Low HR Training

Treadmill test to determine MAF (KPH) (19 tests) (Read 2755 times)

     

    Yeah I see what you mean.

     

    I actually have had this question lingering in my mind for a while and I've finally put it into words: how does one determine which plateau is the MAF when there's several?

     

    btw if results are so heavily dependent on protocol, how was the proper protocol determined, or do you just mean that the default protocol of doing the speed increases in every 10 secs and doing smaller increases will show plateaus in a more detailed fashion? (Slightly less refined protocol of a bit larger speed increases at every 16 secs would still then have them, just harder to see them.) I guess you meant that

     

    It's that initial curve  followed by a steep rise in HR. In an RQ test there is an acceleration in sugar burning following the MAF as the anaerobic system kicks in. Read the OP to answer the rest of your question about protocol and the purpose of this experiment, C..

       It's that initial curve  followed by a steep rise in HR. In an RQ test there is an acceleration in sugar burning following the MAF as the anaerobic system kicks in. Read the OP to answer the rest of your question about protocol and the purpose of this experiment, C..

       

      but my question was about, what if there's several such parts in the graph? plateau + steep rise.

       

      as for sample rate, okay so I was guessing right.

       

      I didn't have a question about the purpose of the experiment. Smile

         

        but my question was about, what if there's several such parts in the graph? plateau + steep rise.

         

         

         

        Well, logically anything up near the LT/AT heart rates isn't going to be your MAF. The MAF is pretty low on a graph that goes all the way to MHR. The sugar-burning fibers kick in at fairly low heart rates relative to MHR. In an RQ test done by a professional, there will be less "bumps". In this particular test, it's not always smooth or clear, but in many of the tests you can see that initial curve into the deflection followed by a steeper curve. This test not being the epitome of science, not every graph posted here has been super clear. One, we're not all using the same style of graph, some are stretched out making the curves less apparent.  Two, we're testing ourselves. You made a point once about simple movements affecting your HR, and perhaps for some the simple act of lifting an arm to boop the TM can  make the reading a bit uneven. Such is the nature of this thing. Just looking for some loose confirmation of MAF in comparison to the formula. Since we already know the formula and the HR we're looking for, that makes it pretty unscientific. But it sure is fun, and I think, for me, works pretty well. Especially since I added your observing the breath suggestion. 

           

          Well, logically anything up near the LT/AT heart rates isn't going to be your MAF. The MAF is pretty low on a graph that goes all the way to MHR. The sugar-burning fibers kick in at fairly low heart rates relative to MHR. In an RQ test done by a professional, there will be less "bumps". In this particular test, it's not always smooth or clear, but in many of the tests you can see that initial curve into the deflection followed by a steeper curve. This test not being the epitome of science, not every graph posted here has been super clear. One, we're not all using the same style of graph, some are stretched out making the curves less apparent.  Two, we're testing ourselves. You made a point once about simple movements affecting your HR, and perhaps for some the simple act of lifting an arm to boop the TM can  make the reading a bit uneven. Such is the nature of this thing. Just looking for some loose confirmation of MAF in comparison to the formula. Since we already know the formula and the HR we're looking for, that makes it pretty unscientific. But it sure is fun, and I think, for me, works pretty well. Especially since I added your observing the breath suggestion. 

           

          Yes sure it won't be too close to LT but that on its own may not be enough to figure this out Surprised

          Cool that there's a breathing change that seems to match up with MAF as well Smile

           

          I have a couple suggestions actually to make it somewhat more scientific or whatever...

           

          - include it in protocol to have someone else help do the test

          - subject shouldn't reveal their age to you until MAF HR has been estimated Smile

          - perhaps use a standardized graph

           

          I want to mention, some guy had RQ test done here in my country (not many places do it)... I asked them about how well it was done, well it turned out it was screwed up pretty bad... really invalid results... I guess it's way too easy to screw up even that test. And it was really expensive. In that regard, this treadmill test is better because you can repeat it as many times as you'd like, free of charge :P

            I never wanted this thread to be "Post Your Graph And Jimmy WIll Guess Your MAF." I wanted people to try the test to help confirm their MAF's, in case they have doubts. See if there is a deflection within a few beats of their calculated MAF  And ultimately, think for themselves.

