Lets talk glycogen stores - in non-athletes/women
yirara
Posts: 9,933 Member
I'm trying to find some information on the size of glycogen stores in normal people, and here especially in women. I know that the liver can store a substantial amount of glycogen, and the muscles have a lower concentration, but of course the amount of muscles is higher than the 'amount' of liver.
With this I want to know how much of that is accessible and how long normal women (smaller, less muscles) can run without bonking, given they are fit enough to keep up. Also, I wonder if this is time or distance limited as most papers talk about time until bonking and not distance. But of course everyone runs at a different pace, and especially non-athletes won't be that fast.
With this I want to know how much of that is accessible and how long normal women (smaller, less muscles) can run without bonking, given they are fit enough to keep up. Also, I wonder if this is time or distance limited as most papers talk about time until bonking and not distance. But of course everyone runs at a different pace, and especially non-athletes won't be that fast.
1
Replies
-
Other factors to consider:
A highly trained / bigger volume exerciser will be able to store more glycogen as a result of their training compared to a low volume exerciser.
Intensity and speed is a personal comparison but not a comparison between different people of different abilities. As a moderate ability cyclist my maximum intensity for an hour is double many unfit people but half of an elite rider - that's one hell of a range.
Your ratio of glycogen to fat used during your exercise has a wide range due to intensity. From my results when my RER was tested a HR of 130bpm was my crossover point where glycogen started to overtake fat as the predominant fuel.
Using the rough rule of thumb of 400g of glycogen / 1600cals for an average sized person I've seen quoted would suggest I could burn 3,200 cals before bonking at a gentle pace (130bpm) pace. Roughly five and a half hours but see below.
But I don't tend to cycle that gently. At my more normal brisk pace I'm probably using x1.5 the amount of carbs per hour.
As for the accessibility question my understanding is that muscle stores can only be used by the muscles and can't be returned from muscle storage for general (including brain) energy use. Perhaps @heybales can confirm?
That would change the calculations above as then glycogen stored in my upper body muscle mass wouldn't be much use when cycling.
Not sure if gender is a dirrect factor or if it's just that women would TEND to be lighter, TEND to carry less muscle mass as a general rule. But general rules are for cohorts not individuals.
2 -
Thanks a lot Sijomial, those are some really good considerations. I'd hoped you would show up, but .. cough.. as ever I could not figure out how to write your name properly.
So glycogen stones in the legs would likely mostly power the legs when for example running? That's interesting and something I'd not considered. Would make sense, and would certainly reduce the available energy amount quite substantially.
Hmm.. I wonder if I could get a RER test to see how I predominantly burn fuel as I feel there's something very, very off for me. But it's so difficult to say because I don't know what's normal. What's the name of such a test? I'm in fitness limbo here, but maybe something is available.
edit: Oh, I might just have had such a test, in a medical setting. Will need to ask the doc for the raw data. Maybe there's something interesting in it. So far I only have the results of a blood gas test (ever had someone poke holes into your wrist when you're approaching max intensity? It's interesting to say the least.
) 0 -
Didn't you do a thread recently about your inability to process energy properly?
I don't remember the reasons but it is a significant pathology, isn't it? Seems relevant here.1 -
Is this a question born of curiosity or are you trying to use this for race preparation ?0
-
cmriverside wrote: »Didn't you do a thread recently about your inability to process energy properly?
I don't remember the reasons but it is a significant pathology, isn't it? Seems relevant here.
Yes, but I'm trying to understand what is normal, and not what's possibly going on with me. That's a difference.2 -
Correct that glycogen stores in muscle can't be put back into the bloodstream for use elsewhere.
Even had case study many many years ago where they filled a marathoner up, worked his calves at a hard rate to use up a lot of stores there (I recall it was hard setup process to get body to stop using liver stores and go for the calf mainly stores), and afterwards with thighs full and liver low put him on treadmill at pace.
