Results of AT test

As many of you may know I've been on a never ending quest to figure out why my body just doesn't want to lose weight. For some reason with me it seems to be more than a cals in cals out scenario. My diet is clean and my training on track.
So this morning I had a Anaerobic threshold test done to see what HR range I need to be training in to burn fat.
The test involved a treadmill and what appeared to be a gas mask. They hooked me up on the treadmill and had me start out walking, then running, and then they raised the incline and had me hold it as long as I could. I actually never really felt like I was maxed out, but it was tough at the end.
It turns out my AT (anaerobic threshold) is 172 bpm.
The guy doing the test said that it was pretty good. But i don't really have anything to compare that to.
One thing that was very interesting was that you could tell by the tests that my body is very efficient at burning sugar. That of course is not good when you are trying to lose FAT!
I got some really good info out of the tests, and they gave me some good ideas on what types of workouts I should be doing to get the ol fat burning fires going.
So onward I go!! God willing I SHALL conquer those fat cells!! :D

I am glad the test went well for youa dn you have some pointer on what to do. Personally I think you look fab and anyone who can compete like you can is on my admiration list. :cool:

I found out the same thing when I did my AT testing - my body is efficient at working so that means I burn less calories working out than my Polar HR monitor was telling me. It's great if I want to go long distances, but not so good for losing weight.

I also found out that my Polar's Vo2max test was about 10 points off! I did my test on the spin bike, and didn't learn until later that my LT for running is different than my LT for biking. Not sure if I want to pony up the cash for another LT test to find out my run LT yet - they say you can just add 10 beats to your bike LT and come pretty close. But I also found it to be very valuable information.

Congrats (I think? :) )

Sounds very complicated. I have to get a HR monitor soon, but have been avoiding it. But I do have a tough time believing the calorie estimates from CalorieKing or the treadmill.

Very interesting stuff.

So... where do you go from here? I guess I'm a little confused as to what you do with this information.

Very interesting. Puts me to thinking.

I can lose weight and inches running or fast walking but if I bike or swim I lose neither but I can go a really long time.

Maybe this is something I need to look into.

thanks :)

well now I take the info and work with my running coach to come up with workouts that will get me in the fat burning zone. My goal in the next month is to really get the fat burning fires burning, and then I'll start working on performance. I need to lose some of my "ballast" first and then I think the speed will come a bit easier.
It was very cool to see all of that info graphed out. Now if I just knew exactly how many cals I need to consume in a day I'd be golden. :rolleyes:

What type of workouts did they rcommend?

Ruth

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lawyergirl

I also found out that my Polar's Vo2max test was about 10 points off! I did my test on the spin bike, and didn't learn until later that my LT for running is different than my LT for biking. Not sure if I want to pony up the cash for another LT test to find out my run LT yet - they say you can just add 10 beats to your bike LT and come pretty close. But I also found it to be very valuable information.

---

That's interesting. I would think it would be ten less for running. Granted I'm not a runner, but I can't imagine being able to keep my HR as high running as I do biking. I know for sure I can't keep it as high when I swim.

V.

Very interesting, RM. Be sure to let us know what your running coach says for you to do.
I'd like to get that done to see where my AT is. How did you go about finding where/how to get this tested?

Veronica, I am the opposite as you. My HR skyrockets VERY quickly when I run, but I have a hard time keeping it as high on the bike. When I run, it very quickly shoots to 165 (85% of my max- I should ideally be training in the 75% range I believe) and I can't ever get it below 140 (even when walking). Strange how bodies can vary so much... no wonder all the data out there is confusing.

Sorry, I guess I really meant that I could never sustain it the way I can on the bike. My LT is 178 and I can stay right around that for 90 minutes. I can't imagine doing that running. But I suppose that if I trained for running the way I train for riding...anything is possible.

V.

I had the test done at Lifetime fitness. It was 129.00 but I got to keep the mask, so I can be tested again and it will be alot cheaper.
I just joined Lifetime and so far I'm really impressed. The trainers and staff really seem to be knowledgable, and I'm usually pretty skeptical. I used to be a certified step aerobics instructor, so I know some stuff.. And I have read enough over the years that I can usually spot a BS line a mile away.
One big thing that stuck out in the test was how efficient my body was at burning sugar. The tech asked me if I crave sugar after runs over 6 miles and a huge light bulb came on in my head! It was an "ah ha" moment for sure.
My coach hasn't put together a HR zone specific workout for me yet, but I'll post it when he does.
Of course now I'm wondering what my # is when I'm on the bike? You guys have me thinking now... hmmm.... :p
It was pretty funny tho because the tech could tell that I knew what all the data mean't. I just wanted to see the numbers. He was like "wow. this is easy! I like testing athletes like you"... HA! *ME* an athlete?? Go figure! :D

Yes you! You ARE an athlete! You IronWoman you!