             

            It doesn't matter that much to me, C. It's only supposed to be a helpful tool. The real test already exists (RQ), and I do believe science has already determined a way of  observing what muscle fibers are kicking in as a person exercise intensifies. Just having some fun.

             

             

            I'm appreciative that people have tried this test and posted results and am convinced enough from them that it's a helpful tool for me, especially when I move into my 60's and 70's, when the formula gets less accurate (according to Dr. Phil).

             

            Look forward to you following the posted protocol and posting your results, and you posting your further experience with your ongoing experiment with the Maffetone Method, Hadd, Van Aaken or Low HRT as some like to call it sometimes.

             

             

            Yes sure it won't be too close to LT but that on its own may not be enough to figure this out Surprised

            Cool that there's a breathing change that seems to match up with MAF as well Smile

             

            I have a couple suggestions actually to make it somewhat more scientific or whatever...

             

            - include it in protocol to have someone else help do the test

            - subject shouldn't reveal their age to you until MAF HR has been estimated Smile

            - perhaps use a standardized graph

             

            I want to mention, some guy had RQ test done here in my country (not many places do it)... I asked them about how well it was done, well it turned out it was screwed up pretty bad... really invalid results... I guess it's way too easy to screw up even that test. And it was really expensive. In that regard, this treadmill test is better because you can repeat it as many times as you'd like, free of charge :P

              Well ok, I did like the idea of such a thread though. Smile

               

              But even if it isn't you guessing, it could be someone else who has no information on the person's calculated MAF. That would be a good way to keep this more objective and thus even more interesting as well Smile.

               

              As for the real test, RQ test, see what complaints I've heard about it? Maybe it's just my country though. :/ But this would be another reason why I like the idea of your test and the idea of improving it further. Smile

               

              Indeed, I will do this test myself one day and will post the results Smile

               

              Yeah, LHR experiment is fun. 

               

              I never wanted this thread to be "Post Your Graph And Jimmy WIll Guess Your MAF." I wanted people to try the test to help confirm their MAF's, in case they have doubts. See if there is a deflection within a few beats of their calculated MAF  And ultimately, think for themselves.

               

              It doesn't matter that much to me, C. It's only supposed to be a helpful tool. The real test already exists (RQ), and I do believe science has already determined a way of  observing what muscle fibers are kicking in as a person exercise intensifies. Just having some fun.

               

               

              I'm appreciative that people have tried this test and posted results and am convinced enough from them that it's a helpful tool for me, especially when I move into my 60's and 70's, when the formula gets less accurate (according to Dr. Phil).

               

              Look forward to you following the posted protocol and posting your results, and you posting your further experience with your ongoing experiment with the Maffetone Method, Hadd, Van Aaken or Low HRT as some like to call it sometimes.

               

                C, I'm not trying to prove the existence of MAF in this thread, that point where the fast twitch fibers begin to engage, as I believe Dr. Phil's work all those years already did, along with the work of others showing that different fibers engage at increasing levels of intensity. I'm just presenting a tool that will help Maffers zero in on their MAF and support what they're choosing for an MAF with their calculations using the formula. It might also be very helpful for the older runners in their 60's and 70's, where the formula gets dodgy. Might be helpful for someone thinking of taking the +5 adjustment.   A simple HR test that might or might not help. I'm curious to see if it works for others. It's not a big scientific study, and certainly not a game of "stump the pseudo-scientist". 

