Believe it or not (and I realise that most people won’t),
there’s actually a fair amount of work involved with this here blog. I know
that it seems like I just scrawl out whatever random musings materialise in my
noggin, but I do actually but some thought and time into it... and that’s the
excuse I’m using for the couple of weeks that have come between my first two
Aerofit scan postings and this here one.
On a serious note, it’s an interesting and worthwhile
subject, and I didn’t want to do a rush job. The past couple of weeks I’ve been
busier than a one-legged man in an ass-kicking competition and just couldn’t
find the time, but the best things in life are worth waiting for, right?
So, here we go with analysis of my cycling and running. As
it’s been such a long time between these posts, I decided to paste posts 1 and
2 to the beginning to create one long but, hopefully, continuous and intelligible
post. If you have an elephantine memory, just skip down to the bottom to the
part where you see a load of scientific looking graphs and read from around
there.
For the rest....
So, what does doing the Aerofit scan involve?
Well, it’s pretty simple really – and no more taxing than the average gym session. A couple of days before, I fill in an information sheet which lists things like my age, weight, how much I exercise and my fitness goals. This sheet also includes a set of fairly straightforward instructions, telling me to keep vigorous workouts to a minimum in the 48 hours preceding my Aerofit scan, and not to eat for a few hours before.
The only other apparatus involved are a standard stationary bike, a treadmill and the Aerofit mouthpiece – essentially a tube that you place into your mouth and leading to a chord, with a nose pinch that not only keeps the mouthpiece steady but also guarantees that all inhalation and exhalation goes through the mouth. The mouthpiece feeds information into a laptop that records the results.
Before doing anything, I sit down – at rest – and breathe through the mouthpiece for 30 seconds. Then we begin on the bike. I cycle at a steady cadence on an easy resistance for a few minutes and then Sreeya hands me the mouthpiece – I continue cycling just the same put while breathing into the mouthpiece for 30 seconds.
Sreeya then whips off the mouthpiece and increases the resistance; again, I cycle steadily for a few minutes before I continue but breathing through the mouthpiece for 30 seconds.
This pattern continues – incremental increase in resistance, a few minutes of normal riding, 30 seconds into the mouthpiece... and then Sreeya tells me to stop, taking down the resistance for me to cool down gradually. It’s pretty painless, took less than 15 minutes and, in terms of perceived effort, I’d say that even at the top resistance I’m still only on 5 out of 10.
There’s a few minutes’ break as Sreeya and fellow expert Markus take a look at the results, walking me through a few of the most obvious points and patterns.
I then jump up on to the treadmill and repeat the process, starting at an easy 8kph (the pace you start at depends on your ability), running for a couple of minutes normally, running for 30 seconds with the mouthpiece on, then upping the pace by 2kph and repeating the process.
The only difference is that, due to the results I was registering, I stayed on the treadmill longer than I did on the bike and was at a fair old pace (for me, at least) by the end of the scan – just over 17 minutes later. The whole process took around an hour for both bike and run.
Again, I cooled down and watched as Sreeya and Markus looked at, translated and explained my results.
So, here’s the bike results:
And here’s the run:
But what do they mean? Well, let’s go back to the bike.
You can extrapolate all manner of conclusions from this;
everything from my base metabolism to how many calories I’ll burn/require
during an Ironman bike leg, given my effort of level (as reflected by my heart
rate). If you know what you’re looking for, there’s as many answers here as
there are questions. But, in a nutshell, these are the vital stats:
Again, you can interpret all this is any number of ways but
my primary aim was to discover my training zones and which ones I need to work
on most. Information like this:
Sreeya and Markus explain the results:
“Every human body has approximately 1,700-2,000 Kcals of
carbohydrate storage whereas a substantially higher amount of fat storage of
approximately 80,000 Kcals. Hence, in order to improve your fitness and sports
performance or lose fat, it is important to train your body to burn more fat
calories, which can happen by training in your correct heart rate zones.
“For endurance athletes, as long as you keep burning fat,
you are using an almost unlimited storage of energy and you will be able to
perform at these levels for very long periods of time. It is only when a very
high amount of your calorie consumption comes from carbohydrates, in your case
at HR 128 or 210 watts, your endurance for long distance events will go down
significantly.
“Overall, you have a low fat metabolism. Your highest fat
burn rate of 63% is achieved at HR 88 and 60 watts followed by a very sharp
decline thereafter. Your anaerobe zone is reached at HR 137. Majority of your
biking should occur in the aerobe zones, TZ1 and TZ2. Your training should
primarily focus on building fat metabolism. Do long bike rides in TZ1 up to HR
110. This will increase your overall endurance for long distance races as you
are training your body to burn more fat calories of which you have an almost
unlimited amount of storage. In addition, do some bike rides in TZ2 especially
during racing season. This will improve your stamina and speed performance and
push out your anaerobe threshold further to the right. However, it is important
to first focus on building fat metabolism in the low-medium HR to improve
overall biking profile.”
Some people show vastly different results in bike and run. They
may, for example, be an extremely efficient runner who burns predominantly fat
until a very high speed however, when they jump on the bike, they have to work
far harder and therefore burn predominantly carbohydrates unless they keep
their heart rates very low.
That isn’t the case for me, however; my bike and run show
very, very similar results and Sreeya and Markus were able to make almost the
same conclusion.
To conclude, it’s clear that I’m a pretty fit person who is
well-trained. It’s also clear that I’m predominantly a shorter distance, power
athlete, rather than a natural endurance athlete. This is backed up by the fact
that, even when a lot younger and when I was a competitive swimmer, I always
specialised in the sprint events like 50m-100m fly and backstroke. I made
regional school track finals in sprints and hurdle events, but you’d have found
me at the back of a cross-country, in spite of my aerobic capacity garnered
from swimming. And although I’ve been doing triathlon for a couple of years now,
I’ve still not had enough time to build that big aerobic (fat burning) base.
In which case – as I’m saying that the Aerofit scan backed up
what I already knew – does that make it pointless?
Not at all. As I’ve explained, there are all manner of
results and data you can pull from this and some of the more interesting
information for me revolves around the number of calories I burn per hour at a
given rate of exertion. This has helped me to really nail a nutrition plan for
my upcoming Ironman.
But the zones themselves have proven useful. It’s all very
well to say, as someone still relatively new to endurance sports and is built
for power rather than distance, I need to train long and easy to build an
endurance base. But what is ‘long and easy’. Having those exact figures – those
magic numbers if you will – has informed all my longer training since to the
point that, when doing my longer solo
sessions, I no longer even have the speed/pace on display on my Garmin, judging
everything on heart rate.
A few days ago, I went out and did one of my longest runs I’ll
do for Ironman – a 32km effort – and based it purely on not exceeding the 70%
(130bpm) heart rate that the aeroscan outlined. This kept it steady but, most
surprisingly of all was that, by the end I felt pretty good. My legs were
getting a little bit sore (I’d been running on hard paving rather than kinder
trails or tarmac so this was to be expected) and I was thirsty (I’d kept
hydration and nutrition down to pretty minimal levels) but still felt better
than I’d expect to after this sort of training run. Turns out I’d only been
running a little over 6min/km, but the
pace is of little importance in this sort of run – by keeping steady and
at/under the magic number, I’d felt none of the usual peaks/troughs I’d have
expected to feel during that sort of run and, to boot, I recovered really
quickly too, ready to train the next day.
The acid test, of course, will come on Ironman race day. Can
this training be turned into a goal time over 140.6 miles?