Metabolic and VO2 Testing

This ended up being MUCH longer than I thought it would be. I'm sure it's disjointed, know it's long, and probably missed something. :) Good luck... :)
---------------------------------------------------
Took Wednesday off, so I could go to my favorite running store, The Balanced Athlete, in Kent and get some Metabolic/VO2 testing done, and then go to Artis Photography and review the photos from Kaitlyn's 2 year pictures.

Before I get into the metabolic testing, I really need to talk up the gals at Artis. We've been going there for 2 years now, and they do a fantastic job. They aren't at the JC Pennies level cost wise, to be sure, which is why w only go once or twice a year. :). That being said, they are absolutely worth the money. We went outside for some of our last session and just let Kaitlyn play. Check out some of their shots at their blog. She's the yellow tutu at "A little spot of sunshine" :) If you're even close to Mill Creek, drop by the Town Center and check them out.

And now to the running stuff. :) So thanks to some birthday money, and some unexpected cash, I was able to round up the money to go do some Metabolic/VO2 testing. For $180 Eric and his team will hook you up to some sort of machine, let you breathe into a mask while resting and running and figure out your Resting Metabolic Rate, and Aerobic and Anaerobic Thresholds. I thought it included VO2 max, but it didn't, and Eric's explanation as to why not makes sense to me.

So, first, let's review. Aerobic Threshold (AeT), which according to wikipedia is not an official term is the point at which your anaerobic system starts to work, and you begin to accumulate blood lactate. This is, if you have been looking at heart rate training, the bottom end of that aerobic scale they keep telling you to exercise in. Previous calculations put mine at 130.

The Anaerobic Threshold (AT) is the point at which your system stops using oxygen to produce energy. This is also commonly called your Lactate Threshold (LT), the point at which your body accumulates blood lactate faster than it can be cleared.

In this case both of these values are determined using some fancy machine that measures intake and output oxygen levels and heart rates. Hey, if I knew how it all worked, I'd probably be in a different job. :)

So I drove the 1:40 minutes down to Kent, in the rain, and horrible traffic. (Being forcibly reminded why I'm taking the bus to work now.) Even Eric's commute ballooned from 35 minutes to an hour. Finally got into the store and got started about 8:15. This is a fasting test, so I'm starting to get a little hungry at this point. :)

Metabolic Testing:
We started with the Resting Metabolic Rate testing, which basically involves putting on the mask and tube combo and sitting on you ass for 20 minutes. Eric had to remind me not to go to sleep. :) Tempting given the workout the night before and the fact that I couldn't wear my glasses because of the mask, so was staring at vaguely shoe shaped blurs for 20 minutes. :)

After 20 minutes, we go to look at some interesting data. First, my lowest HR was 45. It only shows up in one data point, but I'll take it. :) So my Resting HR is now officially 45. :) Eric was a little surprised to see that my metabolic rate was a little lower than he expected. My RMR came in at 1728, if I recall correctly Eric had 'expected' close to 1900. According to the sheet Eric gave me I'm about 3% lower than the average. It's nice to know the numbers, and I'll be curious to see if it goes up whenever I finally get tested again. He was interested to see how my metabolic rate dropped on the chart after it settled out from it's high point. Maybe I was falling asleep. :) Apparently, it normally stays a little higher than mine did.

When I started tracking calories last year I originally used this website to calculate my calorie needs, putting in sedentary and then adding exercise calories as needed. Normally your daily calorie needs are calculated by taking your calculated RMR by a multiplier for your activity level. The calculator above uses 1.25 for it's sedentary multiplier. 1.2 is what I've seen quoted for that level in other sources and it seems to fit better for me.

When I went into maintenance/slow weigh loss I set my calorie needs at 2000 and appeared to be stable. If I take the new RMR and multiply by 1.2 I get 2073 which makes sense. I used Lose It on the iPhone for 3 weeks with no real changes (about 1/2 pound) with it set at 1924 calories for the day) so with all that, I think this is a pretty accurate number. (As an aside, that 1924 number was with Lose It set to lose 1 pound a week (500 cal/day deficit), . They multiply RMR by 1.4 which in my opinion is pretty dang high.)(Switching to 2 lbs/week has actually started the weight loss again.) Evaluating the RMR estimation methods that I have in my old weight loss spreadsheet/notes: Katch-McArdle is way off. St. Jeor is a touch low, and Harris-Benedict (the standard for most people) is a touch high (but if you take into account the 3% difference between me and average, it's perfect)

So, in summary (I know, finally... :)).
Resting HR: 45.
Resting Metabolic Rate: 1728 (-3% from average)
Daily Maintenance Level: 2073 (using 1.2 multiplier for "Sedentary, little or no exercise, desk job)

Thresholds:
Next, while still all hooked up, we went over to the treadmill and started walking. Essentially, the test involved walking or running at 2 or 3 different speeds for a minute, then moving up, then at the top speed (only something like 5 mph I'm guessing), the incline gets bumped every minute till Eric says you're done. Not too much running, not too stressful.