The thighs didn't help the calves. So it was fun (interesting?) effect of calves hitting the wall you might say but rest the legs could have been fine. But kind of need calves for running. I'll bet there is video somewhere of the running form degrading, but never saw that.
Don't recall purpose of study, maybe this was prior to knowing how it worked, perhaps merely to see effects of smaller calf muscle running out.
Yes you could get an RMR test any number of places.
But confirm they will provide the RER figures for the time. Some machines provide a print out and despite the fact RER had to be known to do the figures on the print out for calories burned - they may not provide the fat/carb% breakdown.
We have local heart focused hospital that requires all the equipment used for VO2max test for normal patients. But they charge a minimal amount for others to get tests outside patient appointments - you might get bumped in an emergency basically.
Maybe you have a local hospital/facility like that.
They start out with you sitting 5 min, you could request a longer 15 min sit time for good reading there, and then just a walk, may a jog, up to some point.
Again request up front if you can get raw data, where they increase the pace, what changes.
Should be able to see the %fat/carb usage as intensity increases.
Perhaps with your known issue show you were it starts going wrong in a big way.
Another factor - is when the body feels the need to switch to muscle glycogen stores predominately.
Now that is a real effect in fasted training - that has shown in studies to reduce the normal 20-40 min shift to much shorter. Normal training does it too, but fasted shortened the time for body to learn to shift sooner.
So genetics and training there as to when the muscle stores are used.
Here is a research paper that came up with a formula as to how much potential storage, and what that means in the scheme of marathon pace time, and refeeding, ect. Way more than you are needing, but shows the numbers too.
Also gets into average storage amounts.
https://journals.plos.org/ploscompbiol/article?id=10.1371/journal.pcbi.1000960
The body stores a small amount of carbohydrate in the form of plasma glucose. But as typical plasma glucose concentrations are in the range, typical blood volume is approximately 5 L, and the energy density of carbohydrate is approximately , the blood plasma typically stores less than 20 kcal of glucose and is therefore essentially negligible as a carbohydrate reservoir in endurance exercise.
The liver typically stores glycogen at a density, , of approximately 270 mmol glycosyl residues per kilogram (), and is capable of storage at a maximum density of approximately 500 mmol glycosyl residues per kilogram (). Therefore, a 1.8-kg liver typically stores approximately 88 g of carbohydrate and can store at most approximately 160 g, corresponding to approximately 350 and 650 kcal, respectively [20], [21].
Muscles store glycogen as well, but only for local use. Whereas liver glycogen can be made globally available to metabolically active cells (including working myocytes) throughout the body via glycogenolysis and release of the resulting glycogen-derived glucose into the bloodstream, muscle glycogen can be used only by the cell in which it has been synthesized and stored. The reason for this difference between liver and muscle glycogen reserves is that myocytes, in contrast to hepatocytes, lack the enzyme glucose-6-phosphatase that catalyzes the final reaction of glycogenolysis and permits membrane glucose transporters to liberate intracellular glucose. As a result, glycogen stores of the specific muscles to be used in an endurance event must be loaded prior to exercise.7 -
Wow, thanks a lot Heybales!Super interesting, and actually I had to laugh about calves hitting the wall while the rest of the body didn't. This is so much stuff I didn't know. And never thought about. I really need to give this a proper reading and thinking over the weekend. *mind blown away*0
-
Glad I tagged Heybales!
Wealth of good knowledge.
My RER results were from a sports science lab as part fo the procedure for a VO2 max and max HR test - in my case a stationary bike ramp test to failure using the ASCM protocol.0 -
Thanks a lot Sijomial,
I might do this one day just because it's interesting. Apparently the doc who did the exercise testing has the data, but is not willing to share (it's my data!). Oh well... But just because I'm curious it might be worth doing, and it's not even that expensive - outside of Covid that is. At the moment such testing centers are only allowed to provide medical services, and as such they only offer sport medical examinations with exercise test. Meh!0 -
Have you ever experimented at all doing long bouts then recarbing on the go (like with gel packs) and seeing how you perform?Thanks a lot Sijomial,
I might do this one day just because it's interesting. Apparently the doc who did the exercise testing has the data, but is not willing to share (it's my data!). Oh well... But just because I'm curious it might be worth doing, and it's not even that expensive - outside of Covid that is. At the moment such testing centers are only allowed to provide medical services, and as such they only offer sport medical examinations with exercise test. Meh!
