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

Chasing the bus

So, the Coconi test is HR vs speed...and the MAF treadmill test is HR vs. speed, just the MAF test has more data points...should be easy to do straight line estimates and find the break...I get it. I should have just keep going to real max HR. Would have answered both q's. I feel pretty good, though with assuming my LT is 168-170. Thanks, Jimmy!

“You're either on the bus or off the bus.”
Tom Wolfe, The Electric Kool-Aid Acid Test

jayjays

Hi jimmyb,

I really like the idea of this test, what a great idea!  I have just done the test and would like to share the results for analysis.  I will keep my age to myself for now and it will be good to see if you can work out my MAF from the results.  The treadmill has a max speed of 14km/h, that's why the test was finished there.

Thanks,

Jay.

<colgroup><col span="2" width="64" /> <col width="13" /> <col span="2" width="64" /> </colgroup>
 KM/H HR KM/H HR 8.6 128 11.5 151 8.7 131 11.6 151 8.9 132 11.7 153 9 131 11.8 155 9.1 131 11.9 157 9.2 131 12 157 9.3 132 12.1 157 9.4 132 12.2 157 9.5 132 12.3 157 9.6 135 12.4 157 9.7 135 12.5 158 9.8 135 12.6 159 9.9 136 12.7 159 10 139 12.8 159 10.1 139 12.9 161 10.2 141 13 161 10.3 142 13.1 162 10.4 141 13.2 162 10.5 142 13.3 163 10.6 144 13.4 164 10.7 145 13.5 163 10.8 146 13.6 163 10.9 145 13.7 164 11 147 13.8 165 11.1 149 13.9 166 11.2 150 14 166 11.3 150 14 168 11.4 151
jayjays

double post

Thanks, Jay.

A quick graph of the data shows deflections at 142 and 159 (after an extended plateau at 157). There's a jump at 151. The 142/159 seems like a lot of graphs.  Most of the graphs will show one around the MAF and one above it at some point around 15-20 beats. Not sure what the second one is, though for me it coincided with my 50.50 fat/sugar point. Some people might see one at their LT, if they take t that far.

It's hard to make a guess, because I don't know how hard you went, and how hard it was when you started (relative to your haredst and easiest), or if you followed the protocol to the tee, but in the spirit of fun, my guess will be 142.

The purpose of this is to help confirm your MAF, and to gather as many tests as possible to see if it is a viable test or not. So any  more info you can give me that would be great. Did you follow the protocol (warm-up included)?

I'll post the graph when I have some time. Thanks, again.

Hi jimmyb,

I really like the idea of this test, what a great idea!  I have just done the test and would like to share the results for analysis.  I will keep my age to myself for now and it will be good to see if you can work out my MAF from the results.  The treadmill has a max speed of 14km/h, that's why the test was finished there.

Thanks,

Jay.

 KM/H HR KM/H HR 8.6 128 11.5 151 8.7 131 11.6 151 8.9 132 11.7 153 9 131 11.8 155 9.1 131 11.9 157 9.2 131 12 157 9.3 132 12.1 157 9.4 132 12.2 157 9.5 132 12.3 157 9.6 135 12.4 157 9.7 135 12.5 158 9.8 135 12.6 159 9.9 136 12.7 159 10 139 12.8 159 10.1 139 12.9 161 10.2 141 13 161 10.3 142 13.1 162 10.4 141 13.2 162 10.5 142 13.3 163 10.6 144 13.4 164 10.7 145 13.5 163 10.8 146 13.6 163 10.9 145 13.7 164 11 147 13.8 165 11.1 149 13.9 166 11.2 150 14 166 11.3 150 14 168 11.4 151
jayjays

Thanks, Jay.

A quick graph of the data shows deflections at 142 and 159 (after an extended plateau at 157). There's a jump at 151. The 142/159 seems like a lot of graphs.  Most of the graphs will show one around the MAF and one above it at some point around 15-20 beats. Not sure what the second one is, though for me it coincided with my 50.50 fat/sugar point. Some people might see one at their LT, if they take t that far.

It's hard to make a guess, because I don't know how hard you went, and how hard it was when you started (relative to your haredst and easiest), or if you followed the protocol to the tee, but in the spirit of fun, my guess will be 142.

The purpose of this is to help confirm your MAF, and to gather as many tests as possible to see if it is a viable test or not. So any  more info you can give me that would be great. Did you follow the protocol (warm-up included)?