                  C, I'm not trying to prove the existence of MAF in this thread, that point where the fast twitch fibers begin to engage, as I believe Dr. Phil's work all those years already did, along with the work of others showing that different fibers engage at increasing levels of intensity. I'm just presenting a tool that will help Maffers zero in on their MAF and support what they're choosing for an MAF with their calculations using the formula. It might also be very helpful for the older runners in their 60's and 70's, where the formula gets dodgy. Might be helpful for someone thinking of taking the +5 adjustment.   A simple HR test that might or might not help. I'm curious to see if it works for others. It's not a big scientific study, and certainly not a game of "stump the pseudo-scientist". 

                   

                  a bit of misunderstanding? I wasn't talking about proving the existence of MAF Smile I was talking about investigating the 180 formula :P I already said before that I wouldn't mind knowing about the data on standard deviation for it and not only for people in their 60's and 70's but that too, of course.

                   

                  my point was also not about being scientific, just about being as objective as possible and that's why I suggested withholding information on the person's calculated MAF until analysis of the HR graph. Smile that would also be more fun, trying to guess totally blindly, not affected by previous information Smile.

                   

                  I'm not sure what "stump the pseudo-scientist" means?

                     

                    a bit of misunderstanding? I wasn't talking about proving the existence of MAF Smile I was talking about investigating the 180 formula :P I already said before that I wouldn't mind knowing about the data on standard deviation for it and not only for people in their 60's and 70's but that too, of course.

                     

                    my point was also not about being scientific, just about being as objective as possible and that's why I suggested withholding information on the person's calculated MAF until analysis of the HR graph. Smile that would also be more fun, trying to guess totally blindly, not affected by previous information Smile.

                     

                    I'm not sure what "stump the pseudo-scientist" means?

                     

                    It's the same as "stump Jimmy, the man who could play guitar and make crude drawings, but thought a double-blind study had something to do with duck-hunting."

                     

                    The purpose of this thread is not to disprove or prove the formula, but to see if this test will help with seeing a deflection around what you have calculated with the formula. It's to prove or disprove this test, if anything. I prefer to know up front what the person's MAF information is, to save time. It's a loose thread (double entendre intended). Hope is involved. Hope that after many tests are posted, that with this test a deflection is found around the MAF most of the time and that it can help someone in making decisions. This hope (and my laziness) earns me a bitch-slap from anyone who would call themselves a real scientist.

                     

                    Get your test in, C! 

                       

                      It's the same as "stump Jimmy, the man who could play guitar and make crude drawings, but thought a double-blind study had something to do with duck-hunting."

                       

                      The purpose of this thread is not to disprove or prove the formula, but to see if this test will help with seeing a deflection around what you have calculated with the formula. It's to prove or disprove this test, if anything. I prefer to know up front what the person's MAF information is, to save time. It's a loose thread (double entendre intended). Hope is involved. Hope that after many tests are posted, that with this test a deflection is found around the MAF most of the time and that it can help someone in making decisions. This hope (and my laziness) earns me a bitch-slap from anyone who would call themselves a real scientist.

                       

                      Get your test in, C! 

                       

                      LOL. yeah... ;p

                       

                      my serious opinion though: as you know already, I think it's not the best idea to start with the assumption that the formula is definitely right. but of course I accept it if you think differently about the method of doing this, to save time or whatnot.

                       

                      my hope is more about finding an easily doable field test (no need to put in the $$'s for a test that's unreliable because it's not under your control, the protocol including warmup, the precision of it, the chance to repeat test to control circumstances, virtually nothing is under your control).

                       

                      and your last line, you are right about that. Tongue

                         

                        LOL. yeah... ;p

                         

                        my serious opinion though: as you know already, I think it's not the best idea to start with the assumption that the formula is definitely right. but of course I accept it if you think differently about the method of doing this, to save time or whatnot.

                         

                        my hope is more about finding an easily doable field test (no need to put in the $$'s for a test that's unreliable because it's not under your control, the protocol including warmup, the precision of it, the chance to repeat test to control circumstances, virtually nothing is under your control).

