Low HR Training

1

RQ (gas analyzer results) and MAF Questions (Read 1194 times)

jimmyb


    Been thinking of having a gas analyzer (respiratory quotient) test, just to see what is what, and quantify my idea of myself in yet another set of numbers. Below is an excerpt from page 20 of Training For Endurance (2nd Revised Edition) by Phillip Maffetone ©2000, Barmore Productions: "The following chart was compiled on Mike Pigg: HR RQ %fat-burning %sugar burning 127 .79 70 30 133 .80 67 33 135 .82 60 40 137 .83 56 44 141 .84 53 47 146 .82 60 40 153 .85 50 50 153 .85 50 50 155* .87 42 58 164 .87 42 58 169 .90 32 68 *at 155 HR, Mike can run sub 5:25 pace" My questions are as follows: What RQ is considered MAF by Maffetone? What RQ is considered Aerobic Threshold? What RQ is considered Lactate threshold? What RQ is considered Anaerobic Threshold? What RQ is considered the point at which erectile dysfunction rears its ugly head? (i know ED isn't funny, but those commercials are) Thank you. --Jimmy

    Log    PRs


    run-easy-race-hard

      Been thinking of having a gas analyzer (respiratory quotient) test, just to see what is what, and quantify my idea of myself in yet another set of numbers. What RQ is considered MAF by Maffetone? What RQ is considered Aerobic Threshold? What RQ is considered Lactate threshold? What RQ is considered Anaerobic Threshold? What RQ is considered the point at which erectile dysfunction rears its ugly head? (i know ED isn't funny, but those commercials are)
      I don't think he's that specific, but it would be around RQ of .78-.8 (between about 66-75% fat used for fuel). Aerobic threshold is really the same thing as MAF. Anaerobic threshold is RQ=1. Lactate threshold is based on a rate of lactate accumulation and is not directly tied to RQ other than the fact that lactic acid is the byproduct when glycogen is used for fuel. For your last question, the answer is pi.
      jimmyb


        You"re right, he's not that specific. How did you come up with the .78-.8? If you use Mike Pigg as an example, using your number, that would put him at 127-133 for an MAF. You think that is correct? Sounds low for a young ( at the time) elite. Thanks, Jesse. This is the one area I haven't yet grasped. And it is what the formula is based on. --Jimmy

        Log    PRs


        run-easy-race-hard

          You"re right, he's not that specific. How did you come up with the .78-.8? If you use Mike Pigg as an example, using your number, that would put him at 127-133 for an MAF. You think that is correct? Sounds low for a young ( at the time) elite. Thanks, Jesse. This is the one area I haven't yet grasped. And it is what the formula is based on. --Jimmy
          Let's not pretend any of these numbers are that precise. MAF is a point where you are clearly using more fat than carb for fuel, so it's probably fine to be up at .85, where you're at 50/50. No doubt that the deeper you go, the higher percentage of fat you burn and the better the fat burning efficiency you develop. And unless you're running down hill, this can come at the expense of your running economy and you can lose your muscle memory for fast paces, so that's why you may not want to go too low. It's a typical give and take game. My best results have involved the following: 1. Using a low enough training target and taking in some runs much, much lower. 2. Plenty of downhill segments where I picked up the pace significantly to be at the max of MAF. 3. Somewhat frequent marathons (i.e., long tempo runs). 4. no carbs before or during any runs. Now, if I were to just look at Mike Pigg's numbers above and pick a training heart rate based on that data set, I would say to run 50-60% of mileage in a deep fat burning state, such as < 135, then most of the rest at about 150, still more fat than carb, and if there's any left, i would either use knowledge about my lactate threshold and run just under that or allocate it to one of the two zones above, either for a high-end maf aerobic workout or more deep fat burning training. 135,="" then="" most="" of="" the="" rest="" at="" about="" 150,="" still="" more="" fat="" than="" carb,="" and="" if="" there's="" any="" left,="" i="" would="" either="" use="" knowledge="" about="" my="" lactate="" threshold="" and="" run="" just="" under="" that="" or="" allocate="" it="" to="" one="" of="" the="" two="" zones="" above,="" either="" for="" a="" high-end="" maf="" aerobic="" workout="" or="" more="" deep="" fat="" burning="" training.=""></ 135, then most of the rest at about 150, still more fat than carb, and if there's any left, i would either use knowledge about my lactate threshold and run just under that or allocate it to one of the two zones above, either for a high-end maf aerobic workout or more deep fat burning training. >
            My questions are as follows: What RQ is considered MAF by Maffetone? What RQ is considered Aerobic Threshold? What RQ is considered Lactate threshold? What RQ is considered Anaerobic Threshold? What RQ is considered the point at which erectile dysfunction rears its ugly head? (i know ED isn't funny, but those commercials are) --Jimmy
            I think that on our old forum, DavidD said that Maffetone used the "deflection point" where the slope of the RQ vs HR graph changes in a kinda dramatic way. I don't know if that always happens at a particular RQ... I have a hunch it doesn't. This is for determining the "MAF", which would be represented by the 180 formula with adjustments. Anaerobic threshold is really 1.00 (100% carbs), but .98 or .99 might be close enough. LT is somewhere up there around AT, but that will vary depending on training, according to what I've been told by coach/trainers. Aerobic Threshold? Like Jesse says, definitely no higher than 0.85 RQ, but I think it's better to just train by the RQ and forget about some particular magic threshold... the AeT could be defined as a different thing by different authors (or trainers or software writers for the VO2 tests.) Right now I'm training pretty much at an RQ of about 0.76 or so. In other words, 80% fat and 20% carbs. I can do that at the point where my body is burning the max fat Calories per hour, a little over 7 Cal per kg of body weight per hour. I have a range of close to 20 bpm where the RQ is from 0.75 to 0.76, so I just train at the top of the range. I have to get more than 10 bpm above that top to get up to 0.85 RQ (50/50), so I don't worry if I trend up a little... just slow down or walk for a short while to get back down. In addition to getting the RQ (RER) vs HR data from a test, it's instructive to get the actual calories burned from fat and carbs too. In my case, I definitely do have a "fat burning zone"... maybe I should say a fat burning peak, because it reminds me a little of the Matterhorn. Hey, good to see you here, Jimmy. Gino


