period (e.g., how long higher levels of fat burning can be maintained). However, the current protocol for the test is still good, and those unable to get the test can rely on the 180-Formula (the real reason why it was developed, so people would not have to rely on a lab test).
The deflection point is where a more rapid change from fat burning to sugar burning occurs. This would indicate a change from the fat burning to more sugar burning muscle fibers. (Theoretically, the RQ, which measures CO2 and O2 in the lungs, reflects those same gases in the muscles, which is a measure of fat/sugar burning.)
I did not choose the deflection point as a point that correlates with the 180-Formula. I actually discovered it after the 180-Formula (almost the same time). So it was a confirmation of the 180-Formula. Much of the evaluations I performed on athletes regarding gait changes at different heart rates (as discussed earlier) and other factors led me to the 180-Formula. Lactate measurements, RQ, free radical stress and other factors helped confirm that the 180-Formula not only was the highest level of fat burning that could reasonably be maintained for some period during a workout, but that, over time, improvements in speed would be realized. In addition, the physical and chemical stress of training at this level was also minimized, as other research eventually showed, so it also fit well with my separate definitions of fitness and health. Once a runner started burning more sugar and less fat (because they increased their pace and heart rate), many of the health and fitness benefits quickly were reduced.
The graphs with the deflection point came along at that point; I believe early in 1982 while in Boulder, one of the physiologists there discussed it and I immediately saw that the point correlated with the 180-Formula. I then began comparing athletes with deflection points to see if this generally applied to larger numbers of people, which it did. At that time I was in Boulder working with a number of athletes, but in particular with Stu Middleman in preparation for his 6-day race there. We were working on the indoor track, sometimes with him running for hours only to stop when I wanted to measure something. One of the exercise physiologists got interested in what we were doing, which led to the RQ discussions.
After retirement from professional racing, Stu began coaching athletes the same way I coached him, and he also created a mobile lab where he could test athletes on a gas analyzer to measure RQ, which he still does today.
My memory is generally quite good, but so many of these historical details have been left alone for so long. This forces me to try and piece together some of the details (and maybe get them into the new book). So much was happening back then (in the early 80s). In addition to going international with athletes and traveling to their key events, I was developing a variety of other biofeedback methods, especially with the measurement of muscle function. Sports shoes suddenly started to get much worse for athletes, the carbohydrate trend was in full swing, and the newest sport, triathlon, was taking hold worldwide.
Phil, Why did you choose the deflection point as MAF? What happens at that point? Why the deflection? We were discussing it and we theoorized that it was the point that the type 2 fibers and/or anaerobic system started to be recruited. That below the MAF, it is just Type 1 fibers and that the carbs being used is the amount the type 1 need to burn the fat, as the mitochondria uses some carbs. --Jimmy
Happy
In addition to the treadmill test being unnatural as I mentioned above, the RQ and max oxygen uptake (VO2max) don’t correlate specifically, even though they’re measured during the same test (the protocol is for VO2max not really for RQ and fat burning). VO2max correlates with sugar burning and not fat burning (and RQ correlates with both). During these evaluations, RQ is usually measured as a secondary factor as most people focus on max oxygen uptake – this despite the irrelevancy of VO2max. But this test is also a standard in physiology, making it easier to make comparisons within a given athlete over time and between athletes. The best way to measure fat burning is at sub max levels – at MAF – for longer periods. Running at this pace for 30-60 minutes, for example, would plot the same fat and sugar burning process, but the focus would be on how efficient fat burning is during this period (e.g., how long higher levels of fat burning can be maintained). However, the current protocol for the test is still good, and those unable to get the test can rely on the 180-Formula (the real reason why it was developed, so people would not have to rely on a lab test). The deflection point is where a more rapid change from fat burning to sugar burning occurs. This would indicate a change from the fat burning to more sugar burning muscle fibers. (Theoretically, the RQ, which measures CO2 and O2 in the lungs, reflects those same gases in the muscles, which is a measure of fat/sugar burning.) I did not choose the deflection point as a point that correlates with the 180-Formula. I actually discovered it after the 180-Formula (almost the same time). So it was a confirmation of the 180-Formula. Much of the evaluations I performed on athletes regarding gait changes at different heart rates (as discussed earlier) and other factors