Low HR Training

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

     

    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

     

    I guess you did get me wrong a bit. But okay, no worries.


    Slow and Steady

      I'm definitely gonna do this. The only problem is that my very basic HR monitor doesn't *boop*. So this will be a very busy test for me! I'll have to bump up the speed, check my HR on my watch, and write down the HR every 10 seconds!

      Eric S.

      Trail Mix ||| dailymile ||| RA log

      Goals: 50km, 50-miler, 100km, 100-miler

        I'm definitely gonna do this. The only problem is that my very basic HR monitor doesn't *boop*. So this will be a very busy test for me! I'll have to bump up the speed, check my HR on my watch, and write down the HR every 10 seconds!

         

        in that case I really suggest you get someone to help you. writing down the HR and doing all the other things by yourself, it will create too much artifact IMO


        Slow and Steady

          in that case I really suggest you get someone to help you. writing down the HR and doing all the other things by yourself, it will create too much artifact IMO

          Well you may be right there. But I doubt I will be able to find someone in the hotel gym who would be willing to hold my clipboard at 4:30am. Maybe instead I'll just switch on my phone's voice recorder and just vocally record the HR every 10 seconds. Since I have to exhale, the residue or artifact should be minimal. And I doubt there would be anyone else in the gym to be bothered by my numerical ramblings.

          Eric S.

          Trail Mix ||| dailymile ||| RA log

          Goals: 50km, 50-miler, 100km, 100-miler

            The recording idea is a good one.

             

            One thing you can try at anytime is to just be aware of your breathing as you go through a rise in intensity like in the test, forgetting about recording HR's. See what happens to your breathing and when you notice change make note of what HR you were at. See if it coincides with your MAF.

             

            I get one around 131-134 every time.

             

            --Jimmy

              Well you may be right there. But I doubt I will be able to find someone in the hotel gym who would be willing to hold my clipboard at 4:30am. Maybe instead I'll just switch on my phone's voice recorder and just vocally record the HR every 10 seconds. Since I have to exhale, the residue or artifact should be minimal. And I doubt there would be anyone else in the gym to be bothered by my numerical ramblings.

               

              uh actually I find my HR increases if I speak.

               

              get a better watch Big grin

                 

                uh actually I find my HR increases if I speak.

                 

                 

                You need to talk more, get those talking muscles in shape.

                Just make sure you're saying something.

                 

                 

                "You start a conversation you can't even finish it.

                You're talkin' a lot, but you're not sayin' anything.

                When I have nothing to say, my lips are sealed.

                Say something once, why say it again?" --Talking Heads

                 


                Slow and Steady

                  uh actually I find my HR increases if I speak.

                   

                  get a better watch Big grin

                   

                  Well I gotta exhale sometime right? I doubt that activating my vocal cords while exhaling would have a significant effect, but I suppose I could also just breathe out my HR with each boop.

                   

                  And I'm kinda poor, so the $17 I spent on my used HR monitor off eBay will be all I'm spending for now. If I had money for the good stuff, I'd rather use it on race entries! Smile

                  Eric S.

                  Trail Mix ||| dailymile ||| RA log

                  Goals: 50km, 50-miler, 100km, 100-miler

                  RuiMei79


                    Hi there. I'm 34 and I have started MAF training 2 weeks ago. I'm using the calculated MAF with the 180 formula (180-34 = 146).

                     

                    I've decided to try to build one of these graphs, so today I tested on the treadmill. I stopped at 160bpm so that it didn't ruin my aerobic base training. I warmed up for 20 minutes, ranging my HR between 120 and 146. However, maybe I shouldn't have warmed up so much, or I didn't recover enough before starting the test. The HR shouldn´t be so high prior to 8km/h.

                     

                    The speed is in km/h.

                     

                    By the look of it, it seems that my MAF is around 143 (and not 146), and my Aerobic Base HR is around 152. Am I interpreting this correctly?

                    I have never done a 30 minute Joe Friel’s Field Test to determine my Lactate Threshold, but I have done a 70 minute race last year, with a hard 30 minute finish, and the last 20 minutes averaged 169, so I guess it should by around this.

                     

                    Should I stick to my 146? Or is 143 a better value for my improvement?

                    (Today I didn't sleep so much, I don't know if that has any influence.)

                     

                    Thanks

                      Sometimes at the beginning of the test you'll see some  weird spiking like that. Ultimately it's that steep rise after MAF that defines it. It looks like it's around 143, give or take a beat or two.  If you've been using 146 and have been progressing, then you're probably okay to keep using it. 143 won't hurt you, but if 146 isn't, keep going. 141 would be the -5 adjustment for you.

                       

                      You got that other plateau that seems to come on many of the tests after the steep rise.

                       

                      Thanks for posting, RM. Awesome! 