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
0 -
Glad I tagged Heybales!
Wealth of good knowledge.
My RER results were from a sports science lab as part fo the procedure for a VO2 max and max HR test - in my case a stationary bike ramp test to failure using the ASCM protocol.
Ok, I do have some data from this exercise testing, but it's all over the place and partially wrong. Oh well...
Can you help me understand this? (yes, I know this goes offtopic)
Max power: 160 Watt, 149 % predicted
VO2max: 28.6 ml/min /kg, 114 % predicted
RER 1.13
anaerobic threshold: 80W
max HR: 191 /min , 110 % of predicted
Breathing reserve 23 %
The test was interrupted at 160 Watt. I could have gone on if I wasn't asked the whole time to take a deep inhale, take my hand off the bar for a blood test or do lots of other things which disrupted my cycling and especially breathing. My guess is that I wasn't even scratching a HR of 175 during this test, while I estimate my HRmax at 209 based on many years of running data. I can certainly still run at 191. Well, at the moment as I've not run in a while and my HR just shoots up a lot more. My 'i can still talk' and running with a 3/3 breathing rhythm hr is just below 178, which I guess to be at roughly 85% HRmax
How I interpret this data: RER above 1 just means pure carbs I guess, probably measured at highest performance? Though no idea how you can get above 1 if you're looking at the ratio between two end members. VO2max... looks kind of ok when compared to running cooper tests, which I know are not all out for reasons (I get sick when I run all out). The anaerobic threshold seems very low, as in 80W is comfortable, brisk cycling I would say. So that's really the interesting thing for me here. But I guess they didn't actually somehow measure it but calculated it using 50% of maximum effort (which wasn't my max effort)
edit: KITTEN! That's one messed up test! I just threw my data into a road bike calculator and found that 80 watts on my race bike corresponds to about 22kmh, and even less on my everyday bike. That's comfortable city cycling for me and probably for most people around here.1 -
Have you ever experimented at all doing long bouts then recarbing on the go (like with gel packs) and seeing how you perform?Thanks a lot Sijomial,
I might do this one day just because it's interesting. Apparently the doc who did the exercise testing has the data, but is not willing to share (it's my data!). Oh well... But just because I'm curious it might be worth doing, and it's not even that expensive - outside of Covid that is. At the moment such testing centers are only allowed to provide medical services, and as such they only offer sport medical examinations with exercise test. Meh!
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
Yes, a few years ago I trained for a half-marathon. I decided the best strategy for me would be to run 5km, followed by some walking and refueling. I got to 18km a week before the big day. And then got sick and remained sick for the coming weeks, but that's a different story totally which is totally not the aim of this thread. I'm merely interested in the workings of glycogen storage.0 -
I'll try and find my test results tomorrow but your results at face value seem seriously weird!
Was this with a mask on the whole time connected to a gas analyser or some other method?
RER of over one was one of the indicators of maximal effort, but you don't seem to have been even close to maximal effort.
80W anaerobic threshold for someone exercising regularly must be very unusual and perhaps indicative of your condition?
0 -
Glad I tagged Heybales!
Wealth of good knowledge.
My RER results were from a sports science lab as part fo the procedure for a VO2 max and max HR test - in my case a stationary bike ramp test to failure using the ASCM protocol.
Ok, I do have some data from this exercise testing, but it's all over the place and partially wrong. Oh well...