V.

RM, did you have to join to have the test done? There is a Lifetime Fitness about 30-40 minutes south of me and I've been thinking I need to get some more "information" in order to figure out how the he** I should be training. But haven't had much luck finding anything close to home and/or reasonably priced, and this sounds reasonably priced (unless I have to join the club, which I won't do because I already belong to the rink-a-dink Salt Lake City sports complex).

FWIW, I was reading a little about body fat today because I'm having a hard time wrapping my head around my numbers. Here's a snippet from one of the articles I was reading:

So what's a good score? That depends on whom you ask. At one health club, a tester told me that the "recommended" number for women is 22 percent. On his test, I scored 23 percent, which put me in the "average" category. "But if you lose 10 pounds of fat," he said, "you'll be in the athlete range!" I mentioned that I cycled more than 200 miles a week and competed in about 20 bike races a year. Did I really need to lose body fat in order to be "in the athletic range"?

The article made me feel a little better, anyway. Especially the fact that even the best tests have a 2-3 percent error rate (and of course the error will always be that the result is higher than reality, right?? :p ).

Often times our "boundary" we seem to meet with weight loss has to do with something specific in our diets that is affecting our immune systems...

Many people have intolerance to wheat, dairy, corn, yeast...those are the usual suspects. you don't necessarily have to have typical allergy symptoms, the symptom can simply be the lack of weight loss...

then there are other foods that your body may just not like...

Fat is ALWAYS used during exercise, just depends in what percentage. you will never EVER only use fat as long as you are moving around. basic physiology. Plus there is NO SUCH THING as the fat burning zone. this is a marketing "thing" that was invented to increase sales of cardio equipment. on the plus side, it is a lower intensity exercise that as a trainer, i feel is very useful for my beginners. it prevents them from going hard, feeling crappy and wanting to quit.

if you limit caloric intake and exercise, you risk tricking your body into thinking its starving, and again, won't "allow" you to lose weight.

A naturopath can help determine food intolerance that may be affecting your weight loss...

hope that helps

H

I know for me the information was good to see because in addition to your LT, it also tells you other info, too. Here is the summary I posted in my fitness blog -
*My max HR is 204. I previously thought it was 205, so I was pretty close.
* My Lactate/Anaerobic Threshold (LT/AT) is 165/81% of my max HR. Tony said this number was very good - that I could try to get it up to 82-83% but that's probably about as high as I can get it.
* My Aerobic Threshold (AeT) is 157/77% of my max HR. This is the heart rate when you start burning fat using oxygen as an exclusive energy source. This is where I need work - Tony said this number needs to be MUCH lower and he can tell I haven't been doing any base training because that's how you get this number down. I really haven't done any base training because I trained for the sprint Sunday in about 7 weeks, so most of my workouts were pretty intense.
* My VO2max is 45.8. Tony said this is pretty good, but can be better.
* My VO2max HR is 187/92% of my max HR. Tony said this number should come down some with some tempo training.
* Calorie Burn - at my LT of 81% of my max HR, I burn 655 calories/hour. Tony said this shows my body is very efficient - which is very good for long distance training because I won't have to worry about nutrition so much while exercising, but not so good if I'm looking to lose weight. Darn efficient body!

So here's what Tony recommended for me -

* To bring my Aerobic Threshold down, I need to do long, slow distances. He said to do at least 1x/week of a 2 hour effort with keeping my HR under 150.
* To bring my VO2max up, Tony said I need to do tempo workouts 2x/week where I bring my heart rate above my Lactate Threshold (170-175) and keep it above that for 20-40 minutes. I should feel pretty beat by the end of these workouts.
* To keep my Lactate Threshold up and maybe move it a little, Tony said to do interval training 1x/week where I take my heart rate very high (175-180) and then bring it back down very low (130-135) and repeat. He suggested track workouts or hill repeats for this.
* As for weight training, Tony said it's really not all that important right now because studies have shown there is not a lot of direct correlation between weight lifting and improving your times for distances. But it is important for preventing injury and osteoporosis, so he said if I do it I need to do it 2-3x/week.