Myfitnesspal

Message Boards Fitness and Exercise
You are currently viewing the message boards in:

Lets talk glycogen stores - in non-athletes/women

2

Replies

  • heybalesheybales Member, Premium Posts: 18,532 Member Member, Premium Posts: 18,532 Member
    "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.
    edited February 19
  • yirarayirara Member, Premium Posts: 5,891 Member Member, Premium Posts: 5,891 Member
    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.
    edited February 19
  • heybalesheybales Member, Premium Posts: 18,532 Member Member, Premium Posts: 18,532 Member
    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.
  • yirarayirara Member, Premium Posts: 5,891 Member Member, Premium Posts: 5,891 Member
    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.
  • AnnPT77AnnPT77 Member, Premium Posts: 18,745 Member Member, Premium Posts: 18,745 Member
    @yirara, speaking as a lurker/reader, this thread has been really interesting and educational. Thanks (to all of you) for having this conversation out in public.
  • NorthCascadesNorthCascades Member Posts: 10,044 Member Member Posts: 10,044 Member
    yirara wrote: »
    sijomial 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?
  • yirarayirara Member, Premium Posts: 5,891 Member Member, Premium Posts: 5,891 Member
    yirara wrote: »
    sijomial 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?
  • yirarayirara Member, Premium Posts: 5,891 Member Member, Premium Posts: 5,891 Member
    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.
  • heybalesheybales Member, Premium Posts: 18,532 Member Member, Premium Posts: 18,532 Member
    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.

    h2qd6427wd1e.png
    edited February 20
  • yirarayirara Member, Premium Posts: 5,891 Member Member, Premium Posts: 5,891 Member
    Thanks a lot Heybales! Lets see what I can do with that :smile: There's certainly still more space for more plots in my spreadsheet :D
  • heybalesheybales Member, Premium Posts: 18,532 Member Member, Premium Posts: 18,532 Member
    You're going to crash it again - I can tell... :D

    This is all I had - green for given, red for calculated.
    l5vcxfb2a5i0.png
    edited February 20
  • yirarayirara Member, Premium Posts: 5,891 Member Member, Premium Posts: 5,891 Member
    heybales wrote: »
    You're going to crash it again - I can tell... :D

    This is all I had - green for given, red for calculated.
    l5vcxfb2a5i0.png

    Yeah, looks pretty much like mine. Probably with the big difference that I'm on a 14" ultrabook which isn't really made for this kind of stuff :D
  • NorthCascadesNorthCascades Member Posts: 10,044 Member Member Posts: 10,044 Member
    yirara wrote: »
    yirara wrote: »
    sijomial 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?

    Your thinking is spot on. I was asking because the numbers aren't typical, so I was wondering if you had it measured like with an erg which is going to give you data that you can trust, or with something like a Stryd. If I was something like that I'd say take it all with a grain of salt. An ergometer's job is to answer your questions, or at least point you in a fruitful direction, it's not to raise another question of whether you can believe it. 🙂. You were on the right track before I showed up and started playing 20 questions.
  • yirarayirara Member, Premium Posts: 5,891 Member Member, Premium Posts: 5,891 Member
    yirara wrote: »
    yirara wrote: »
    sijomial 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?

    Your thinking is spot on. I was asking because the numbers aren't typical, so I was wondering if you had it measured like with an erg which is going to give you data that you can trust, or with something like a Stryd. If I was something like that I'd say take it all with a grain of salt. An ergometer's job is to answer your questions, or at least point you in a fruitful direction, it's not to raise another question of whether you can believe it. 🙂. You were on the right track before I showed up and started playing 20 questions.

    Oh I see. There's something odd in my data, and likely odd in the interpretation. But I can't quite put my fingers on it. The annoyance is that I'm looking for some actual, normal people real-world data but only find athletes, or people with heart failure or COPT, or children, or athletic children :D I can't even find out how CO2max develops in normal non-athletes who exercise regularly.
  • acpgeeacpgee Member Posts: 5,725 Member Member Posts: 5,725 Member
    Has anyone depleted their glycogen totally? It's an interesting experience.

    I hit the wall once during a ultra distance inline skating event in Holland of 130km paced by bicycles at 20 km/hr where motorcycles blocked oncoming traffic so the pack could skate continuously. You had to stay with the pack or get into the trailing first aid van. About 10 km from from the finish I suddenly got totally confused and struggled to coordinate skating movements. One of the cyclists from the organization saw me floundering at the back of the pack and handed me a satchet of jam, like the ones you get with hotel breakfasts and told me to bite off the corner and suck on it. In my haze I obeyed and within a few seconds my brain fog suddenly cleared and I could finish the event.