led me to the 180-Formula. Lactate measurements, RQ, free radical stress and other factors helped confirm that the 180-Formula not only was the highest level of fat burning that could reasonably be maintained for some period during a workout, but that, over time, improvements in speed would be realized. In addition, the physical and chemical stress of training at this level was also minimized, as other research eventually showed, so it also fit well with my separate definitions of fitness and health. Once a runner started burning more sugar and less fat (because they increased their pace and heart rate), many of the health and fitness benefits quickly were reduced. The graphs with the deflection point came along at that point; I believe early in 1982 while in Boulder, one of the physiologists there discussed it and I immediately saw that the point correlated with the 180-Formula. I then began comparing athletes with deflection points to see if this generally applied to larger numbers of people, which it did. At that time I was in Boulder working with a number of athletes, but in particular with Stu Middleman in preparation for his 6-day race there. We were working on the indoor track, sometimes with him running for hours only to stop when I wanted to measure something. One of the exercise physiologists got interested in what we were doing, which led to the RQ discussions. After retirement from professional racing, Stu began coaching athletes the same way I coached him, and he also created a mobile lab where he could test athletes on a gas analyzer to measure RQ, which he still does today. My memory is generally quite good, but so many of these historical details have been left alone for so long. This forces me to try and piece together some of the details (and maybe get them into the new book). So much was happening back then (in the early 80s). In addition to going international with athletes and traveling to their key events, I was developing a variety of other biofeedback methods, especially with the measurement of muscle function. Sports shoes suddenly started to get much worse for athletes, the carbohydrate trend was in full swing, and the newest sport, triathlon, was taking hold worldwide. Phil
Hi Phil,
In your text quoted above you mention toward the end that running shoes suddenly started to get much worse for athletes (in the 80s). This inspired me to write the following:
In one of your books you mention that many people wear running shoes that are too small. After reading that many months ago I went out and bought a pair of running shoes that were bigger than my other running shoes and started "maffing" in them. The shoes are OK but nothing special. I found "maffing" via one+ year of foot and ankle injuries. I had become more and more convinced that the injuries were at least in part caused by harm coming from my expensive and carefully chosen running shoes. I had several pairs so I would not run in the same pair two days in a row. Nothing seemed to get me out of the injuries. Over the last few weeks I have switched out of my trail shoes (that are bigger than my road shoes with the exception of the one pair I purchased extra big for my road maffing) and back into some of my "old" road running shoes. Again, my feet and ankles were beat up after a run. Why? I have long noticed that my two feet do not work the same way inside of the shoe - particularly in the push off or toe off phase. I thought it was an imbalance that I could work on correcting by being more aware of it while running and by excercising my feet w/o shoes to gain more strength and flexibility in the feet. However, recently while running in one of those pairs of road shoes again I noticed, perhaps for the first time, that the reason the toes on my right foot do not spread out and grip the way they do on the left foot is that there is not enough room in the shoe (length wise). Alas, the shoes are too small. My right foot may be a little longer than the left. This shortness of the shoe may have caused a lot of imbalances in my body - I'm going to donate that and a few other pairs of shoes to the next "shoe drive". I've had enoough. I am going to run in bigger shoes even if it looks rediculous. I know there is more to the shoe-issue than just size but the size part seems to ring a bell with me.
_
All in all reading your posts here and being able to communicate with you, I have been inspired to open my mind once again toward Maffetone training; today, I ran 4 miles strictly below my age-MAF for the first time in many months. It was a funny feeling to be back at it - glancing at the Garmin, checking, checking again, slowing down, checking, double checking, breathing, slowing down while going uphill, shortening the steps etc etc. I know it quite well. I liked it today as I wanted the recovery pace - I am getting ready to tackle my first ever 50K trail event Sunday and I need to save myself for that; not overdo anything right now. I will be using a walk/run strategy and run relatively slowly in order to keep the HR low while on the trails. I thought about how you, I think it was you, Phil, trained and planned Stu Mittleman's winning strategy of walk/run over 6 days. It was a facinating read in "Slow Burn" and I am sure my thoughts will go to Stu Mittleman and Philip Maffetone many times on the day of my event. I will feel well prepared knowing what you have taught me.