                         

                        and your last line, you are right about that. Tongue

                         

                        If this were a scientific experiment to prove the accuracy of the formula, you would be right, C. But that's not really the intention here, as I've already said. After all the reading I've done, I decided that Dr. Phil's work that eventually led to the formula was good enough, and that the formula with adjustments is accurate enough in terms of using it for aerobic development, but that it not so much so when you get to 60 years old and up.  This test or an RQ test isn't even necessary.  The MAF test (monitoring your aerobic speed) and how you feel are really what matters and what will ultimately tell you whether or not the HR you're using is working.

                         

                        As to the accuracy of an RQ test. It just measures exhaled gases.  I'm sure the sugar/fat ratios the computer spits out are accurate enough to give a truthful graph. Me taking the RQ test was more of a fun splurge than anything. And it showed a deflection in fat/sugar burning  that coincided with the formula. Probably won't do it again, though. It's expensive.

                         

                        And your last line....of course, C.

                         

                        Now it's your turn to get the last word in.LOL

                           If this were a scientific experiment to prove the accuracy of the formula, you would be right, C. But that's not really the intention here, as I've already said. After all the reading I've done, I decided that Dr. Phil's work that eventually led to the formula was good enough, and that the formula with adjustments is accurate enough in terms of using it for aerobic development, but that it not so much so when you get to 60 years old and up.  This test or an RQ test isn't even necessary.  The MAF test (monitoring your aerobic speed) and how you feel are really what matters and what will ultimately tell you whether or not the HR you're using is working.

                           

                          As to the accuracy of an RQ test. It just measures exhaled gases.  I'm sure the sugar/fat ratios the computer spits out are accurate enough to give a truthful graph. Me taking the RQ test was more of a fun splurge than anything. And it showed a deflection in fat/sugar burning  that coincided with the formula. Probably won't do it again, though. It's expensive.

                           

                          And your last line....of course, C.

                           

                          Now it's your turn to get the last word in.LOL

                           

                          Smile lol well....

                           

                          this isn't just about it being a scientific experiment though - it's also about helping people in general, not only people older than 60. Maffetone himself says the formula isn't reliable enough on its own.

                           

                          as for accuracy of RQ test: you can read up on this topic if you wish, to see that it isn't as simple as calculating the ratios. easy to create artifacts. also for MAF HR determination, the correct warmup is needed supposedly, right? that's another issue. also, did you not read what I mentioned here about how this guy I talked to had the RQ test totally botched? he wasn't even trying to have MAF measured, just simply the whole test was screwed up, data wasn't very well interpretable, etc... I recall that with your own case, your tester guy had to adjust things to not create invalid RQ data. you were lucky the tester guy was that flexible!

                             

                            Smile lol well....

                             

                            this isn't just about it being a scientific experiment though - it's also about helping people in general, not only people older than 60. Maffetone himself says the formula isn't reliable enough on its own.

                             

                            as for accuracy of RQ test: you can read up on this topic if you wish, to see that it isn't as simple as calculating the ratios. easy to create artifacts. also for MAF HR determination, the correct warmup is needed supposedly, right? that's another issue. also, did you not read what I mentioned here about how this guy I talked to had the RQ test totally botched? he wasn't even trying to have MAF measured, just simply the whole test was screwed up, data wasn't very well interpretable, etc... I recall that with your own case, your tester guy had to adjust things to not create invalid RQ data. you were lucky the tester guy was that flexible!

                             

                            I'm not in denial or disagreement about the possibility of a particular RQ test being flawed and botched.

                            Check this out, C. It's the graph of the sugar% during my RQ test (I left fat% off, it's just the opposite):

                             

                            FAT%........SUGAR% .......HR

                             

                            Looking at this graph, my uneducated guess would be that my MAF was at a 38% sugar/62% fat and 142 bpm at the time. That 36%-38% range hung on between 130-142 HR. My MAF deflection  of 134 bpm fell about midway on this plateau. Dr. Phil has said you can keep the same MAF for 5 years. I started in 2005 at age 44 with an MAF of  141.  (adding 5 beats to the 180-age, because I was just so awesome at the time). But in 2009, I was very out of shape and aerobic speed wasn't doing well. My 180-age was 132. 134 was close.

