That's the +/- 10-15% I mentioned previously.

Hey Ed-

I built additional pages into that template that documented running economy in ml/kg/km, which would have negated the need for you to calculate that on your own.

At first glance on your results, your oxygen cost appears to be a bit high. This can be due to a few factors.
1. Your biomechanics, muscle architecture and fiber type (do you have large calves?) etc.
2. Effect of altitude (increased cost of ventilation, etc.)
3. Testing equipment

I'm going to make the assumption that it is not equipment as the testing is done on Parvo Metabolic carts and that they were probably properly calibrated.

Additionally, the upward sloping lactate baselines are congruent with someone whom had a lower running economy. (You and I, we're in the same boat!)

Considering those factors, it would be within normal limits to see a decrease in running economy with increasing speeds. This could be biomechnical / running form related factors. However, without being the individual who conducted your tests, I'm unable to truly know this particular situation.

---

I talk a lot - Give it a listen: http://www.fasttalklabs.com/category/fast-talk
I also give Training Advice via http://www.ForeverEndurance.com

The above poster has eschewed traditional employment and is currently undertaking the ill-conceived task of launching his own hardgoods company. Statements are not made on behalf of nor reflective of anything in any manner... unless they're good, then they count.
http://www.AGNCYINNOVATION.com

Except I used to be fat. I was one of those people who would gain then lose then regain weight. Then, I dedicated to studying the science behind food, energy, and exercise.

Fast forward 8 years and I lost 95 pounds of fat, kept it off and am now underweight and have maintained 5% body fat for two years w/o any huge fluctuations in that %. (Not doing that on purpose. Just got too good at the keeping fat off thing.) Also, no diets. Just eating according to macros and expenditure.

Yes, my calorie expenditure is from lab testing.

I find those calorie numbers very suspect.

(Quote) "I did a metabolic test a couple of years ago at CU Boulder. Here are the major results. You can see that running at 8:34 pace I was burning 899 kcal/hr. At that pace I was burning a little more fat than carbs. At 6:18 pace I was burning 1461 kcal/hr , almost entirely carbs. That's a pretty big increase in metabolic rate as pace increases - about 62%. But that is kcal/hour, not kcal/mile. When I convert to kcal/mile at the different paces, I get 128 for 8:34 pace, 153 for 6:18 pace - a 19.5% increase. So it's a much smaller increase, but I would not call it insignificant - especially when you are considering pacing/fueling strategies for long distance races where stored glycogen is insufficient to get you to the finish line.

Ed - JOOC, what did you weigh at the time of this test??? Also, did you do a resting metabolic rate (RMR) test??? I've never done the treadmill test but did do the RMR and came out at about 14.2 cal/lb, or about 2580 cal at 182 lb and 6'2".

---

"Anyone can be who they want to be IF they have the HUNGER and the DRIVE."

I find those calorie numbers very suspect.//

The numbers, or how they were come by in the test? And an explanation of why would be nice to hear too..

Why do you find them suspect?

---

-------------
Ed O'Malley
www.VeloVetta.com
Founder of VeloVetta Cycling Shoes
Instagram • Facebook

Is this true for cycling also, e.g. can we say energy cost is X kcal/mile for a given mass regardless of speed??? Or to put it more generally in metric units, kcal/kg/km???

---

"Anyone can be who they want to be IF they have the HUNGER and the DRIVE."

Thanks, Rob.

I do have large calves. I'm a mesomorph. I weighed around 158 at 5'9.5 during that test. My weight stays pretty consistent. Never under 156, never over 160.

My running has improved since then. My sprint tri pace that season was probably 6:28, now more like 6:18. I did my first IM that year and ran 4:0x. In October I ran 3:36 in lmlou. Since I've aged from 38 to 41 now, I wonder how much of that is running economy and morphology changes and how much is fitness. thanks

---

-------------
Ed O'Malley
www.VeloVetta.com
Founder of VeloVetta Cycling Shoes
Instagram • Facebook

I weighed 158 @5'9.5. never done rmr.

---

-------------
Ed O'Malley
www.VeloVetta.com
Founder of VeloVetta Cycling Shoes
Instagram • Facebook

Given drag increases with the cube of speed I would say we cannot say that.

---

-------------
Ed O'Malley
www.VeloVetta.com
Founder of VeloVetta Cycling Shoes
Instagram • Facebook

The numbers. See my explanation below.

We're basically the same weight. I only have the experience of 60,000 miles of running for myself, and a few other pretty high level runners that I've been around.

Your results said you burned 900 calories at 7 miles for an hour. That's incredible. That's almost 130 calories per mile. Just doesn't pass the sniff test. 1400 calories for 9 miles an hour? Again, sniff test. Just no way. I wish it was that high.

Call me anti-science, but I just can't believe that. If those types of calorie burns were correct, I'd have lost all my weight over the past 15 years.

So..... Do you have any hard numbers to compare these to that make you believe they don't pass the smell test? Are you saying that you don't believe the numbers because you think if they were right then you would be losing weight? That's not a convincing argument.

These numbers are direct measurements from accurate machines.

---

-------------
Ed O'Malley
www.VeloVetta.com
Founder of VeloVetta Cycling Shoes
Instagram • Facebook

I am saying that from real world experience I know them to not be true.

I don't care what some algorithm says.

There's no algorithm. This is measurement, not estimation.

What in your experience let's you know how many calories you are burning at certain paces.

---

-------------
Ed O'Malley
www.VeloVetta.com
Founder of VeloVetta Cycling Shoes
Instagram • Facebook

900 calories burned running in a hour, or 130 cal/mile is eminently realistic for avg-bodied runners. Nothing wacky about it.