The first time I heard/read the name Maffetone was in Tim Noake's big running book; I read about Mark Allen and how he had finally won the Hawaiian Ironman after having done 4 months of Maffetone training in the winter. I thought to myself how funny it was that I had never before heard of the Maffetone Method. I couldn't find any books in the bookstores or the library or any other references to it. I found it particularly weird that Philip Maffetone was not known by every serious runner in the Country. So last winter when I came across this Forum, the LHR Forum I was quite surprised to see that there were people out there who were using the Maffetone training Method. I can't quite believe that I am actually communicating with Philip Maffetone. It makes me very happy.
This week's training has consisted mostly of "restorative walks", another Maffetone Phrase that I really like. I realize that for the 50K trail event this Sunday I will not need speed in order to complete the distance; but I will need to pepper my run with lots of walking. Before I started Maffetone training back in January 2009 I never walked. I have experienced a lot of change and I think the best is yet to come.
Thank you.
Great post. We've been discussing your work for about five years now, over on Coolrunning before it's assimilation by The Borg, and here for the last few years. The biggest mystery was always just how you developed the formula. I thought it had been developed using RQ tests in part, but I wasn't exactly sure about how you came up with it. Since you included information about RQ tests, I latched on to that almost exclusively as to how you created the formula. Your books aren't history books and focus more on using what you discovered and developed. Many of us really think about what it is we are doing. So, there have been certain lingering unanaswered questions. Some of us are absolutely certain the method works in creating endurance, but we want to know why. We train, we race, and we go "why, why, why?!" Your posts in this thread have cleared up many things. Ultimately, as you wrote, it does come down to getting faster at the same HR, and if you're not, then something stressful is afoot in Lipid Land.
Interesting about the Vo2max being irrelevant. I'm sure an athlete with a lower Vo2max has beat one with a higher one, probably due to a more developed aerobic system and healthier RQ.
Thanks
Interesting about the Vo2max being irrelevant.
This is just off the top of my head, but I am pretty sure I have read that Vo2max is not a good predictor of performance because if you take a group of top runners, it will vary a lot between them and those with better Vo2max's are not necessarily the better performers. A better predictor in this group is the LT. Those with better LTs tend to be the better performers. The way I understand it, is that the Vo2max can be thought of as your maximum potential or ceiling, and those who are better at utilizing it, end up being the better runners. I have also read that v02max is not really that trainable. Some people do improve their vo2max with training at the beginning stages, but much more improvement tends to come from the other areas. Anyway this is how I understand it, and if anybody has anything to add or correct what I said, I certainly welcome that.
Phil, Great post. We've been discussing your work for about five years now, over on Coolrunning before it's assimilation by The Borg, and here for the last few years. The biggest mystery was always just how you developed the formula. I thought it had been developed using RQ tests in part, but I wasn't exactly sure about how you came up with it. Since you included information about RQ tests, I latched on to that almost exclusively as to how you created the formula. Your books aren't history books and focus more on using what you discovered and developed. Many of us really think about what it is we are doing. So, there have been certain lingering unanaswered questions. Some of us are absolutely certain the method works in creating endurance, but we want to know why. We train, we race, and we go "why, why, why?!" Your posts in this thread have cleared up many things. Ultimately, as you wrote, it does come down to getting faster at the same HR, and if you're not, then something stressful is afoot in Lipid Land. Interesting about the Vo2max being irrelevant. I'm sure an athlete with a lower Vo2max has beat one with a higher one, probably due to a more developed aerobic system and healthier RQ. Thanks --Jimmy
I agree. This is a fascinating conversation.
© 2012 RunningAHEAD.com. All rights reserved. | Privacy