Can you help me understand this? (yes, I know this goes offtopic)
Max power: 160 Watt, 149 % predicted
VO2max: 28.6 ml/min /kg, 114 % predicted
RER 1.13
anaerobic threshold: 80W
max HR: 191 /min , 110 % of predicted
Breathing reserve 23 %
The test was interrupted at 160 Watt. I could have gone on if I wasn't asked the whole time to take a deep inhale, take my hand off the bar for a blood test or do lots of other things which disrupted my cycling and especially breathing. My guess is that I wasn't even scratching a HR of 175 during this test, while I estimate my HRmax at 209 based on many years of running data. I can certainly still run at 191. Well, at the moment as I've not run in a while and my HR just shoots up a lot more. My 'i can still talk' and running with a 3/3 breathing rhythm hr is just below 178, which I guess to be at roughly 85% HRmax
How I interpret this data: RER above 1 just means pure carbs I guess, probably measured at highest performance? Though no idea how you can get above 1 if you're looking at the ratio between two end members. VO2max... looks kind of ok when compared to running cooper tests, which I know are not all out for reasons (I get sick when I run all out). The anaerobic threshold seems very low, as in 80W is comfortable, brisk cycling I would say. So that's really the interesting thing for me here. But I guess they didn't actually somehow measure it but calculated it using 50% of maximum effort (which wasn't my max effort)
edit: KITTEN! That's one messed up test! I just threw my data into a road bike calculator and found that 80 watts on my race bike corresponds to about 22kmh, and even less on my everyday bike. That's comfortable city cycling for me and probably for most people around here.
That is the problem when at the upper reaches of effort - slight change to patterns can start you on downturn to appearing to reach max effort too soon.
You did reach maxHR of 191 though, that's the test result. Even if not at HRmax yet.
VO2max probably could have gone higher as you said weren't really done yet, but maybe they weren't seeing any more increase to it, it does tap out and you can keep HR going higher.
AT would have been nice to show with HR too, not just watts.
Their predictions are based on stat's, so not really useful except to see you did much better!
Using some form of estimate, either the blood tests or curve formula - you hit AT at 80 watts, and kept going up to 160 W - that's pretty good range of anaerobic.
Except most have AT around 85-90% of HRmax, which you are saying 191 wasn't even true HRmax.
In your other topic, wasn't the description about inability was it to clear lactic acid at normal rate?
I'm guessing your AT would be less than 85% then.
Depends on what method was used to get the AT/LT figure, and then tie it to the data point for Watts at that moment. Hopefully you don't see Concini in the footnotes anywhere.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1728869X13000026
Breathing reserve - just shows lungs have plenty to go - they aren't the chokepoint usually. Did you do a few inhales/exhales full force pre or post test?
RER just means indeed showing a max of glycogen burn.
It's ratio of CO2 produced to O2 taken in - so producing more CO2 than O2 taken in - past 1 it's not about energy source anymore.
Just like you can get a RER reading after eating a meal, and that will skew higher but not because of current energy source, but digesting/processing food.0 -
That is the problem when at the upper reaches of effort - slight change to patterns can start you on downturn to appearing to reach max effort too soon.
You did reach maxHR of 191 though, that's the test result. Even if not at HRmax yet.
Oh, you mean the maximum HR I reached on this test, and not my HRmax. Hmm.. good one. It seems very high to be honest. I ran in the evening and went up to 187 in the end (have not run in 2 months), and that was more strenuous. Can't look at Fitbit data here as they asked me to remove it near the end - another disturbance in the force! ehm.. my cycling.VO2max probably could have gone higher as you said weren't really done yet, but maybe they weren't seeing any more increase to it, it does tap out and you can keep HR going higher.
AT would have been nice to show with HR too, not just watts.
I'll try to get the actual data. They are supposed to give it to me if I ask for in, and not just a report with the end numbers. But this might go via a data access request. Yeah, I'd hoped to see AT with HRUsing some form of estimate, either the blood tests or curve formula - you hit AT at 80 watts, and kept going up to 160 W - that's pretty good range of anaerobic.
Except most have AT around 85-90% of HRmax, which you are saying 191 wasn't even true HRmax.
In your other topic, wasn't the description about inability was it to clear lactic acid at normal rate?