1400 calories burned at 9miles an hour is also eminently believable, just takes you longer to burn the calories than if you were running faster (but not like 2x longer.)

Ah, good point, I've read that before, not sure why i didn't think about that.

---

"Anyone can be who they want to be IF they have the HUNGER and the DRIVE."

Now, I did not perform this test, but I did create the template and implemented the calculations, so I can lend some insight.

Equipment.

• 1 of 2 ParvoMedics Metabolic Carts. If I recall correctly, Pat had visited recently, so everything should have been dialed.
• Lactate plus lactate monitor. (I lamented the loss of my YSI, but it was a red-tape nightmare when both the University and the hospital had jurisdiction over the lab)
• Treadmill: Woodway 4Front

The Ed.

• Based on morphology, Ed is set up to be a less economical runner
• Boulder altitude can increase the energetic cost of running
• Upward-sloping baseline lactate, plus threshold pace indicate a moderate training status

The numbers

• Because Ed added his weight into this thread, I back calculated VO2 and RER for each stage as well as Running Economy (RE) in mk/kg/km.
• The relative VO2 measures (ml/kg/min) are at the high end (see above), but within ACSM RE measurements for the given running speeds
• Therefore, ml/kg/km are high, but normal (Ed's range 226-245 ml/kg/km for the given speeds)(ACSM for moderately trained ~215-225ml/kg/km for the given speeds)
• If I remember correctly, Caloric expenditure was calculated from Peronnet & Massicotte (1991) (Been a few years!)
• This equation tends to be higher than other equations, including the Jeukendrup & Wallis (2004) equations that I used prior to CU at Boulder Center for Sports Medicine. If I remember correctly, the Peronnet equations were a request from Inigo.
• When recalculated with the Jeukendrup equations, there is a Caloric savings of ~40kcals/hr at low intensities and ~120kcal/hr at high intensities (the equations primarily differ in calculation of CHO grams/min).

If there is any other insight that I can lend, please do not hesitate to ask.

---

I talk a lot - Give it a listen: http://www.fasttalklabs.com/category/fast-talk
I also give Training Advice via http://www.ForeverEndurance.com

The above poster has eschewed traditional employment and is currently undertaking the ill-conceived task of launching his own hardgoods company. Statements are not made on behalf of nor reflective of anything in any manner... unless they're good, then they count.
http://www.AGNCYINNOVATION.com

How was threshold pace determined? I was probably an 18:50 5k runner at the time. The threshold on the chart seems slow to me. I never really took those zones as being definitive but as a byproduct of the pace I was told to run for the test.

Does the lactate curve determine it?

---

-------------
Ed O'Malley
www.VeloVetta.com
Founder of VeloVetta Cycling Shoes
Instagram • Facebook

Ed-
Yes, the lactate curve is the primary driver of "threshold" determination. However, other factors can "nudge" that up or down.

I can see why that particular threshold was chosen (it corresponds to an inflection point / non-linear rise / a rise of 1mmol followed by 1.5 or greater on the subsequent stage. (Edited to remove incorrect labeling of "Coyle Method").

My arm wouldn't have to be twisted very hard to nudge it up. Personally, I always used the modified Dmax method. I've found it works well, but is a bit difficult to understand. Additionally, It's likely that I would have had you do another stage, but again, I can understand why you were stopped where you were as we typically looked for lactates >8.0mmol/L prior to ending the test and 7.9 is very close.

To play devil's advocate on the prior posting: IF the oxygen sensor were reading high, that would explain the increased Caloric expenditure, but would also have lowered the RER and I do not see that being the case. Thus the CO2 sensor would have to be a bit off as well and I really do not see both of them being off.

Therefore, I feel the raw data that you received is accurate. There will always be slight variation in interpretation between individuals. However, in this case, the end results are equivocal.

Case in point: I tend to define the upper end of my threshold zone (4) with the threshold pace, whereas this tester tends to increase threshold zone above the threshold pace. At the end of the day, both my interpretation of Zone 4 and theirs are essentially the same number and therefore the practical take away is the same. But, my "Threshold" pace would have made you feel better ;). I'd also say the same about Zone 2 as well. Frankly those are the two most important values to take away from a test like that. Anything over threshold, frankly, ought to just be $%#@ hard!

---

I talk a lot - Give it a listen: http://www.fasttalklabs.com/category/fast-talk
I also give Training Advice via http://www.ForeverEndurance.com

The above poster has eschewed traditional employment and is currently undertaking the ill-conceived task of launching his own hardgoods company. Statements are not made on behalf of nor reflective of anything in any manner... unless they're good, then they count.
http://www.AGNCYINNOVATION.com

Just an FYI: unless Ed (Coyle) has changed his approach over the years, that's not how he pucks LT.

(Agree with you that interpreting lactate data can sometimes be like reading tea leaves, especially when you factor in normal biological and technological variability.)

Technically, it is estimation. That is why it is called INdirect calorimetry.

The assumptions involved have been well-validated, however, so it generally as being just as (if not more) accurate as direct calorimetry, at least when applied to the study of exercise.

When reading Rob's post I realized my mistake!

---

-------------
Ed O'Malley
www.VeloVetta.com
Founder of VeloVetta Cycling Shoes
Instagram • Facebook

You would know better than me!

---

I talk a lot - Give it a listen: http://www.fasttalklabs.com/category/fast-talk
I also give Training Advice via http://www.ForeverEndurance.com

The above poster has eschewed traditional employment and is currently undertaking the ill-conceived task of launching his own hardgoods company. Statements are not made on behalf of nor reflective of anything in any manner... unless they're good, then they count.
http://www.AGNCYINNOVATION.com