Happy
However, I think I have a good idea now of what the deflection point means in relation to the RQ versus HR. If the MAF is right below the deflection point (the point at which a person's RQ become 1.0 which means she/he is 100% sugar burning) this explains and emphasizes why it is of utmost importance to stay below MAF while training. Going just a few BPM above that would mean that one would find herself in a 100% sugar-burning state thus not reaping any aerobic benefit from the training.
I personaly am interested exactly at that 0.7 point and slightly bellow - to train to run and walk faster at the 0.7 meaning at fat = 100% and sugars = zero %.
no, the deflection point is at 0.85, where fat/sugars ration is 50-50 and MAF is just a bit bellow that so where fat would be 51-55 % and sugars only 49-45 % as an example. This can be explained possibly this way : at 0.7 You burn fat only and running at the HR at which RQ=0.7 should therefore guarantee 100% fat aand zero sugars use. You can of course run even slower that this HR. as You gradualy increasing the pace and HR rises You reach the point when teh sugars start kickin in. further increase in pace produces liner correlation between RQ and HR and the running pace. This is true for teh whole range from RQ = 0.7 - 0.85 or in fat vs sugars in range from 100% fat to only 50% which can be writen as from zero sugars to 50% sugars. although You increasing the % of sugars You also increasing the overal energy usage or production so You increasing the fat in total energy units per second or per minute or per km or mile run. this is explained as effective training, running faster pushing it to the 0.85 point allowing for sugars upto 50% but increasing the total fat usage and increasing the HR and the running pace. The deflection point means, that after this point either teh graph is not linear any more, or is linear but the steepness of teh line is different, so You can approximate the chart by 2 different gradient lines, crossing at teh deflection point. so further increase in pace will produce further increase in HR and also increase in sugar %, but this is now at different correlation factor. Possibly, this can mean, that body could not increase teh fat component any more, so at 0.85 or at proper MAF HR the biggest rate of fat burn was achieved and all teh pace and HR increase above this is purely by increase of sugar component only, fat has reached the plateau. I personaly am interested exactly at that 0.7 point and slightly bellow - to train to run and walk faster at the 0.7 meaning at fat = 100% and sugars = zero %. overall training efficiency might not be as high as doing it at 0.85 or 0.80 and total burned fat per time unit, say 1H would be lower, but the body is training for fat only and is getting used to not to switch the sugar engine on at all. at 0.7 RQ I might need much more training time per week, meaning also running walking cycling etc much longer total time, ending with similar total kms - miles per week, like if it was done at 0.85 say running 100 miles per week, can take You at 0.85 maybe 16 hours, at 0.7 maybe 22 hours (do not take teh numbers seriously here) for teh same total aerobic training effect ? But somehow the result should be different in something, which I cant put into words at this stage.
In my mind I envisioned an exponential graph after the deflection point but I am glad you pointed out the graph can be linear after that though at a steeper grade. Rudolf I am with you in aiming to get as close to being 100% fat-burning as possible during training runs. This is something I aim for while outside running. Training at HR below a level that gives RQ 0.7 would not make sense in terms of achieving better fat-burning ability would it? After all 100% fat burn is as much as we can get. What would some other potential benefits be of training at lower HR than that?
Hawt and sexy
I'm touching your pants.
As a 23:00 5k runner, I believe I was in the 12mm MAF range. When it comes right down to it, I believe that the pace thing only works one way. You can get a good guess on another race by using a previous race, but only if you are aerobically fit. You cannot guess a race pace for a given MAF pace....... Maffetone is just one guy,