I'm guessing your AT would be less than 85% then.
Depends on what method was used to get the AT/LT figure, and then tie it to the data point for Watts at that moment. Hopefully you don't see Concini in the footnotes anywhere.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1728869X13000026
This is the confusing part. I found some sources online saying AT is calculated at 50-60% of max effort in people and at 75% in athletes. Which sounds odd, but would fit with the strange max 160 watt and AT 80 watt. But no, it makes no sense to me. I'm rather certain I'm not running anaerobically when cycling to the supermarket. Well, I hope anyway!Breathing reserve - just shows lungs have plenty to go - they aren't the chokepoint usually. Did you do a few inhales/exhales full force pre or post test?
Yep. My body can be totally wasted after a slow jog, but my breathing is relaxed and I feel good in that respect. My cooper tests also feel like there's no problem in that respect.RER just means indeed showing a max of glycogen burn.
It's ratio of CO2 produced to O2 taken in - so producing more CO2 than O2 taken in - past 1 it's not about energy source anymore.
Just like you can get a RER reading after eating a meal, and that will skew higher but not because of current energy source, but digesting/processing food.
Ah ok! I think I get it now. A number larger than 1 is attributed to among others bicarb buffering. Would be interesting to know at what HR or wattage the 1 was surpassed.
Hmm.. so I guess I need to get my hands at the raw data somehow. I'm sure there's more interesting stuff in there. And especially need to get it before I talk to my doctor again. This lung specialist just phoned a day earlier than I had an appointment, I had no access to this data above yet, and he just said "all is fine, I'm healthy and extremely fit for my age".
... which I feel has not really been taken into account. This test wasn't too difficult for me as it was short, but less strenuous than a constant high load which is one of my problems. It also wasn't long enough on lower load to get me anywhere near the other area I get problems at. Thus question is how representative it is.0 -
@yirara to add to what other posters have said, there's another factor to take in consideration. If you're fat-adapted (and if you are even only a semi-pro athlete, you will be, regardless of whether your diet is ketogenic or not), once your glycogen stores have run out, your body will start converting non glucose (eg protein) reserves into glycogen [1] and/or utilizing ketones from fat stores [2].
[1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK22591/
[2] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1373635/
Gluconeogenesis and ketogenesis can happen at the same time, because they are demand driven, not supply driven.
Also check all the studies by Volek:
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/?term=Volek JS[Author]&cauthor=true&cauthor_uid=312173530 -
mariomicro wrote: »@yirara to add to what other posters have said, there's another factor to take in consideration. If you're fat-adapted (and if you are even only a semi-pro athlete, you will be, regardless of whether your diet is ketogenic or not), once your glycogen stores have run out, your body will start converting non glucose (eg protein) reserves into glycogen [1] and/or utilizing ketones from fat stores [2].
[1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK22591/
[2] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1373635/
Gluconeogenesis and ketogenesis can happen at the same time, because they are demand driven, not supply driven.
Also check all the studies by Volek:
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/?term=Volek JS[Author]&cauthor=true&cauthor_uid=31217353
Ok, this is going far too offtopic now, but I'm not fat adapted. A few year ago I would hit the wall so hard after 65 minutes that I'd sit on the ground, completely confused for half an hour or so, then call a taxi to get home. If I remembered where I was. Now I at least managed to run for about 65 minutes but I manage to just get on for another 20 minutes. But once I stop running my whole body goes into a cramp that lasts 10 minutes or more, then limp home the last few meters, and then I feel rubbish for the next two days. I also only manage to hike, visit a museum, sit behind computer and work or cycle for a total maximum of 2 hours on good day. And believe me: I try to extend this every single time I go out and do something slow.4 -
@yirara I just wanted to add: search Dr. Benjamin Bikman's videos on Youtube. He's done a lot of research on the insulin to glucagon ratio, which, indirectly, deals with glycogen stores and will do a better job than I do at explaining the topic. Don't be put off by the fact he's often a guest of pro-keto channels, because what he deals with is of more general interest.1
-
mariomicro wrote: »@yirara I just wanted to add: search Dr. Benjamin Bikman's videos on Youtube. He's done a lot of research on the insulin to glucagon ratio, which, indirectly, deals with glycogen stores and will do a better job than I do at explaining the topic. Don't be put off by the fact he's often a guest of pro-keto channels, because what he deals with is of more general interest.