                             

                            If I were to go by the graph of the HR, there is no deflection at 142 but at 134, and it's seemingly nowhere near as defined as this graph.  How accurate is this sugar burning data? I don't know. It could be messed due to not warming up or faulty equipment, or whatever else can botch it. It seems to do what it's supposed to do in terms of starting at 0% and ending up at 100%. But "seems" isn't a very strong statement of  Except for that one dip early on, which could be indicative of a bad test.

                             

                            HR Chart from test:

                                                

                             

                            This whole RQ test could be flawed, even the HR was a bit funky according to Dr. Phil, though he saw a deflection at around the 134 area, but sort of hinted that maybe the test was off due to not warming up. When I had the test done, I didn't warm-up. The tester didn't change his protocol for me, or do anything different they he normally did. Though if I could go back, I'd warm-up before the test.  Dr. Phil said this about warming up in my RQ test results thread:

                             

                             

                            Jimmy,

                            you got the deflection point about right in your graph (with the big arrow). Ideally, this point is smaller, and yours is a bit wide. I think it's because you didn't warm up enough. This made the chart below the d point is a little higher, and the chart levels out a bit before making the bigger upward change.

                             

                            The test is really unnatural for the body, and I try to encourage those giving the test to have the athlete warm up, plus provide a good idea of time (like a race -- you know when it's going to be over). This way, your brain/body function is more natural. The problem with VO2max tests is that they're not natural so the brain doesn't know when the test is going to be over -- in other words, you remove the brain's function from the test. Tim Noakes writes about this as a big reason VO2max tests are so overrated.

                             

                            Overall, your test was well done and it gave you some good information, including confirming your 180-Formula derrived aerobic max HR. That's about what you can expect from such a test; and also it serves as a baseline for future tests.

                             

                            Something people are asking above is how things change with training -- RQ changes, HR changes, deflection point closer to VO2max, etc. Lots of things change but the most important training effect is quite simple. You get faster at the same heart rate. That's it!

                             

                            As you get faster at the same heart rate, a number of other things happen: you can race faster, you burn more fat, you get healthier, etc.

                             

                            Phil

                             

                             

                            Now, if I were to assume the sugar/fat data is correct, and looked for the deflection in that data,  I would think my MAF was 142. My focus has always been looking for a deflection in the HR data. This would completely wipe out the validity of this treadmill test, as it's based on a HR graph. Yet my MAF hr of 134 on the HR graph is also around 38% sugar.  My take is that when Dr. Phil started doing the RQ tests (didn't at first, he used other things at first), he used the HR graph, but I might be wrong.  Perhaps, I can get Dr. Phil to answer the question as in data he looked for the deflection. Here's what he said about the deflection:

                             

                            In addition to the treadmill test being unnatural as I mentioned above, the RQ and max oxygen uptake (VO2max) don’t correlate specifically, even though they’re measured during the same test (the protocol is for VO2max not really for RQ and fat burning). VO2max correlates with sugar burning and not fat burning (and RQ correlates with both). During these evaluations, RQ is usually measured as a secondary factor as most people focus on max oxygen uptake – this despite the irrelevancy of VO2max. But this test is also a standard in physiology, making it easier to make comparisons within a given athlete over time and between athletes.

                             

                            The best way to measure fat burning is at sub max levels – at MAF – for longer periods. Running at this pace for 30-60 minutes, for example, would plot the same fat and sugar burning process, but the focus would be on how efficient fat burning is during this period (e.g., how long higher levels of fat burning can be maintained). However, the current protocol for the test is still good, and those unable to get the test can rely on the 180-Formula (the real reason why it was developed, so people would not have to rely on a lab test).  

                             

                            The deflection point is where a more rapid change from fat burning to sugar burning occurs. This would indicate a change from the fat burning to more sugar burning muscle fibers. (Theoretically, the RQ, which measures CO2 and O2 in the lungs, reflects those same gases in the muscles, which is a measure of fat/sugar burning.)