    It was a reminder that while your muscles can run on fat, your brain can only run on glycogen.
  • yirarayirara Member, Premium Posts: 5,891 Member Member, Premium Posts: 5,891 Member
    Yes, been there, done that. It's amazing what happens. I was literally sitting on the ground some 3km from home and had no idea where I was nor what to do. Finally I somehow found my brains back and called a taxi.
  • yirarayirara Member, Premium Posts: 5,891 Member Member, Premium Posts: 5,891 Member
    heybales wrote: »
    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.

    h2qd6427wd1e.png

    Right, heybales, I have to say it: Why does your data look so *kitten* neat! Mine looks like *kitten* to be honest :D Which reminds me, I still need to edit out those points where they tested my max inhale capacity at load. Those points add a lot of ugliness to my data. So, having done some excelling I can say that I seem to be burning mostly 100% fat from a HR of 158bpm. Which is the slowest running I manage. Right. My crossover is.. well, it's a big crossover zone. So... if I understand it correctly RER 1 = VT2, right? That means the original interpretation is correct, and means... *bites tongue and whispers silently 'yikes'*

    hov2jkjjmkmi.png
    (still having problems with a vlookup table for some really odd reason, but the data is correct)
  • heybalesheybales Member, Premium Posts: 18,532 Member Member, Premium Posts: 18,532 Member
    Trying to recall if your lactic acid issue was over-production of it and perhaps normal clearing rate, or normal levels produced but inability to clear it at normal rate?

    I'd have to remind myself the implications of other fuel sources on CO2 expelled. Not recalling.
    I know it can be messed up by say hyperventilating, causing readings to appear to be saying something that isn't true.
    And the formula's are based solely on carb or fat oxidation occurring, not lactic acid or ketones or amino acids, which frankly can't be used at higher levels of effort anyway for any meaningful quantity - so perhaps the others don't matter.

    The jaggedness in my graph near the start was due to awkward breathes, I think when I attempted to start jogging and was told no this is walk only, we'll increase the grade massively. Yikes.

    Maybe you had some moments like that with the extra stuff you were doing that threw off the breathing and rhythm and cycling cadence that just messed with your effort.
    My test was also constant increases to intensity every 10 sec, speed and then grade, some tests are by levels like latter tests were, every 3 min a big jump in speed and grade. Or in your case perhaps watts turned up every so often.

    If VT2 is where VCO2/VO2 is about equal and keeps going higher, then that was RER 1.
    I just now noticed the time - this is not a normal fast-ramping protocol.
    So on one hand your body has time to warm up and get a little better at this routine while doing it.
    On the other it has time to get tired and lose it before true maxes are hit.

    That's what I wondered about when starting out cold. After my first test I always took the stairs up and walked extra because I thought that made more sense before the test.
    I know my personal HRmax test protocols were always fast-ramping - usually hit in 12 min or less. But I'd warmup first.
  • yirarayirara Member, Premium Posts: 5,891 Member Member, Premium Posts: 5,891 Member
    I have no idea what the lactic acid is doing as they screwed up. Meh! It'll be back to the drawing board for me on that one. And yes, you're right with other energy sources. The first 6 minutes here were warm up, then 10w per 1m increase. Hmm.. the suddenness of increase to 100% carbs is quite striking actually. It's not like fat oxidation slowly gets less, but it's BAM! Good call on hyperventilation. Need to look into that as well. (just did. doesn't seem to be the case. PetCO2 and VeVCO2 profile at rest, 50% and peak is rather different)
  • yirarayirara Member, Premium Posts: 5,891 Member Member, Premium Posts: 5,891 Member
    heybales wrote: »
    You're going to crash it again - I can tell... :D

    This is all I had - green for given, red for calculated.
    l5vcxfb2a5i0.png

    Right, @heybales
    I kind of feel there's still something off in my plots. Would you be able to help me? I was just thinking the % fat energy and % carb energy crossover point should be at 70/30, right? In the sense that fat contains roughly 9kcal compared to 4 in carbs. I'm also still looking for an equation for carb kcal/min and fat kcal/min <3
Sign In or Register to comment.