Low HR Training

Treadmill test to determine MAF (KPH) (19 tests) (Read 2756 times)

    I don't think the deflection at MAF has to do with lactate as much as it does with a faster increase of sugar burning due to the intro of  Type 2a red fibers which burn a lot of sugar as compared to the Type 1. They do produce lactic acid, and perhaps it does play a role, but at that low intensity the acid doesn't build and probably barely registers because the body can gobble it up quickly. The Type 2A are the fibers that can become a bit more aerobic, and are long-term anaerobic fibers. This is why Dr. Phil calls above-MAF anaerobic, because you're starting to us a little bit of those fibers and energy system. His definition of aerobic is different and is based on fiber and fuel usage.

     

    We've talked about those other plateaus we see. Perhaps the one that comes up after the steep rise after MAF is the kicking in point for some of the Type 2x. The beginning of a new level of lactic acid production that leads up to the threshold. I don't know. Just a guess. Hadd's method with the progressive LTHR runs sort of starts you out around that plateau and works you up.

     

    When I've done longer runs where I held the speed I was going at MAF, the heart rate would rise slowly, then jump at some point in a dramatic fashion (with sound effects and everything).

     

    There has to be research out there as to what happens in terms of fibers as intensity builds. I would love an explanation of what causes the plateaus even though intensity keeps building.

     

     

    what's maffetone's *exact definition* of aerobic then if it's unrelated to lactate levels? e.g. how much % of fat burning is it? or what RQ exactly?

    so you are saying there's usually some steeper rise in HR after the MAF point? (HR increases faster while speed increments are still the same as before.) hmm, I've yet to do the treadmill test but from so many runs over time I did notice a few things about my HR/pace relationships.

    it seems that for me there's indeed such a rise. if I do a thorough warmup then this steeper rise starts at about 170bpm. (shorter warmup would have it at a slightly lower HR).

    I only really observed two plateaus this way. first one's around 165bpm and the other one's is around my actual LT, well the LT plateau consists of two parts, second one is more of a plateau, more even (the two parts are at HR 185-ish and 190-193-ish and that one may continue past 193 too for a while).

     

    the whole HR range between the above mentioned points at 170 and 185 is a steep-ish rise all the way up to ~185. below 165bpm my HR also just keeps rising but not this fast.

    if I get to the test and can do it well without stress/artifacts then I'll be curious to see if it shows the same as my experience Smile


    my guess about what causes the plateaus.. is just a guess but it makes sense to me that the first plateau (MAF?) would be when suddenly significantly more sugar use kicks in compared to fat burning until then - because sugar burning uses less oxygen than fat burning to get one unit of energy (yes, this comparison is true even when the body still does use oxygen to burn the sugar, that is, not anaerobic according to common definition). that could be the MAF point then eh? and the totally anaerobic sugar "burning" uses even less oxygen, obviously. and that would be the LT point... right?

     

    and more guessing, if MAF for me is really ~165, the rise rate below that point would be simply the baseline, the steeper rise between MAF and LT is because as the speed increases, my body - slowly running out of aerobic reserves - has to keep adding a lot sugar burning but still using oxygen to burn that sugar of course.

     

     

    you can also watch your breathing rate and match that to HR. especially watch exhalation - this should give you a hint about CO2 usage, as CO2 builds faster with more sugar burning, you will have to exhale more CO2. most noticeable change in the exhaling is around LT of course as the anaerobic mode produces even more CO2 iirc.

    in my own case, the most noticeable change in breathing incl. exhaling is right after I pass the LT point. have to exhale a lot more suddenly. do need more oxygen too, of course, as I suppose some more aerobic (not MAF aerobic) sugar burning may still be kicking in in addition to anaerobic energy kicking in.

    I think that's true for most people that they notice a change around LT Big grin but I do also notice a slight change in the 170's with the steeper rise, my breathing gets slightly deeper in that HR range.

     

    I hope I wasn't completely off with the above Smile this is just my current understanding of these matters.


    btw where do you get the dramatic jump with the sound effects? Smile at 85-90minutes into the run or perhaps at 2 hours?