Thanks a lot, I'll have a look. I assume it's not a Doctor Fung kind of person but an actual scientist?
On that note: I have data! Lots of data! (meh, all in an image table!) Will be difficult to pull something useful out, but I go digging tonight. And I still have a couple of papers to read on glycogen stores.2 -
Thanks a lot, I'll have a look. I assume it's not a Doctor Fung kind of person but an actual scientist?
They are both in the medical profession and cite their sources. But there will be always be an amount of cherry picking when citing sources. I link a study that glorifies keto or fasting in mice. You cite an article that trashes keto or fasting in monkeys, and so on. You have to pick what is good for you and works for you and then make up your mind.1 -
"If you're fat-adapted (and if you are even only a semi-pro athlete, you will be, regardless of whether your diet is ketogenic or not), once your glycogen stores have run out, your body will start converting non glucose (eg protein) reserves into glycogen [1] and/or utilizing ketones from fat stores [2]."
Whenever I hear fat-adapted in the same thought as using carbs first I know there is some confusion on basic human physiology - since that is not how things work at all.
Protein as energy source is least preferred as it requires the most work to convert to usable.
Ketones and lactic acid are used as soon as they are available.
Problem with all of them they can't ramp up for volume needed to replace carbs as energy source - which isn't used first anyway for endurance. They aren't even as fast as fat for usage.
Voker references is showing the same thing Maffetone showed decades ago using 40/30/30 diet and mainly change to training.
body can be trained to use higher % of fat at same level of intensity - mitochondria can be trained either way to help or hurt endurance.
But fat is still major source of energy, very slight improvement - but it can be the difference for elite level trying to push carb storage out to the end of a race.
And very true none of those comments matter to your test, and your test does indeed not represent your normal workouts.
And neither have much to do with lactic acid issue.
Glad you got the raw data. Now you can geek out if desired with graphs and formulas. I got some in my results spreadsheets they don't give you, like the logged figures broken out into % carbs/fat for charting, ect.
ETA -
Forgot to comment on 2nd link, which is also not a study but an article discussing studies - when an author uses the phrase "this shows a calorie is not a calorie" I know something flakey is up.3 -
Yea, so I have the raw data per 10 seconds. I don't know why, but I just killed my spreadsheet. Thus doing it the simple way:
VCO2 and VO2 plotted on same scatter plot start to overlay at 80 watts load. Oops. The crossover shows clear separation at beginning of 110 watts. Steepness of curve is at that point... hmm..
So, from 80 watts onward VCO2 becomes steeper and CO2 flattens to a lesser degree. The data in this whole interval is particularly erratic, thus I'm not quite comfortable drawing a trend line through this part to find out where exactly VCO2 starts to steepen. https://i.imgur.com/B5gnFnI.jpg
The maximum heartrate that was measured was indeed 191. I'm surprised actually. That's just before the end at 150 watts (I didn't make it to 160).
So, what else in interesting? I think I need to read up on this to see what I can do with it. And to understand it.
edit: oh wow, that's weird! My HR is going down after that upper point! Ok, this does happen from time to time, but it tends to happen quite reliably after 3.5km running and coincides with an energy burst somehow. Hmm.. doesn't make sense. It also tends to happen at a higher HR, around 175-178-ish when running.0 -
There is usually an interval increase to the intensity every 1-3 min - so an initial increase to HR, and then may drop slightly is perfectly normal especially as form improves at faster speed.
Especially with 10 sec data intervals, pretty good. Usually seen much less frequent so that is not observable.
I thought I had mine on G-Drive for remote access to get a pic. nope.
