Using fitness test data

getfit

This is a little long, bare with me.....

I "treated" myself to a Vo2 max, Lactate threshold and calorie burn assesment last weekend.

The numbers were pretty much as I expected. Max HR of 195 (expected 194) and Lactate threshold of 170 (expected 171-172 area)... Vo2 Max was 58.1, didn't really read anything into that figure!

The calorie burn test was just a thing that was in the package so I agreed to do it, not expecting I'd even read or care about the data. I was therefore shocked when the results were explained to me.

The basic explanation was that we all have an RQ (respiratory quotient). This is a basic figure worked out on the basis of how many fat cals we burn compared to carbohydrate cals. The score can be between 0.69 (high fat burner) to 1.0 (high carb burner). Athletes like Radcliffe and Armstrong would be in the .69 end of things - burn loads of fat, keeping lean and have stores of carbs for end of races.... My score was 1.03. The highest score of anyone the guy had tested. Simply put, I don't really burn fat! Even sitting here typing I'm running on 95% carbo, whereas a normal person (with an RQ of .84) would be burning 50/50 fat/carbo and a .69 RQ person would be 70% fat/30% carbo.....

This explains why I'm very prone to quickly putting on weight and get very hungry after training sessions (need to get re-fueled). It also explains why I'm finding it very hard to shift the last stone of weight.... In a normal Threshold session (165-170 HR session) I burn no fat calories, I'm 100% carbo.. Even at an easy aerobic pace (145-155) I'm burning very little fat. The best zone for me to burn fat is at 85-105 bpm.
This is way to slow for me as I'm at 7 min miling for Threshold (170) and 8.15/8.30 for my easy aerobic runs (145)... To go down to the 85 area would nearly be walking.... The data showed that I still burn a good % of fat in the 115 to 125 area, so that was set as my new training zone..... A balance of still running but also attacking the fat zone and teaching my body to burn fat.... Based on a 6 miler yesterday my av pace is between 9.30 and 10 min miling with an av HR of 122 - depressingly slow, but refreshingly easy....

Now, the big question.... The fact I am going to drop from going at a steady 145bpm for my easy runs to 122 bpm will this kill my basic fitness???? Years ago I was the typical fool running hard on every run. I got sense and droped down to doing a lot of easy 145bpm runs and have fully realised the benefits. However, having to go "down" to a further low level seems crazy to me...

Has anyone experience of this??? Know someone who tried it???

eclectichoney

Sorry to be a little OT getfit as I can't really help, but just wondering where you got the tests dones and how much it cost? (sounds v interesting!)

Thanks

hunnymonster

even the greatest athletes have problem with the "slow down to get faster for longer" theories
http://www.duathlon.com/articles/1460

getfit

I got it done in Portlaoise. The Leinster Sports Clinic. I think they have a web site if you google it... The cost was €150. Seemed a little high to me as I've heard of people getting tests done as part of Uni experiments etc. for free. I live in Laois, so it was very convenient for me and the whole thing took over 2 and a half hours. They spent a lot of time explaining all the different results and how to apply them to my goals... I was pleasently surprised with the all round service - even had food ready for me after the tough test! All the data was explained to me at the time, but they also put into a pdf document which was e-mailed onto me the next day, expalining all the factors and how I rated compared with average scores and explaining all the logic behind the tests....

getfit

hunnymonster wrote: »

even the greatest athletes have problem with the "slow down to get faster for longer" theories
http://www.duathlon.com/articles/1460

Nice article. The thing is I've been training at that intensity for a good while and am aware of the benefits. My problem is that I'm slowing down to such a slow state that I'm afraid it will actually have a detrimental impact on my fitness!

hunnymonster

getfit, Going slower than slow is not something I've read a lot about. If I don't get back to you tomorrow, will you remind me to have a look at the literature to see if I can figure out the physiology behind it.

hunnymonster

Ok, so I've done a little bit of reading and you're not going to like it. It appears that yes, moving to even lower levels (40% of aerobic HR) will indeed improve for fat utilisation. However it takes time. In the studies I could find they had subjects exercising at these levels for 3+ hours a couple of times a week and it was taking a couple of weeks for the hormone/fat changes to adapt from carbohydrate utilisation to fat for fuel.
[URL="javascript:AL_get(this,%20'jour',%20'Metabolism.');"]Metabolism.[/URL] 1982 Feb;31(2):192-7 for example.

getfit

Thanks a lot for looking into that for me - really appreciate it. 3+ hours of running a few times a week isn't really a possibility for me - don't have that many free hours in the day!

My plan is to get in about 4 ultra easy runs a week (HR between 115-125). 3 of them will be about an hour each and the fourth will be my "weekly long run", which will now extend to 3 hours (probably be about 18 miles) - man - dreading that already.....

I'll also do a HIIT session, 10x30 secs with 2 mins rec type of thing. Supposed to be a good fat burner and will help to keep speed in the legs also. If the easy runs are leaving me well rested I may try a sixth day of training with a steady 10 miler at normal 145-155 HR - just to keep the system ticking over.

hunnymonster

sounds like a solid enough plan to me.