                             

                            I did not choose the deflection point as a point that correlates with the 180-Formula. I actually discovered it after the 180-Formula (almost the same time). So it was a confirmation of the 180-Formula. Much of the evaluations I performed on athletes regarding gait changes at different heart rates (as discussed earlier) and other factors led me to the 180-Formula. Lactate measurements, RQ, free radical stress and other factors helped confirm that the 180-Formula not only was the highest level of fat burning that could reasonably be maintained for some period during a workout, but that, over time, improvements in speed would be realized. In addition, the physical and chemical stress of training at this level was also minimized, as other research eventually showed, so it also fit well with my separate definitions of fitness and health. Once a runner started burning more sugar and less fat (because they increased their pace and heart rate), many of the health and fitness benefits quickly were reduced.

                             

                            The graphs with the deflection point came along at that point; I believe early in 1982 while in Boulder, one of the physiologists there discussed it and I immediately saw that the point correlated with the 180-Formula. I then began comparing athletes with deflection points to see if this generally applied to larger numbers of people, which it did. At that time I was in Boulder working with a number of athletes, but in particular with Stu Middleman in preparation for his 6-day race there. We were working on the indoor track, sometimes with him running for hours only to stop when I wanted to measure something. One of the exercise physiologists got interested in what we were doing, which led to the RQ discussions.

                             

                            After retirement from professional racing, Stu began coaching athletes the same way I coached him, and he also created a mobile lab where he could test athletes on a gas analyzer to measure RQ, which he still does today.

                             

                            My memory is generally quite good, but so many of these historical details have been left alone for so long. This forces me to try and piece together some of the details (and maybe get them into the new book). So much was happening back then (in the early 80s). In addition to going international with athletes and traveling to their key events, I was developing a variety of other biofeedback methods, especially with the measurement of muscle function. Sports shoes suddenly started to get much worse for athletes, the carbohydrate trend was in full swing, and the newest sport, triathlon, was taking hold worldwide.  

                             

                            Phil

                            --Jimmy

                              humm, that's interesting... thanks for this stuff, some food for thought. Smile

                               

                              btw that part about how it's less healthy training beyond MAF point... my experience is more complex than that. e.g. I find it can still be pretty good for immune system to run beyond that HR. (well of course I assume my MAF would be definitely less than 170bpm right?) and for the legs, certain interval sessions can be really nice strengthening, which surely is more healthy than having weakened muscles. so, I don't see this topic as black and white.

                               

                              but aerobic HR training is still interesting and useful, don't get me wrong. Smile

                                humm, that's interesting... thanks for this stuff, some food for thought. Smile

                                 

                                btw that part about how it's less healthy training beyond MAF point... my experience is more complex than that. e.g. I find it can still be pretty good for immune system to run beyond that HR. (well of course I assume my MAF would be definitely less than 170bpm right?) and for the legs, certain interval sessions can be really nice strengthening, which surely is more healthy than having weakened muscles. so, I don't see this topic as black and white.

                                 

                                but aerobic HR training is still interesting and useful, don't get me wrong. Smile

                                 

                                You always have to remember Dr. Phil's history and who he dealt with: unhealthy athletes. He speaks from his experience as a doctor with many clients over a long period of time. And perhaps with is own experience as an athlete---he has talked about that.

                                 

                                As far as your journey, C, of course it's unique. You'll learn as you go that in terms of health, if you haven't already: do what works for you... until it doesn't.

                                 

                                Dr. Phil built a practice working with the people experiencing the "until it doesn't" part. I don't think he talks black and white at all. My take from his books and interviews and posts is that he fully understands the uniqueness of everyone's situation.

                                 

                                To avoid hijacking my own thread, this post will be my last word on these matters here. Post a test!

                                 

                                Happy New Year, C! May it be filled with creativity, good running, and health.

                                 

                                --JImmy