I have someone else's results I helped once, but this is public too, along with explanations.
https://www.dcrainmaker.com/2012/01/look-at-testing-with-new-leaf-fitness.html
The trend lines have to be on the right data to be useful - like the carb burn or calorie burn trendline on someone's test was R^2 of 0.988 and 0.955. That was pretty tight.0 -
Wow cool, you helped Ray! He currently tends to run around where my office is. But then I'm currently working from home, thus not a chance to have a look at what nice tech he has on his wrists at the moment.
Playing with EqO2 and EqCO2 now, but really, no idea what's going wrong with Excel. It keeps on crashing.0 -
Glad I tagged Heybales!
Wealth of good knowledge.
My RER results were from a sports science lab as part fo the procedure for a VO2 max and max HR test - in my case a stationary bike ramp test to failure using the ASCM protocol.
Ok, I do have some data from this exercise testing, but it's all over the place and partially wrong. Oh well...
Can you help me understand this? (yes, I know this goes offtopic)
Max power: 160 Watt, 149 % predicted
VO2max: 28.6 ml/min /kg, 114 % predicted
RER 1.13
anaerobic threshold: 80W
max HR: 191 /min , 110 % of predicted
Breathing reserve 23 %
The test was interrupted at 160 Watt. I could have gone on if I wasn't asked the whole time to take a deep inhale, take my hand off the bar for a blood test or do lots of other things which disrupted my cycling and especially breathing. My guess is that I wasn't even scratching a HR of 175 during this test, while I estimate my HRmax at 209 based on many years of running data. I can certainly still run at 191. Well, at the moment as I've not run in a while and my HR just shoots up a lot more. My 'i can still talk' and running with a 3/3 breathing rhythm hr is just below 178, which I guess to be at roughly 85% HRmax
How I interpret this data: RER above 1 just means pure carbs I guess, probably measured at highest performance? Though no idea how you can get above 1 if you're looking at the ratio between two end members. VO2max... looks kind of ok when compared to running cooper tests, which I know are not all out for reasons (I get sick when I run all out). The anaerobic threshold seems very low, as in 80W is comfortable, brisk cycling I would say. So that's really the interesting thing for me here. But I guess they didn't actually somehow measure it but calculated it using 50% of maximum effort (which wasn't my max effort)
edit: KITTEN! That's one messed up test! I just threw my data into a road bike calculator and found that 80 watts on my race bike corresponds to about 22kmh, and even less on my everyday bike. That's comfortable city cycling for me and probably for most people around here.
I read the entire thread and may have missed it but I don't think so? How are these wattage numbers measured?0 -
NorthCascades wrote: »Glad I tagged Heybales!
Wealth of good knowledge.
My RER results were from a sports science lab as part fo the procedure for a VO2 max and max HR test - in my case a stationary bike ramp test to failure using the ASCM protocol.
Ok, I do have some data from this exercise testing, but it's all over the place and partially wrong. Oh well...
Can you help me understand this? (yes, I know this goes offtopic)
Max power: 160 Watt, 149 % predicted
VO2max: 28.6 ml/min /kg, 114 % predicted
RER 1.13
anaerobic threshold: 80W
max HR: 191 /min , 110 % of predicted
Breathing reserve 23 %
The test was interrupted at 160 Watt. I could have gone on if I wasn't asked the whole time to take a deep inhale, take my hand off the bar for a blood test or do lots of other things which disrupted my cycling and especially breathing. My guess is that I wasn't even scratching a HR of 175 during this test, while I estimate my HRmax at 209 based on many years of running data. I can certainly still run at 191. Well, at the moment as I've not run in a while and my HR just shoots up a lot more. My 'i can still talk' and running with a 3/3 breathing rhythm hr is just below 178, which I guess to be at roughly 85% HRmax
How I interpret this data: RER above 1 just means pure carbs I guess, probably measured at highest performance? Though no idea how you can get above 1 if you're looking at the ratio between two end members. VO2max... looks kind of ok when compared to running cooper tests, which I know are not all out for reasons (I get sick when I run all out). The anaerobic threshold seems very low, as in 80W is comfortable, brisk cycling I would say. So that's really the interesting thing for me here. But I guess they didn't actually somehow measure it but calculated it using 50% of maximum effort (which wasn't my max effort)
edit: KITTEN! That's one messed up test! I just threw my data into a road bike calculator and found that 80 watts on my race bike corresponds to about 22kmh, and even less on my everyday bike. That's comfortable city cycling for me and probably for most people around here.
