Jimmy, your results certainly show that you are a good fat burner.  I think they show that you could go to HR=148 and you would still be burning the maximum amount of fat.  It is just that you would also be burning more carbs with it.

I recall seeing carb vs fat curves that show that the amount of fat burned continues to increase until you get to that 50-50 point, and the after that the amount of fat burning drops off dramatically.

Based on that, I have always felt that you are probably going to benefit pretty well as long as you stay at or under that 50-50 point.  I recall that MAF is more like the 60-40 ratio of fats to carbs.  I think you actually burn slightly more total fat at the 50-50 point, but you also burn a lot more carbs.

Run,

I'm thinking you and C are in a conspiracy to knock me off my game! Tempting me with your fat-burning compliments.

 

C,

 

The deflection point on my test is at about 6:58-7:07. There is a leveling off from 6:40-6:58, then it shoots up from there. May MAF is about 133-35. I use 133 to be sure.

 

Run,

 

Yes, I am burning more fat than sugar all the way up to .85 RQ, but I consider anything over my MAF anaerobic, as I use Maffetone's definitions, not the conventional ones that are based on oxygen consumption. I'm in a base phase, and I'm strict when I'm in one. I do find that some runs around 148 have sharpened me in the past after the base phase.

 

If I were to retest, I would want to see the .85 move higher in heart rate, as well as the MAF. Not sure I'll retest though. I didn't really like the steep incline he had me running on. Plus, if your MAF pace is improving, so is the RQ.

 

Here's to everyone improving their RQ!

 

--Jimmy

if it is 60/40 fat/sugar it would still be at 138. and you've been training for long years so why not add 5. but yeah maybe we are just in a conspiracy

I still haven't got around to getting a stress test myself. it would be cool to have this RQ stuff and all. so it would be mostly for fun. but maybe it would also be very different from what I imagine it would be

but after reading on maffetone's forum that the normal vo2max test is not the best way to get proper RQ's I'm pretty unsure which local place here can do it for me. I will have to do more research on the possible testing places in this city and talk to them personally to see what their protocols are like.

a question, if the MAF pace is improving and the MAF HR also goes higher, why is the limit 5 in adding beats? I recall a guy here (slowgino?) said his increased by like 26 beats?! though it wasn't the MAF deflection point, it was the 0.85 I think?

 

Because 138 might be anaerobic right now. My MAF test and training times regressed. And my MAF tests are still only 11:25 pace. I will consider adding 5 beats if and when my tests get to the 9:00 range or better.

 

You might be able to get an RQ test at a university. One with sports teams and a sports medicine program would be more probable. I did have a link to a locator here on the forum, but I think it only covered U.S., and I think you live in another country if memory serves correct. Was the test fun? Not really. I wasn't fond of running in a mask breathing into a tube at 12% incline. The data is fun!

 

On the +5 beats. Probably because Dr. Phil never saw it rise much further than that--except in 60+ year old athletes--just a guess.

 

On Slowgino: his take is that the formula doesn't fit him. I think he his 72-73, and his 180-age is 118 or so. He says he's been tested at 135ish (going on memory here). Dr. Phil writes  that 60-65+  might need an extra 10 beats of adjustment. I think Slowgino fits into that category. Add +5 to the +10 , and take into account that you can keep the same MAF for up to five years, and you pretty much get to his MAF. His MAF fits the given parameters. Probably a good thing to get tested when you hit that age group to be sure.

 

I'm still trying to devise some kind of self-test to figure it out. I had created a test a year or so ago, but the sample rate wasn't high enough. THe thinking was that your HR will do what it does as intensity increases regardless if you are being RQ tested. Take the all the testing  equipment  off of me, and do the same thing, and the HR graph should be identical, and you should see the deflection point.

 

--Jimmy

oh, you are right, the test wasn't done now...when was it done? what was your MAF pace then?

RQ test - it isn't the cost, it is the protocol I need to make sure is right. yea, I expect only the data would be fun.

as for self-test: this sounds like conconi test, no? but the conconi deflection point supposedly measures an anaerobic threshold that's something other than MAF.

however when I tried the conconi test a while ago I remember seeing some other "deflection" point at a much lower HR than the "1-hour LT" - I did have that higher anaerobic threshold deflection point too, at around 190-193 or so, if looking at the data and drawing lines going by my eyes. 184 from mathematical regression analysis, though. I mean, this anaerobic threshold was NOT the MAF or the 50% sugar one. the other one was at a much lower HR 156-162 or so, I'll have to dig up the graphs.

the point was seen in a graph where X and Y axis were speed (mph, not pace) and HR. in your X axis, what would it be, speed, time or something else?

-

These are some graphs that were posted in previous threads.  I always find myself referring to them when I want to remind myself of the zones I probably want to run in.

 

The grap below show vo2 max % vs fat used.  In this graph fat use peaks at about 63% vo2max, but fat use is still pretty high if you are in the 50% to 70% Vo2max zone.  Above 70% fat use starts to decrease sharply.

 

I have also been looking for alternatives to the VO2max test to find the elusive FATmax zone.  Here are a couple of links to research abstracts that I have run across in my quest:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11782653

http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Peak+fat+oxidation+rate+during+walking+in+sedentary+overweight+men...-a0190245564

What I get from these is that the FATmax zone is highly variable and depends on fitness.  Sort of like the -5 & +5 adjustments in the 180 formula.

very nice stuff! will start reading the links, thanks.

jimmyb:

that first point is what I was thinking of. for me it was around 160-162 bpm in my conconi test. after going past 162, it's like your graph from 145 to 175. just for me it isn't 175, it's close to 190-ish or so.
btw, I had the HR increase by 1-2-3 bpm for each 200m in the test so I had a pretty detailed graph. I might retest some day though. curious to see what comes out of it...

run48:

I like how that study was so detailed. 74% hrmax for me is 154 and 77% is 160. and I'm pretty sure it is NOT below 74% for me. the easy runs I've done lately were around this zone, 156-162 (156-157 at start of run after warmup and 160-162 at the end), seems I got some improvements off them and these runs are pretty addictive too (60-65% vo2max or somewhere near that).

about the 1.5mile pace, mine would be around 7min, though I didn't really test it, so just guessing but I guess not far from that...I know I can do 1mile in about 6:45 if the day isn't too cold in winter.. and I find that I can do 10:30 pace (65% of estimated 1.5mile pace) at least for one hour per day on average (I know because this is close to what I've been doing), which happens to be your 9.88 (9:53 pace)...and yes I suppose 11:23 (60%) I can really do all the time without any rest day ever... and that 11:23 is slightly below my current 180-age MAF pace, interesting....

(still to run48) just out of curiosity what is your 5K PR? I forgot

also, what are you liking about the 74% HR? does it feel nice easy or what is it?

jimmyb, I looked at your RQ table again and I noticed there was a decline in vo2 and in fat/carb consumption at one point (HR was increasing though). was the speed cut back for a bit there? or what was the cause of that fall in energy expenditure?

A particular speed was established at the beginning of the test and the rest was an ever-increasing incline. Never backing up, until I gasped "enough."