            run-easy-race-hard

              I would presume the deflection point that David refers to must occur at least at RQ < .85 as i couldn't imagine it would be that effective in a state where more fat is burned than carb, wouldn't you say? .85="" as="" i="" couldn't="" imagine="" it="" would="" be="" that="" effective="" in="" a="" state="" where="" more="" fat="" is="" burned="" than="" carb,="" wouldn't="" you="" say?=""></ .85 as i couldn't imagine it would be that effective in a state where more fat is burned than carb, wouldn't you say? >
                I would presume the deflection point that David refers to must occur at least at RQ < .85="" as="" i="" couldn't="" imagine="" it="" would="" be="" that="" effective="" in="" a="" state="" where="" more="" fat="" is="" burned="" than="" carb,="" wouldn't="" you="" />
                Oh, absolutely. I suspect, though, that the RQ at the deflection point is not the same for everyone. The closest thing to a deflection point that I have in my graph is the point where RQ vs HR stops being nearly horizontal and begins rising steadily up to my AT (RQ = 1.00). For me the RQ at that "deflection" point is 0.76. My guess is that the RQ at the deflection point depends on the individual and his/her training, conditioning, and individual metabolism.
                RER


                  You're right, Maffetone uses the deflection point (the low side of it) for the max aerobic HR. This varies with the individual, health status, fitness level, previous meal, and other variables. It's a great test if you can find a competent person to administer it, and interpret it. The 180 formula is remarkably accurate when compared to the deflection point. Hi all, I'm finally finding my way here (thanks, Jesse) and glad to be away from CR. (aka DavidD)
                  jimmyb


                    What's the deflection point in the Mike Pigg chart above? Thanks. --Jimmy

                    Log    PRs

                    RER


                      What's the deflection point in the Mike Pigg chart above? Thanks. --Jimmy
                      This chart is just a list of HRs and RQs. I'd guess the deflection point is before 153 HR but there's not enough information to be accurate. When you get a test, the printout should be very detailed (lots of data points). When graphed, the point is usually clear, although sometimes it's not so easy.


                      run-easy-race-hard

                        Glad to see you join in David! Nice having a dedicated forum to this stuff, thanks to ultrasteve (a previous CR poster as well - possibly before you started joining). And I like your handle! I guess RQ is too short.
                        jimmyb


                          This chart is just a list of HRs and RQs. I'd guess the deflection point is before 153 HR but there's not enough information to be accurate. When you get a test, the printout should be very detailed (lots of data points). When graphed, the point is usually clear, although sometimes it's not so easy.
                          Would it be possible for one of you guys to post the results of an actual RQ test and an example of the deflection point and other pertinent info that can be found in the test? I'm very interested. Thanks. --Jimmy p.s. Hi, Dave, glad you found the place. I like how we can have different subject lines/threads here all under the low-HR, MAFF banner.

                          Log    PRs

                          RER


                            Would it be possible for one of you guys to post the results of an actual RQ test and an example of the deflection point and other pertinent info that can be found in the test? I'm very interested. Thanks. --Jimmy p.s. Hi, Dave, glad you found the place. I like how we can have different subject lines/threads here all under the low-HR, MAFF banner.
                            I'll dig one up, but the printouts vary with the equipment and the person administering the test. I think these days one can be creative with how the report looks. I emphasize that it's not worth doing the test unless you have a knowledgeable person behind it. I looked at the chart you posted above again and 'eyed' the numbers -- it's not a bad example of a deflection point if you just plot the RQ values.


                            run-easy-race-hard

                              I actually have a VO2max test (or two) of mine posted on the FAQ site, under "photos." You can look at the trend of RQ and deduce some critical points from that. They are from a while ago, before I had really peaked out, but it will give some idea.