So my AeT(aerobic threshold) is 115. And my AT (Anaerobic Threshold), the level I've been supposed to be under for the last 3 months, is 143! 10 point difference. Very glad I got the test so I can train efficiently, frustrated with the fact that I wasn't doing it "right". If I'm understanding my numbers correctly, my VO2 (NOT max) at the Anaerobic Threshold is 35.9.

Most estimators for Aerobic Ranges that I've read estimate between 60% and 75% of Max Heart Rate. I used those percentages and the Karvonen method to come up with 132 to 154 as my aerobic range. Which is what I've been training under for the last 12 weeks. I'm not sure at this point what systems I was developing, but my times have improved pretty nicely. my benchmark run, clockwise around South Lake Union went from 10:14/mile to 9:12 over the last 6 weeks of that training. Even taking into account some start location changes, etc. That's a pretty nice improvement. Counter Clockwise around the same course, the tougher run, went from 9:48/mile to 9:24 mile in 6 weeks.

Interestingly using pure percentage of heart rate gets me closer to the actuality of my thresholds better than using the Karvonen method. Mark Allen's seemingly arbitrary method (180 -age) is also really close. Grrr. Karvonen made sense to me (and it let me run faster) so it's a bit frustrating.

I do finally think I get what he was saying about pushing both thresholds upwards. By moving my Aerobic threshold up, I don't start accumulating lactate, at any level, until later. If I move the Anaerobic threshold up, which he says I can do doing the low HR training, I can use a higher heart rate before I start to irrevocably accumulate lactate. Still not sure how the low HR training will bump my lactate threshold. Bruce, at work, cites a guy named Hadd, who says working just under will raise it; like squeezing the toothpaste out of a tube. That being said, most books/websites say intervals, or Tabata sprints, or stuff like that work best. I'll have to email Eric. :)

One of the take home messages as far as I'm concerned is: if you're a beginner...run slowly at first. Take the time and build these systems early. I can't believe that I can run a marathon and have thresholds this low. It does explain to a certain degree why my short distance performances didn't predict well to my marathon. Apparently I can handle lactate well (another question for Eric), and that makes my VO2 levels look higher than they are. And thus I look like I can run faster at distance than I can.

Shoe Fitting:
And another patented Eric Sach shoe fitting. Got on the treadmill, videotaped my barefoot stride, commented on the wonderful biomechanics of my right foot, and then went and got two pairs of shoes. And a free pair of socks. Yay! Tried on both pairs of shoes, and unsurprisingly the dreamily comfortable ASICS lost. I'm now in a pair of Mizumo Wave Alchemy 8s with SuperFeet (as usual).

Advice:
Eric dispensed, as usual every time I get together with him, some great advice, tips and tidbits. Here's some of what I remember.

Form, Distance, Speed. In that order. Every one wants speed first. Do the right things first, then speed will follow, if you are patient.

I should be patient. The 50K next year at Mt. Si is, in his opinion, a better, more useful goal than the 50. That would give me more time to build base, and do well at the 50 miler, not just finish it.

Looking at my anaerobic VO2 and this site:http://www.runningforfitness.org/calc/equiv.php Eric thinks that the stated marathon time for my VO2 is achievable. He also points out that if I get my cadence rate up to 180 I/anybody could cut 20 minutes off their marathon time, without running faster.

My hips are extremely closed and locked up, something Val has noticed too. He recommended a PT guy and the "Pigeon", a yoga pose to help both my foot, and my hips.

Run tall; hunching causes you to lose up to 30% of your lung capacity.

When disucussing fueling and hydration, he strongly recommended fueling witha GU even at 60 minutes (I tend not to start until runs hit double digits. He recommended bringing (and drinking) water and a GU halfway for a 60 minute run, for example.

My right arm isn't as engaged when it swings as my left. More evidence of the locked hips. Also, the action of arm swing and hip rotation turns your torso into a billows, moving air in and out without using as much energy. Potentially using some flyes to strengthen the muscles and work on range of motion might help.

Asked if strength training would affect my aerobic system development, since I had heard that it might negatively affect it. He didn't answer now that I think about it, but other than core strength, he seems against it. He cited mass adding weight, decreasing flexibility and range of motion. I can disagree with little of that from the running perspective, and given my lack of flexibility and range of motion, losing more would be bad.

I think though, after talking with Val a little, that I will continue strength training. While Crossfit may not have it all, they have a point in their fitness standards about having abase of strength for basic functionality. I like that I feel strong again. It's making me feel more competent, capable, and at the risk of sounding goofy, more manly. I should be able to do physical things, beyond running. I may take Val's suggestion and dial it back to 2 days a week, and add replace a day with yoga or something similar. Looks like there's and evening yoga at my 24 Hour Fitness Tues and Thurs nights. Hmmm...

Other:
So by the time I'm slogging my way back home in the rain, and surprisingly bad traffic, I'm in a pretty damn foul mood about my upper end aerobic threshold. Like to the point of wanting to hit things with a sledgehammer. I forgot to bring food for after the test. Ah, the joys of low blood sugar. Some people get tired. I get angry. Thinks looked much better once I had lunch and could verbalize to Val.