I read the entire thread and may have missed it but I don't think so? How are these wattage numbers measured?
Ergometer. I’d think a wall is a watt, regardless of it being a stationary bike or a roadbike. Ok, with raph has a roadbike rolll and wind resistance play a role, and weight possible more than on an ergometer. So how comparable is it?
Btw, the graph has not watts but datapoint at the bottom. Had some excel problems yesterday. What do you think is wrong?1 -
Right, excel finally works. So.. I honestly have no idea if this test makes a lot of sense.
The anaerobic threshold at 80 watts mentioned above is named VT2 on the actual test. Looking at different data sets, running some limited statistics, etc.. well, there's something happening at that point. But there's an upper infliction point on VCO2/VE plots as well... https://i.imgur.com/YM48EpV.png
I wonder if that the uppermost infliction point at 150 watt (1953 VCO2) is actually the VT2 and the first at 1152 is VT1
Going by descriptions such as
VT1: can still speak, but not fluently
VT2: can't speak anymore
kind of seems to fit. As long as I keep my HR below 178 I'm fine and can keep this up for an hour, plus a bit with a fight and two days of feeling rubbish. Going over that means the run is over within 5 minutes.
THOUGH: How does that fit with the VO2 and VCO2 plot I posted yesterday?
AND: there's the low VO2max of around 28 (fair category), which fits my own observations. And which I've not managed to improve at all in nearly 6 years of running. Btw, the lowest HR I am able to run for a short while when I'm at my fittest is around 158. Thus even my slowest, fittest runs are above this (first?) infliction point. On that note: I just came back from a walk to the market, and my hr during this peaked out at 142, in flat terrain with little wind. A multi hour hike with sandy terrain, hills, tree roots or snow has higher readings. Maybe that's the reason why I run out of energy after 2 hours max walking. And why I can't get up mountains, but have no problems running down.
Yeah, I'm not sure what to make of this.0 -
Here's my graph of a test that also had 10 sec data points, I've had some that are 30-60 sec so not the same usefulness.
I was given time, speed & grade%, HR, VE & V02 & VCO2 in L/min.
I used the normal formulas to get data past that to make it more meaningful for me.
I calculated the RER (CO2/O2), calories/L O2 & calories/min for carbs, then fat, then % of each.
I graphed the HR, and % of carbs and fat being used.
This was 3 days after a half-ironman tri, so I was not able to reach my HRmax I'd hit before @ 194. But desire was peak LT/AT point anyway used for HR zone training, not HRmax (doesn't change much or for years anyway) or VO2max (which can change pretty quick). And wanted better calorie burn formula to eat enough.
My biking HRmax was the same, and a 30 min LT test gave the same 176 though I hid that until the end - no need influencing my level of effort. So I was one that matched between running/biking, probably because I started running first.
Lower part of graph is green triangle %fat usage and red square %carb usage, upper part is heart rate.
The RER change to going above 1.0 occurred at 176 in the data, and you can see the % points moving quicker away right then.
My crossover 50% was 135-138 HR also shown there.
You can see that if I took a subset of data after maybe 1 min warmup and left off the deflection above LT, I'd have a better trend line closer to HR stats for the % fuel source. (and for anyone thinking fat adapted is a thing, please notice the 95-98% fat usage at start walking around 2mph)
Just giving an idea of another way to view data that might be easier to read.
1 -
Thanks a lot Heybales! Lets see what I can do with that
There's certainly still more space for more plots in my spreadsheet 0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 424 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions