Low HR Training

Treadmill test to determine MAF (KPH) (19 tests) (Read 2689 times)

rarian


    Thanks for posting the graph.  I've got more spare time than usual so could get some posted in the next couple of days.

     

    I can't see any LT point.  Can you be more specific?

      Thanks for posting the graph.  I've got more spare time than usual so could get some posted in the next couple of days.

       

      I can't see any LT point.  Can you be more specific?

       

       

      see how my HR goes up a lot with relatively small speed increments before I reach 10kph or so. past 10kph my HR increase flattens out a lot. from 10kph to nearly 14kph, HR hardly goes up. where the flattening starts, that's where LT would be.

       

      (supposedly it is because a significant part of the required energy production to go from 10kph to higher speeds no longer comes from burning carbs/fat with oxygen but from anaerobic processes which does not raise the HR as much as oxygen dependent processes..as far as I understand this).

       

      I've been told that another way to analyse it is by drawing two straight lines through the datapoints, one line from the bottom end of HR/speed and the other from the top down, and where they meet that would be LTHR. that's again around low 190's.

       

       

      I'll be curious to see how your graphs were evaluated by your exercise physiologist friend to find LT.

      jimmyb


        Here's my Conconi Test from 2007:

         

         

        It just so happens to coincide with my LT/AT. I've beeen tested. One of the problems with the test in my opinion is that there isn't enough sampling (you can see it especially in C's test). There isn't a well defined deflection point. You can see a slight one in mine,  a little plateau at 174-175, then a quick rise to 179-180. My reading about the test is that it is not reliable.

         

        --Jimmy

        Log    PRs

          Here's my Conconi Test from 2007:

           

           

           

          It just so happens to coincide with my LT/AT. I've beeen tested. One of the problems with the test in my opinion is that there isn't enough sampling (you can see it especially in C's test). There isn't a well defined deflection point. You can see a slight one in mine,  a little plateau at 174-175, then a quick rise to 179-180. My reading about the test is that it is not reliable.

           

          --Jimmy

           

           

           

          interesting graph. doesn't look like mine. (I think we discussed this before, i.e. how my HR behaves so differently when going past LT, compared to yours or some other people's)

           

           

          yes I read that only half of the people have the deflection point. I don't have a deflection point in that graph per se, but I still got a significant change in HR increase, which made it possible to analyse it by doing those two straight lines (linear regression or whatever it's called). Smile

           

           

          the other thing, I did have over 20 data points in the test but much of that was for lower HRs, so maybe not enough sampling near LT point to show a deflection point if there is one at all. I was going by increasing HR (by 2-3 bpm for each 200m on the track) not by increasing speed (of course speed increased too, but you see what I mean). this is why I think your treadmill test may be better than this.

           

           

          on another note, I'm still wondering why my graph looked like this between 140 and 160. I warmed up for long enough before the test, so that was not it. was it because it was such a slow running speed belonging to those HR's at that time (I was pretty untrained)? what I can recall from doing the test -distant memory now- is that I could see my HR constantly going up and down by like 5bpm up and then 5bpm down, while I was trying to go slow enough to keep the HR low enough. one thing that could have been a problem too, I was not yet MAF'ing at that time, I never ran below 155bpm or so, meaning I was unused to moving along in those HR zones. I started that test from HR 140 or so. the other thing is that I could have been a bit excited going into the test but I don't know if that would affect the HR this much at slow speeds.

          jimmyb


            interesting graph. doesn't look like mine. (I think we discussed this before, i.e. how my HR behaves so differently when going past LT, compared to yours or some other people's)

             

             

            yes I read that only half of the people have the deflection point. I don't have a deflection point in that graph per se, but I still got a significant change in HR increase, which made it possible to analyse it by doing those two straight lines (linear regression or whatever it's called). Smile

             

             

            the other thing, I did have over 20 data points in the test but much of that was for lower HRs, so maybe not enough sampling near LT point to show a deflection point if there is one at all. I was going by increasing HR (by 2-3 bpm for each 200m on the track) not by increasing speed (of course speed increased too, but you see what I mean). this is why I think your treadmill test may be better than this.

             

            It's been awhile, but I do believe I used this protocol.

            I do believe doing the test by increasing your HR by 2-3 bpm for 200m is incorrect. You're supposed to record the HR's the speed increases give you. If you control the heart rate yourself, it would completely skew the data. That's why it should be done on a treadmill.

             

            You won't know really your LT until you've been tested. Until then you can maybe ballpark it (e.g. 80-90% MHR), but you won't know exactly.

             

            --Jimmy

            Log    PRs

              It's been awhile, but I do believe I used this protocol.

              I do believe doing the test by increasing your HR by 2-3 bpm for 200m is incorrect. You're supposed to record the HR's the speed increases give you. If you control the heart rate yourself, it would completely skew the data. That's why it should be done on a treadmill.