I'll post the graph when I have some time. Thanks, again.

Ok, nice analysis, thank you very much.  I warmed up for 30 mins from walking to 8.5 km/h, this was a steady warm-up, my HR at the start was 50, my resting is about 35-40 and Max is 201.  I am 30 years of age and have been running for about 10 months.  PBs are 41:06 10k and 1:32 HM.  After my last race on 30th June I decided to go back to base building, running under MAF of 150.  I have seen some improvement with two MAF Tests and loving the LHR training!

July 4th 2013

Mile Pace GAP Elev (ft) HR
1 8:43 8:41 -28 142
2 9:35 9:22 -3 148
3 9:38 9:24 -2 149
4 10:06 9:51 -2 149
5 10:16 9:58 0 149

July 21st 2013

Mile Pace GAP Elev (ft) HR

1 8:56 9:04 -27 133
2 8:41 8:39 -2 149
3 8:50 8:49 -3 149
4 8:53 8:50 2 148
5 8:53 8:48 7 149

Your paces look real good there, JJ.

Here's the graph:

There's a plateau with a rise at 142, and a longer plateau at 151 with a quicker rise up over a very short time.  I would say your fine using 150 or below. There is a deflection point there on the graph. You have a very quick jump of 6-8 beats up to 157-159, where the rise after is more gradual. A jump like that usually indicates something kicking in (like your anaerobic fibers), especially when there is no coming back down. The rise after 142 and 159 seem similar, and the one at 151 the most drastic rise. Seeing your paces at MAF, I would say it's probably 150-151, and definitely not 142.  You're moving with some good aerobic speed already.

Basically, the usefulness of the test is just seeing if something happens on the graph at your MAF, and so far something usually does during these tests.

What's interesting is that long plateau at 157-159--the rise isn't as steep or quick afterwards as the other points. I have the same thing above my MAF, but a little further away. Not sure exactly what happens at the deflection. Perhaps, it's another level of the anaerobic system kicking in just a little. There are more than one type of anaerobic fiber.

I've entertained the thought that 157 might be your MAF, because it was such a long plateau there, but I would like to see a longer graphing. More data above 168. The rise just doesn't seem steep enough to me right now.

For TM's where the speed doesn't go high enough, I'm wondering there's a way to do the test using increasing incline. That's how my RQ test was done (didn't like running that steep!). He got me up to a comfortable speed, then just increased the incline over a few minutes almost all the way to 10%. Not sure of the rate of increase though. One of these days I'll play around and see if some combination of speed and incline produces similar results. The only problem I foresee is being all thumbs trying to press all the buttons correctly.

I would love to see another test from you a few months from now, see what it looks like.

Thanks for contributing, JJ. Looks like you're doing awesome. Keep us posted on your progress and journey.

Chasing the bus

I'm also interested in what's happening at those other deflection points...my graphs both show similar plateaus/deflections above the one at MAF (my MAF at 131, with a possible deflection at 158 and definite one at 168). I still suspect the upper deflection, in my case, coincides with LT.

Thanks JJ and Jimmy!

edit; oops, overstated MAF a lil. fixed it.

“You're either on the bus or off the bus.”
Tom Wolfe, The Electric Kool-Aid Acid Test

I'm also interested in what's happening at those other deflection points...my graphs both show similar plateaus/deflections above the one at MAF (my MAF at 141, with a possible deflection at 158 and definite one at 168). I still suspect the upper deflection, in my case, coincides with LT.

Thanks JJ and Jimmy!

Yer velcome.

Perhaps you're  onto something there in terms of lactate. Sure wish I had access to a gas tester for about a month. So many things I'd like to figure out. One is this: let's say you run at MAF for awhile and establish a pace. Normally what happens is the HR goes up after awhile. But does the Fat/sugar burning ratio remain the same running at the same exact pace for (e.g) 90 minutes? I'm hoping someday an app comes out where we can cheaply test ourselves on an Ipad or Iphone.

Thank's John

Yer velcome.

Perhaps you're  onto something there in terms of lactate. Sure wish I had access to a gas tester for about a month. So many things I'd like to figure out. One is this: let's say you run at MAF for awhile and establish a pace. Normally what happens is the HR goes up after awhile. But does the Fat/sugar burning ratio remain the same running at the same exact pace for (e.g) 90 minutes? I'm hoping someday an app comes out where we can cheaply test ourselves on an Ipad or Iphone.

Thank's John

it would surely be awesome if we could have access to such refined tests. (not just iphone/ipad though please... not everyone uses apple products :P)

I still have not got my own treadmill test done using your protocol (or even with a gas analyser), I'm still a bit afraid of producing artifacts so if I get there I'll look at it as just some fun test not as a serious test, which hopefully will mean less stress thus help with reducing amount of artifacts =D

I did not have a problem with the idea of a blood lactate test though - because I somehow imagine that lactate levels are not so easily affected mentally. maybe I am wrong though anyway they actually tested my blood and recorded my HR while running on a treadmill - I got 175bpm as some special threshold before lactate started increasing a little. I was not near LT yet, this was not LT, just slight start in increase, meaning some anaerobic fibers finally decided to kick in, I was told that it's *supposedly* fully aerobic running below 175bpm. (lactate measured at 165bpm: 1.3mmol, at 175bpm: 1.4mmol, and then it finally started to increase from there)

I basically would like to know if this point of just before lactate starts to increase a little bit is related to MAF. what do you say, jimmyb? thanks.

I am toying with an idea of figuring MAF without any such test but I will have to think about this a bit more and will need to start a thread on it to get some datapoints from the forum users first.

my guess about the fat/sugar ratio is that the longer you run the more fat is burnt relative to sugars, I read this somewhere. makes sense too =) though I'm not sure if this only applies if only the HR is kept the same or if pace too. I also noticed that I can't get my HR as high at the end of a long run than in a shorter run. I mean the pace might not be slower at all than in the short run but HR just doesn't go up. maybe related.

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.

it would surely be awesome if we could have access to such refined tests. (not just iphone/ipad though please... not everyone uses apple products :P)

I still have not got my own treadmill test done using your protocol (or even with a gas analyser), I'm still a bit afraid of producing artifacts so if I get there I'll look at it as just some fun test not as a serious test, which hopefully will mean less stress thus help with reducing amount of artifacts =D

I did not have a problem with the idea of a blood lactate test though - because I somehow imagine that lactate levels are not so easily affected mentally. maybe I am wrong though anyway they actually tested my blood and recorded my HR while running on a treadmill - I got 175bpm as some special threshold before lactate started increasing a little. I was not near LT yet, this was not LT, just slight start in increase, meaning some anaerobic fibers finally decided to kick in, I was told that it's *supposedly* fully aerobic running below 175bpm. (lactate measured at 165bpm: 1.3mmol, at 175bpm: 1.4mmol, and then it finally started to increase from there)

I basically would like to know if this point of just before lactate starts to increase a little bit is related to MAF. what do you say, jimmyb? thanks.

I am toying with an idea of figuring MAF without any such test but I will have to think about this a bit more and will need to start a thread on it to get some datapoints from the forum users first.

my guess about the fat/sugar ratio is that the longer you run the more fat is burnt relative to sugars, I read this somewhere. makes sense too =) though I'm not sure if this only applies if only the HR is kept the same or if pace too. I also noticed that I can't get my HR as high at the end of a long run than in a shorter run. I mean the pace might not be slower at all than in the short run but HR just doesn't go up. maybe related.

DollarBill

JImmy, here's a test I did today.  I'm 55, haven't run in 7 months, have been taking a levothyroxine daily for over 30 years for hypothyroidism.  Ate 3.5 hours before test.  Warmed up for 15 minutes until I got to 105.  Some strange readings from the Garmin for the first 5 or so readings.  Your analysis would be much appreciated.  Bill

 HR HR KPH bpm KPH bpm 4.8 105 8.5 139 4.9 101 8.6 140 5.0 103 8.7 140 5.1 103 8.8 142 5.2 104 8.9 143 5.3 105 9.0 143 5.4 106 9.1 144 5.5 107 9.2 143 5.6 107 9.3 144 5.7 110 9.4 145 5.8 113 9.5 146 5.9 117 9.6 146 6.0 117 9.7 146 6.1 120 9.8 146 6.2 121 9.9 147 6.3 123 10.0 148 6.4 124 10.1 149 6.5 124 10.2 150 6.6 125 10.3 150 6.7 126 10.4 151 6.8 127 10.5 152 6.9 128 10.6 154 7.0 130 10.7 154 7.1 131 10.8 154 7.2 130 10.9 154 7.3 131 11.0 155 7.4 132 11.1 157 7.5 132 11.2 158 7.6 132 11.3 159 7.7 134 11.4 160 7.8 136 11.5 160 7.9 136 11.6 161 8.0 136 11.7 162 8.1 137 11.8 162 8.2 137 11.9 162 8.3 137 12.0 163 8.4 138

