CU MET Test results curious

  • Creator
  • #29399
    Steve T

    Had a one year follow up at the CU lab in Boulder. Definite improvement in Fat burning. However, curious as to what my AeT should be. The administrater put my AeT at 140, though with lactate numbers (1.9) seems to be closer to 159. Also based on a rough AnT of 177 from chart, it seems upper 150’s would be logical. Quite a difference in where I should be training! Just trying to get the best out of the ‘Gold Standard’ test.

    Any thoughts appreciated.

    You must be logged in to view attached files.
  • Participant
    depeyster on #29506


    I was looking forward to see what the experts had to say, although upon looking at your report one thing popped out immediately to me.

    Based only on gas exchange, my understanding of the uphill athlete position, based in part on this thread, is that your AeT lies between 107 and 120 bpm, probably slightly closer to 120. Call it 116.

    I have always found it more difficult to interpret lactate graphs. So, I won’t hazard a guess.

    But if, for the sake of argument, your lactate does show an AeT of 140, it seems to me that the same basic advice that Scott Johnston gave on Feb. 12, 2018, would also apply to you. You need to become fat-adapted so that you are burning 50/50 fat calories/CHO calories at your AET. Right now you are not burning sufficient fat.

    Hope that helps.

    JGwartney on #29514

    After a quick look at your results I would agree that your AeT is in the high 150’s. I don’t think the HR zone system the lab is using translates very well to the zone system in TFTUA.

    Congrats on your progress.

    Dada on #29519

    The doc from the lab where I did my test used this method:

    AeT is at the point where the lactate increases the first time by 0.4mmol. So, in your case that would be 128 bpm.

    How is your breathing? When are you not able to mouth breathe anymore?

    Steve T on #29557

    I appreciate the input everyone, though it is interesting that people have quite different interpretations of the data. I have 4 years of training using TFTNA fundamentals currently on the 5th! I’m sure in some of the early years that targets were not set correctly, but volume has been consistent throughout, and I’ve been right on track the last couple. I have read and believe I understand most of the great articles and information that the guys/gals have put out.

    My nose breathing is steady through the mid 150’s bpm when properly warmed up. Getting to 50/50 Carb/Fat calories at AeT takes some time. I can see improvements but still a ways off. So many different ways that people seem to set AeT; 50/50 crossover, lactate 2.0, percentage of AnT, nose breathing?

    The CU lab sets target goals for future training where they believe the HR/Lactate curves need to be smoothed out. Often well below their perceived AeT. The lower HR’s for improved Fat burning/the upper AeT HR’s for increased mitochondria volume/lactate metabolism.

    But if anything, I am a poster child for having a relatively low VO2, but still seem to get by. CU recommended a small amount of HIIT to improve the engine size as well.
    Any comments from the coaches?

    Anonymous on #29568

    Steve T:

    As I have mentioned there are a number of ways to define the two principle metabolic markers we like to base our Zone system on. AeT can be defined using ventilation, RER and also lactate. Sadly exercise science can not come to a consensus as to one definition of this. So the best you can do is to be consistent so you are comparing apples to apples from test to test.

    As mentioned on the site in several places and in our book we use the point where lactate rises 1mMol/L above its lowest level. This has been the convention for as long as I can recall. This would indicate 159. Usually this coincides closely to the 50/50 fat/carbs cross over. In your case it looks to me like you would benefit from better fat adaptation. Maybe some fasted z1-2 workouts?? Maybe some dietary modification with more fat and less carbs??

    As for the AnT. 176 seems to be where lactate jumps. I prefer to have my athletes do a field test to find this point. This test you did is transitory so you pass through the AnT and don’t linger there. Our field test is described here . It is likely that it will be close to the 176 number. With your AeT and AnT within 10% of one another I agree that adding some intensity to your program will be appropriate.


    Steve T on #29580

    Brilliant! Thanks Scott and other inputs. I try to do my homework before begging for answers, but this matches closely with my own analysis. Perhaps exercise science cannot agree with one AeT definition because the variables are so many. Multiple data points over time give a much more accurate picture of the individuals aerobic fitness, whereas the snapshot is prone to a margin of error. Apples to apples is a good rule of thumb, and a good source of fiber! Especially where HR can be a secondary response, affected by fatigue, illness, drift, anxiety, etc… From this forum, it’s clear individuals have unique responses to training stimulus and the adaptation process in terms of time, rest, intensity, etc… I hope others can benefit from this thread. Here is the fat adaption link from the site

    Oh yeah, I have been increasing the good fats intake; avocado, olive oil, peanutbutter. With consistancy I hope this helps yields results!

Viewing 6 replies - 1 through 6 (of 6 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.