               

              You won't know really your LT until you've been tested. Until then you can maybe ballpark it (e.g. 80-90% MHR), but you won't know exactly.

               

              --Jimmy

               

               

               

              heh, I don't know if my LT will ever be tested properly, the problem I have with getting tested with "pro" equipment (RQ or lactate measurements) is that I'm worried that my HR could behave in the same weird way as when I did that conconi test (see my HR between 140 and 160). for that, I just didn't find a better explanation than adrenaline.  did you mean this factor when you said controlling my own the HR in the test can skew the results? or did you mean something else?

               

               

              also, what if I have a bad day and that skews the test. with your test, I can at least repeat it on other days more easily than going back and again pay a lot of $$ in a lab Smile

               

               

              so I'm avoiding the lab stuff for now, I'm happy enough knowing that I can average 190-ish HR's in my races and in LT  tempo runs happy enough paying attention to my legs to see if they got into acidosis or not.

               

               

              of course my curiosity always remains, so if one day I feel like I can control adrenaline and other factors enough, and find a cheap lab, I will go in to see what it shows Smile until then...happy with these "homemade" tests.

              jimmyb


                heh, I don't know if my LT will ever be tested properly, the problem I have with getting tested with "pro" equipment (RQ or lactate measurements) is that I'm worried that my HR could behave in the same weird way as when I did that conconi test (see my HR between 140 and 160). for that, I just didn't find a better explanation than adrenaline.  did you mean this factor when you said controlling my own the HR in the test can skew the results? or did you mean something else?

                 

                Yes, controlling your own HR in the Conconi test skews the results. You're not supposed to do that. You're supposed to do the test on a treadmill, increasing speed at certain points, and letting the HR go where it goes. Your test should be discarded.

                 

                I don't really do too much with the knowledge of LT. It came with the RQ test. I've always used basically the same range for LT tempos (85-90% MHR). Pfitzinger says you can't go wrong with a 80-90% spread. I've always just used the upper range. The key is to get faster at the runs. This will help you in races.

                 

                --Jimmy

                Log    PRs

                rarian


                  My spare time has almost gone and nothing is ready to post yet.  (Jimmy I suppose your graphs are inserted as objects; I've got the objects but haven't a clue how to describe them by URLs.)

                   

                  Yes I can see the deflection in Jimmy's graph.  On my graph it's even slighter.

                   

                  I wouldn't have noticed it but the EP is used to having his students test themselves and then draw their graphs.  As I recall he held a straight-edge on the graph on the screen to show me the dip. 

                    Yes, controlling your own HR in the Conconi test skews the results. You're not supposed to do that. You're supposed to do the test on a treadmill, increasing speed at certain points, and letting the HR go where it goes. Your test should be discarded.

                     

                    I don't really do too much with the knowledge of LT. It came with the RQ test. I've always used basically the same range for LT tempos (85-90% MHR). Pfitzinger says you can't go wrong with a 80-90% spread. I've always just used the upper range. The key is to get faster at the runs. This will help you in races.

                     

                    --Jimmy

                     

                     

                    well that test actually showed what races and other runs showed later too so I think it was a good enough test. but of course, I will be re-testing this on a treadmill sometime this summer when I test the MAF HR anyway.

                     

                    btw, I doubt many people have their LT as low as 80% of MHR. as far as I see, 90% would be closer to reality for most people.

                     

                    also, a range from 80% to 90% is just too wide for it to be a ballpark.  20-21 beats in my case. and, at 80% my pace is about 9min/mile and at 90% 8min/mile, that's a lot of difference. (and 8min/mile is still slightly slower than my LT pace.)

                     

                     

                     

                    My spare time has almost gone and nothing is ready to post yet.  (Jimmy I suppose your graphs are inserted as objects; I've got the objects but haven't a clue how to describe them by URLs.)

                     

                    Yes I can see the deflection in Jimmy's graph.  On my graph it's even slighter.

                     

                    I wouldn't have noticed it but the EP is used to having his students test themselves and then draw their graphs.  As I recall he held a straight-edge on the graph on the screen to show me the dip. 

                     

                     

                    yeah, it seems using a straight edge (liner? is this what this expression means?) would work on mine too.

                    jimmyb


                      well that test actually showed what races and other runs showed later too so I think it was a good enough test. but of course, I will be re-testing this on a treadmill sometime this summer when I test the MAF HR anyway.

                       

                      btw, I doubt many people have their LT as low as 80% of MHR. as far as I see, 90% would be closer to reality for most people.

                       

                      also, a range from 80% to 90% is just too wide for it to be a ballpark.  20-21 beats in my case. and, at 80% my pace is about 9min/mile and at 90% 8min/mile, that's a lot of difference. (and 8min/mile is still slightly slower than my LT pace.)

                       

                       

                       

                       

                       

                      yeah, it seems using a straight edge (liner? is this what this expression means?) would work on mine too.