Hi Bill,

Thanks for posting your results. Not sure if the thyroid medicine effects things or not, or if not running for a long time does (not sure if you've been doing any other form of exercise). My first impression is that it's the deflection at 132. The graph curves into that point then climbs. But not steadily.  There's that plateau at 136-137.  A 132 MAF is not out of the picture for 55 years old. And if you were in good shape, 136-137 could be in the picture as well. I'm 52 and last time I measured it was 132. I've been using 130 for awhile. I'm not sure what MAF you're going with, but 132 and below could be a good one to start with. If 136 is doable for your current condition, you could always experiment and see if your MAF speed starts moving north. That's my take. What are your thoughts?

--jimmy

JImmy, here's a test I did today.  I'm 55, haven't run in 7 months, have been taking a levothyroxine daily for over 30 years for hypothyroidism.  Ate 3.5 hours before test.  Warmed up for 15 minutes until I got to 105.  Some strange readings from the Garmin for the first 5 or so readings.  Your analysis would be much appreciated.  Bill

 HR HR KPH bpm KPH bpm 4.8 105 8.5 139 4.9 101 8.6 140 5.0 103 8.7 140 5.1 103 8.8 142 5.2 104 8.9 143 5.3 105 9.0 143 5.4 106 9.1 144 5.5 107 9.2 143 5.6 107 9.3 144 5.7 110 9.4 145 5.8 113 9.5 146 5.9 117 9.6 146 6.0 117 9.7 146 6.1 120 9.8 146 6.2 121 9.9 147 6.3 123 10.0 148 6.4 124 10.1 149 6.5 124 10.2 150 6.6 125 10.3 150 6.7 126 10.4 151 6.8 127 10.5 152 6.9 128 10.6 154 7.0 130 10.7 154 7.1 131 10.8 154 7.2 130 10.9 154 7.3 131 11.0 155 7.4 132 11.1 157 7.5 132 11.2 158 7.6 132 11.3 159 7.7 134 11.4 160 7.8 136 11.5 160 7.9 136 11.6 161 8.0 136 11.7 162 8.1 137 11.8 162 8.2 137 11.9 162 8.3 137 12.0 163 8.4 138

DollarBill

Thanks again Jimmy for your analysis.  I too was thinking of using 132.  I was just surprised that it seemed higher than what the predicitve MAF reported.  I went for a five miler yesterday and only on a couple of occaisions did I go over 132.  It wasn't difficult staying below it.  I will stick with that for a while and see how the performance develops.

Thanks again Jimmy for your analysis.  I too was thinking of using 132.  I was just surprised that it seemed higher than what the predicitve MAF reported.  I went for a five miler yesterday and only on a couple of occaisions did I go over 132.  It wasn't difficult staying below it.  I will stick with that for a while and see how the performance develops.

The further we go into the 50's and 60's, adjustments might have to be made. Phil Maffetone is little specific than Mark Allen is on the adjustments for age. Of course, Dr. Phil is a bit more careful about telling people to take the extra beats for age.  He says up to ten beats can be the margin at times, depending on your age and state of your RQ. He and Allen come from a different perspective, one is clinical and the other comes from being a competitor. Allen states this on his website here:

http://www.markallenonline.com/maoArticles.aspx?AID=4

-If you are over about 55 years old or younger than about 25 years old, add another 5 beats to whatever number you now have.

Now, in your case, if the TM test is accurate, then 132 is in that ballpark for your age, according to Allen. Dr. Phil wouldn't make a blanket statement, but would say it's possible. Dr. Phil does say you can keep the same MAF for up to 5 years.

If you go with 132, and you speed at MAF is progressing. Then good, right?

Thanks so much for contributing to this, Bill. I'm currently experimenting with a different TM protocol. One that keeps things a little simpler (less booping of the speed button). I'll report in once I feel I found one that might work.

DollarBill

I'm good to go Jimmy.  And I have added a new word to my vocabulary, "Booping"