      Have you read any of Dr. Phil's books? They're worth a read if you haven't.

       

      His definition of aerobic, and he clearly know that it is different than the current definition, is not based on whether o not oxygen is being used, but what energy system is. In the Maffetone method, the MAF is the point where your anaerobic system becomes just ever so slightly engaged, which causes an ever-quickening use of glycogen as fuel as you go faster. For some reason, the graph of the fat/sugar ratio will mirror that of the heart rate. The plateau you see at MAF heart rate will have a plateau (end of the initial curve) in the amount of fat and sugar being used as fuel. Then there will be a steep rise after the plateau Dr. Phil says your fully aerobic when under you MAF because you're not using the Type 2 fibers just yet. You're still using the red fibers that use fat for fuel for the most part. They do use some glycogen to ignite the fat so-to-speak, but they're not using the glycogen as fuel. You'll see a rise in sugar-burning as you approach MAF.

       

      I like your ideas on the plateaus, and also your focus on what's happening in your body as you increase intensity. The engagement of the two types of anaerobic fibers coming into "help" at a certain intensity must alleviate some stress on the heart for a brief period. Your explanation is very interesting.

       

      Dr. Phil actually used other things other than RQ to determine MAF, in the early days. He watched gate and breathing as well. Apparently, there's a slight shift in someone's gate when they engage the anaerobic system, that he could observe. Eventually, for the masses he developed an adjustable formula, admitting to it's fallacies ( in his books) for the very young and those approaching their 60's.

       

      I

      AlexVan


      Motivated by HRV

        To repeat this is an amazing test Jimmi, great work.  DrPhil says it will go into the medical journals.  I think we need to give it a name.  I vote for the "jimmib test" although the "jimmi test" rolls off the lounge a little better. Smile   Can we vote here?  Smile

         

        +1 jimmib test

        AlexVan


        Motivated by HRV

          So I took the test, and I think I am going to need to do some bloop training... It was a little tricky, but in the end I managed and it seemed to produce something similar to you guys.

           

          Here is my "jimmyb bloop test"   This gave me a 180-age +4

           

          Bloop Test

           

           

          So I recorded an RR file from Polar at the same time and loaded in Kubios and actually the #s ended up different (not sure why, I will dig in farther soon to see if I can figure it out, I had already been thinking my Polar rs800cx does lap HR averaging on the high side).  And actually RR corresponded 100% to my 180-age MAF = 134, I looked at both the Kubios mean and opened the file and confirmed a 20 second average was 447 milliseconds which is the same (134.2). I would guess RR readings on some watches could be more accurate than bloop, but really they should represent the same thing.... For me it seems forgetting about blooping or setting up intervals is kind of nice...

           

           

          Kubios

           

           

           

          10 Minutes later I did a second test (started higher HR and ended higher), which gave me a 135.2, only 1 beat difference.  So far this seems very accurate.  Again great work.

           

          Kubios 10 min later

           

           

           

          Jimmi if you need raw data for your submission to the medical journal let me know. ~alex

          AlexVan


          Motivated by HRV

            Just to be clear I have looked at the same run 3 different ways

            1. My First method above, which is Bloop Interval averages from Polar RS800 
            2. Taking the raw RR file that was produced at the same time and looking in Kubios (rather than BPM it is milliseconds between beats, basically the same thing just not averaged).  And the numbers were different.
            3. Now I have taken the Raw HR measurements from the same run in 1 second HR interval and convert to RR (meaning 60/HR) and loaded to Kubios.  See below.  The crazy thing is these are different than either of the above.... Really RR should be the most accurate because there is no averaging, and this has been stated on many web sites that it is as accurate as an ECG (EKG) machine...  Garmin maybe better at this then Polar, but I just wanted to point out my discrepant #s.