                       

                      --Jimmy

                        I'm going to get this done one day but until then here's something from the field instead of treadmill... I do realize this isn't the same test but I am curious. The main difference in the protocol - beyond not having a neat option to change speed by the exact same increment every time - is me allowing the HR to catch up with the speed change (for couple hundred meters). I also need more patience to test at HRs below 140. 

                         

                        I'll compare this to treadmill test with 10sec protocol when that's done Smile

                         

                        Is there any usable plateau in this one though? The ones I see are at 160, 190/195. Also some change in rise at 180-ish.

                         

                          @RuiMei79: I had the same issue at the low HR's once doing a field test (Conconi). I didn't try it again at such low HR's so I don't know the reason for that for sure but I thought it was mental stress. Or maybe in your case, you were still adjusting your stride to the treadmill or something (if you don't run on it regularly).

                           

                          That actually reminds me, I had a blood lactate test done once on a treadmill, and I also had high HR there when I began and it settled down later. (I wasn't checking the HR myself but I could see the results.) I wasn't stressed then like with the Conconi test, I was just busy with paying attention to the treadmill as I never used it before.

                           

                          That Joe Friel test btw gives me a HR for anaerobic threshold higher than the blood lactate test did. Blood lactate test showed 189bpm = 4.1mmol lactate. Friel test gives me 194 or 195, in race it's even higher, 196, maybe there is a reason why the Friel test doesn't say to use a race?! Also weather matters a lot, in race from warm weather, it was 203 for last 20 minutes, nope I am not joking Smile (I would say that the 189 does seem low-ish though, say it's the beginning of the threshold zone, it makes sense that way.)

                           

                          So, I would suggest you do that Joe Friel test as not part of a race and don't do it in warm weather either.

                           

                          What do you call "Aerobic Base HR"?

                           

                          Lack of sleep may have some influence, yes, for me it can increase HR a bit, but not always.

                            Thanks for posting, C. I don't think there are enough data points, but if I use my imagination a bit (the height of science), I would say there is something like a deflection in the low 150's, which could be an MAF, with that usual plateau we see about 10 beats higher,  with another thing happening at 180 and then 190, which could be the AT zone where those final Type 2's kick in.  If we had a few more in between points, it would be more valid. More than likely, you could create some kind of field test to determine these points. Just something to learn more about what your heart does when you hit certain intensities. If you could increase gradually enough, and get more data points. 

                             

                            I'm going to get this done one day but until then here's something from the field instead of treadmill... difference in the protocol - beyond not having a neat option to change speed by the exact same increment every time - is me allowing the HR to catch up with the speed change (for couple hundred meters). I also need more patience to test at HRs below 140. 

                             

                            I'll compare this to treadmill test with 10sec protocol when that's done Smile

                             

                            Is there any usable plateau in this one though? The ones I see are at 160, 190/195. Also some change in rise at 180-ish.

                             

                              Thanks for posting, C. I don't think there are enough data points, but if I use my imagination a bit (the height of science), I would say there is something like a deflection in the low 150's, which could be an MAF, with that usual plateau we see about 10 beats higher,  with another thing happening at 180 and then 190, which could be the AT zone where those final Type 2's kick in.  If we had a few more in between points, it would be more valid. More than likely, you could create some kind of field test to determine these points. Just something to learn more about what your heart does when you hit certain intensities. If you could increase gradually enough, and get more data points. 

                               

                               

                              By not enough data points do you also mean I should've done the stuff under 140bpm too? Smile The speed increase wasn't controlled like it would be on a treadmill, sometimes it was only 0.1 but often 0.2-0.3 kmph differences between each point.

                               

                              The 190-195 is definitely the AT zone, no question about it. 180 is somewhere in my marathon HR range.

                               

                              Also, do you think staying at each speed for longer than 10 sec matters?

                               

                              Why low 150's for the MAF btw? If there is more than one plateau thingie, how do we decide which one is MAF? I'm still not clear on that. E.g. previous poster has a plateau at 134 too, not just at 143, why not pick that as MAF for him?

                                Generally, you'll see that steep rise after the MAF (which is more the defining factor, the lower plateaus if they occur are part of that initial curve through the fat-burning region), followed by a that steady rise up to the end, with a couple of plateaus. That's what I'm seeing in most of the tests anyway. Also, as I've said before, this test is an ass-backwards one where we're trying to see if there is a deflection around the calculated MAF. We're just using HR, and don't have the fat/sugar info.

                                 

                                As for the way you did this test you created, I'm not exactly sure how you did it. What was the protocol?

                                 

                                If you do the test in this thread, you start at least 20 beats lower than the calculated MAF, just to get the curve in there. 10 seconds seems to give enough data points. 5 seconds would give more, but difficult to do by yourself.

                                 

                                Thanks!