                       

                      Your test graph didn't show anything in terms of LT or a what the Conconi test is supposed to show, because you controlled the heart rate. Sure, you could relate it to something else where you controlled heart rate, but  it's not a Conconi test. Just like it wouldn't be the test I created that this thread is about. In order to get the MAF HR from a RQ test or my test, you can't control the heart rate variable.

                       

                      You'll have to take up the 80% with Pfitzinger and Douglas, the authors of Advanced Marathoning. The main purpose of that 80-90% is to do a tempo run in that zone to get a stimulus so you will get faster at LT. You could do a tempo run that spanned 20 beats quite easily and get the needed stimulus. You might be surprised when some people actually start to build lactate. That's basically what you are trying to get done in this type of tempo. Although, there is an anaerobic stimulus as well. 

                       

                      Pfitzinger writes that the LT pace is somewhere between your half marathon and 15k race pace. Daniels has you work a touch harder at 88-92% MHR if using HR. 

                       

                      Here's a link

                      Here's another one

                      Jack Daniels Threshold Training

                       

                       

                      --Jimmy

                       

                      P.S. If you want to continue this discussion, please start a new thread. This is getting way off course with all the stuff about the Conconi and threshold training. I would really like this thread to remain about the the treadmill test to determine MAF deflection point, but I do like the discussion. I wanted to respectfully address the topics of this digression, before asking for things to get  back to topic.  Perhaps a thread about heart rate threshold training could be started. Or we can keep it in the anaerobic thread. Thanks, C.

                      Log    PRs

                        sorry for the going off topic. yes, we can continue this in the other thread if you'd like. I'll add a few lines there in response to this post.


                        anyway, it was not my idea to go by HR in that test, someone else had me do it and had the analysis done like that. he called it a conconi test perhaps incorrectly. so I guess it's another approach that does not use a deflection point, sorry I may have got it confused there (i.e. we should not even assume a deflection point in such a test, but instead look for another thing, which I already described before).

                        Dr.R


                          Hey Jimmy, just did my test, or as close to the actual test as I could come with the equipment I used.  How do I get the data to you?  Thanks

                          jimmyb


                            Hey Jimmy, just did my test, or as close to the actual test as I could come with the equipment I used.  How do I get the data to you?  Thanks

                             

                            Just cut and paste into my RA mail box. If it's on a spreadsheet you can send it to my email address. I'll send the email to your RA mailbox.

                            Thanks, Doc.

                            --Jimmy

                            Log    PRs

                              I know this is an old thread, but I just came across it recently and wanted to add my findings as well.  I was training at MAF - 5 for a couple months because I had read that when in doubt go lower rather than higher.  I'm 34 so my MAF should be 146 and I was training at 141. After seeing this I was curious what results I would come up with, so here they are.  

                               

                              Determining Maf

                               

                              So it looks like I was right to go with a lower HR for training.  It looks like it's 143 - 145 for me.  Also, this test was done using MPH and a 15 minute warm up. And, I guess 158 - 159 is my 50-50 point? Also, what is the LT point?  Is that threshold?

                              2014 Goal: Run faster than 3:37:07 in the NYC Marathon

                              jimmyb


                                I know this is an old thread, but I just came across it recently and wanted to add my findings as well.  I was training at MAF - 5 for a couple months because I had read that when in doubt go lower rather than higher.  I'm 34 so my MAF should be 146 and I was training at 141. After seeing this I was curious what results I would come up with, so here they are.  

                                 

                                Determining Maf

                                 

                                So it looks like I was right to go with a lower HR for training.  It looks like it's 143 - 145 for me.  Also, this test was done using MPH and a 15 minute warm up. And, I guess 158 - 159 is my 50-50 point? Also, what is the LT point?  Is that threshold?

                                 

                                 

                                Thanks for posting, Dimitri. Normally the test when done with MPH doesn't always come out right, but yours looks about right---it even has the 2nd plateau. Looks like you can't go wrong going with 145. The plateau at 158-59 is quite common (mine happens around 146-147, my MAF is 130). I theorized that it was the 50-50% fat/sugar point since it comes so close to where mine was on an RQ test. It could also be where another part of your anaerobic system kicks in. There are two sets of fast-twitch fibers. The first set can become more aerobic. Perhaps those are what kick in at the MAF point, then the other set of fast-twitchers, the ones that remain completely anaerobic start to kick in at the 2nd deflection point---just a theory.


                                As far as the LT point, it's a crapshoot with these TM tests. Sometimes there is another little plateau up around 85-90% MHR then a continuation of the rise. It's not that reliable for the LT

                                 

                                The test I created was basically to show that 180-formula tends to be pretty close to where your MAF actually is---or to help you confirm what you think it is. The more sampling the better to get a proper looking deflection point.

                                 

                                Thanks again.

                                 

                                --Jimmy

                                 

                                 

                                PS. I posted a link to your post in the initial post of this thread.

                                Log    PRs