            HR To RR

              Hi Alex,

               

              Thanks for all these interesting replies. I'm the first to say that this isn't the most scientific of experiments. Just trying to see how many people get a deflection point at around their calculated MAF. Want to see if we can have a handy tool to confirm. As far as names goes, I'd prefer not to have it named after me, although I'm hoping for a section of  a major interstate, or at least an intersection, be named after me for the great thing I'm yet to do. "Maximum Aerobic Function Confirmation" test or "MAFCON test" would be cool, but I won't force the issue.

               

              Looking at the first graph you posted. Not sure if those two dots at the deflection point represent more than two data points or not. If  so, then it's not well defined. It should look more like the one at 149-150. But your follow-up graphs show a more well-defined curve and rise after a deflection at MAF. Why? Are there more data points?

               

              My Polar is old and simple, and doesn't interface with anything. On my Garmin, there is a choice between Smart Recording and "Every Second" for recording data points. I think I'll explore the Every Second setting and see what kind of raw data I can access.

               

              I created a second test with MPH and incline, but prefer this KPH one, as I'm not fond of real steep inclines. I think I'll try this test again this week using the Garmin. See how it matches the other test I did on Monday, which did give me a nice deflection.

               

              Thanks again for this new look at the test, and for making me aware of this other  way to look at raw data and possible software I could use.  Cool

              AlexVan


              Motivated by HRV

                Sounds good Jimmi, I am good with mafcon for a name, and I am going to keep running this test for a while, it seems very intersting. I do realize, just because we see a deflection  point we are not sure of what it means, but i agree if we can get 10+ guys here to do it 10 times, and it really does align with what our maf tests tell us, then I do think this test might become valuable in future low hr maffeton communities and if nothing else makes us feel like MAF or close  is really matched for our body.  134 is 180-age and with my inconsistent weekly milage and MAF tests leads me to believe that 134 is the right #, so it all seems to align. Now I just need to stop,running maf +5 so often, and get more consistent.. Smile  I wish 149 was my MAF, I am still not 100% sure what it is other then trusting the Dr's formula.  Yeah those first 2 are just 2 points, but since RR has  a lot more data and has a much more solid deflection, I am ignoring the bloop (10 seconds) intervals and going with RR.  Maybe I will figure out how to clean RR to chart more like bloop, for apples to apples.  Anyway keep going with this!!! This appeals to me more then incline/miles, but walking incline might be interesting.

                  Hey Gang,

                   

                  Last night, I did a KPH test (1% incline) with a Garmin 305. I warmed up for 20 minutes (5 walk, 15 run). I programmed a TIME/TIME interval workout in the training section on my watch, using 10 seconds for all reps. Watch was also set to "EVERY SECOND" under Date recording.

                   

                  This morning I did another KPH test, but with my Polar watch. I warmed 35 minutes (15 minute walk, 20  run).

                   

                  After my discussions with C (Cmon2) in a few threads here in the forum, I decided to make mental notes of changes in my body and my breathing as I progressed through the tests. In each of the tests, I felt a sensation which felt like i needed a deeper breath at 134 bpm. At the next data point at the beginning of the rise after 134 bpm, my breathing got quicker and little heavier, as if a switch were thrown. In today's polar test I felt the sensation at 130 and then again at 134. I also saw a shift ability to focus on the task at hand. Got a touch spacier.

                   

                  Also in each test, at about 168 bpm, my breathing changed, a little more rapid and heavy. There was a plateau in each test at 176-177, and the next data point at the beginning of the rise after, my breathing became a lot more rapid and heavy. Again, as if a switch were thrown.

                   

                  My take is at around the MAF, the anaerobic fibers starts to ever so slightly kick in, which is that sensation of a need for a deeper breath. Then it's definitely apparent when you've exceeded MAF at the next data point where the breathing becomes a touch more rapid and deep, and also more audible.

                   

                  Same for that zone between 168-176, 177. I think the next set of Type 2 fibers ever so slightly kick in at 168 and then when I exceed my threshold at 176, 177, they're engaged in a much bigger way, so much so that it feels like I'm getting a hair into oxygen debt. The breathing is remarkably different when I exceed the threshold. As a side note, I was tested for my anearobic threshold about 3-4 years ago, and it was 176 bpm.

                   

                  Using this test combined with an awareness of what is going on in the body, I think it's a fairly accurate confirmation of the MAF. I've been using 130 for awhile, but would feel comfortable using 134. I had been using 133 back in 2010, but after a long period of stress, I just adjusted down and used 130, and at times even lower. Last September, I did this test and got 133 for an MAF. I'll get around to posting it sooner or later.  Here are the charts and data. Last night's test with the Garmin first.

                   

                  p.s. Thanks, C. I think using awareness of breath and body along with data is an awesome combination.Cool

                   

                   

                  AlexVan


                  Motivated by HRV

                    Great work again.  If you want to send me your hrm file, or tcx files or whatever I would be curious how your "raw" files or 1 sec measurements align with your bloops.  Next time I try I will write down feelings too.

                      Thanks, Alex,

                       

                      I'm sure with some practice, you could probably learn what the MAF feels like and get to it without the Data collecting part. ALso, I'm thinking back to Stu Mittleman's book, Slow Burn, and he talks about the changes focus at MAF. I witnessed that the past two days.

                       

                      --JImmyCool

                       

                      Great work again.  If you want to send me your hrm file, or tcx files or whatever I would be curious how your "raw" files or 1 sec measurements align with your bloops.  Next time I try I will write down feelings too.

                      AlexVan


                      Motivated by HRV

                        Yeah Jimmi, I am 1.5 years of 80% < MAF (and 1.5 of running) but I am not sensitive enough to feel that 5 bpm of accuracy and that true cutoff point.  I want to know is it really 137 or 133.  Yeah I read slow burn a few times, but probably need to pick it up again.

                          Alex,

                           

                          If you're going to retest, consider starting at a lower HR (maybe 105). Taking a second look, I think the deflection is clear at the data point at 125-126. There's a nice curve into it, then a quicker steep rise after.  Because it was s soon in the test, I overlooked it. But looking again, pretty defined. It's not out of the question for someone's MAF to be 5-10 beats lower than 180-age, depending on level of fitness and the state of your RQ.

                           

                          JimmyCool

                           

                          So I took the test, and I think I am going to need to do some bloop training... It was a little tricky, but in the end I managed and it seemed to produce something similar to you guys.

                           

                          Here is my "jimmyb bloop test"   This gave me a 180-age +4

                           

                          Bloop Test

                           

                          AlexVan


                          Motivated by HRV

                            Thanks Jimmi, I re-read Maffetone's rules and I realize really due to my inconsistency (< 4 days a week some times) I really should be a -5 and since I am not really getting the MAF test results I think I should be (other than this week), maybe this is one more indicator that I should be a -5.  I will get strict with -5 for a while and see what happens.  Here is chart based on raw data.  It shows solid 125, but could be 135 also Smile ...

                             

                            AlexVan


                            Motivated by HRV

                              Ok I did my 3rd MAFCon test, unless I want to look at MAF-15 at an option this test seems to be point toward my exact MAF calculation(134) being the same as  my strongest deflection point.  Let's see what future tests bring.  Jimmi, I am still running MAF -5 other than this test. I forgot to track my feelings during this test.  Next time, I guess...

                               

                                Mo submitted a MAFcon test taken this morning.

                                44 y/o male.  6'1", 230 lbs.

                                Running 5 years

                                healthy, not injured

                                 

                                From Mo: " I used KPH as similar to the original/first test you posted on yourself.  I have been using 136 as my MAF for most of my runs lately, but honestly always felt it was closer to 140 plus or minus because that's when I feel some kind of difference in my breathing.  For the test today, I thought I felt a difference right around 140.  Also, forgot to mention, I did a 20 minute warmup.  First 10 minutes walk walking (started at approx 4 KMP and bumped it up a notch or two every 30-60 seconds) and then the next 10 minutes alternating between walking/jogging."

                                 

                                 

                                 

                                 

                                Mo also feels a change in breathing at the deflection point. There was also that plateau above MAF at about 148 that we see in some tests.

                                 

                                Thanks, Mo! Cool