Author Topic: Peak Flow 270  (Read 6058 times)

clarion

  • Tyke
Peak Flow 270
« on: July 09, 2008, 09:25:10 pm »
That may not mean much to a lot of people, but it's a measure of lung activity.

For a chap of my size, I should be blowing 650 litres per minute.  At the doctors this morning, I managed only 270.  Then I rode to work.  In the rain.  :-\

OK, so I've been much worse - on at least one memorable occasion when a v keen junior doctor disagreed with me and obviously wasn't going to be happy until I'd blown in the damn meter, when it didn't register (scale tends to start at 60).

On the one hand, it's a really sh1te way of measuring asthma, for a variety of reasons which I could bore you with for the next week.  ::-)

On the other hand, it's pretty remarkable that I can get to work in 30mins with a deeply inadequate amount of oxygen tickling my alveoli.

On the third hand, should I be riding in the rain at all?  :-\ ???
Getting there...

Re: Peak Flow 270
« Reply #1 on: July 09, 2008, 09:31:51 pm »
Blimey 270 is low im very wheezy when I drop to that level (im usually 550 ish) i find its the wind that catches me so like my mouth and nose covered when outside no matter what im doing if the weather is bad.

peliroja

  • Mrs Woolly
Re: Peak Flow 270
« Reply #2 on: July 09, 2008, 09:39:05 pm »
I'm 350 on a *very* good day, so 270 isn't too low for me. My lung capacity is tiny.

No wonder I am rubbish on the bike.

Wowbagger

  • Dez's butler
    • Musings of a Gentleman Cyclist
Re: Peak Flow 270
« Reply #3 on: July 09, 2008, 09:43:35 pm »
I'm 350 on a *very* good day, so 270 isn't too low for me. My lung capacity is tiny.

No wonder I am rubbish on the bike.

That's not what I saw on Sunday, Ms Peli Gorgeous-Roja!
Oh, Bach without any doubt. Bach every time for me.

clarion

  • Tyke
Re: Peak Flow 270
« Reply #4 on: July 09, 2008, 09:48:29 pm »
I'm 350 on a *very* good day, so 270 isn't too low for me. My lung capacity is tiny.

No wonder I am rubbish on the bike.

I did wonder if you did ride at your prodigious speeds despite your lung function.  I'm even more impressed now.

FTR, I'm about 450 when well.
Getting there...

Mike J

  • Guinea Pig Man
Re: Peak Flow 270
« Reply #5 on: July 09, 2008, 10:02:04 pm »
I'm at average about 450, which always seems to amaze the doctors as they reckon I should be much higher, but have never been able to acheive it.

Re: Peak Flow 270
« Reply #6 on: July 09, 2008, 10:47:53 pm »
I'm 350 on a *very* good day, so 270 isn't too low for me. My lung capacity is tiny.

No wonder I am rubbish on the bike.

Tut tut!  Remember, you're not allowed to make comments running yourself down!

 :-* :demon:
Your Royal Charles are belong to us.

hellymedic

  • Just do it!
Re: Peak Flow 270
« Reply #7 on: July 10, 2008, 03:03:12 am »
270 is low for a peak flow reading, but how much do you really need to shift? 30 breaths of 3 litres per minute would constitute heavy breathing but you may only need a peak flow of around 180 to achieve it. It would be hard work thouh.

The Mechanic

Re: Peak Flow 270
« Reply #8 on: July 10, 2008, 10:24:07 am »
My usual is about 560 but has been as low as 500 in the pollen season.  I seem to have been a lot better in the last 2-3 years.  However, I always huff, puff and wheeze in the first 15-30 mins of any ride until my lungs get used to the effort.  I find a couple of puffs of ventolin minimise this effect though.  I also take a Q-Var inhaler and Singulair tabs which helps longer term.

When I was a lad I used to have periods of bearly being able to breath at all in the summer but, back then, no-one seemed to care :'(  Didn't stop me racing as a schoolboy and junior though.

Re: Peak Flow 270
« Reply #9 on: July 10, 2008, 11:13:53 am »
As you've found out, cycling at that kind of speed (i.e. not much below 20mph) doesn't require an amazing amount of lung function. It's more fitness and CV efficiency.

When I was 12 and first diagnosed with asthma I was one of the fastest sprinters in the school, I could out-swim everyone and I could happily do 50+ mile bike rides at a reasonable pace. 200m sprint was ok, usually first or second. 400m run I'd be slowest by 5 seconds. 1500m I'd be slowest by a minute. Football I relied on being skillful rather than being able to race around the pitch for 90 minutes. All with a peak flow of about 180 (at its worst but usually 200 or so).

The asthma has since cleared up (only to be replaced by smoking for 10 years, but it's 2 years since the last tab). Next time I go to the quack I'll see if I can get another peak flow test, just to see what I am now. I wouldn't think there's any reason for me to be under 600.

Limited lung function will not be a problem at Audax/commuting type speeds. It would definitely affect you if you wanted to start doing some Time-Trialling as it doesn't take many mph more to hit limits of lung capacity and VO2-max.
"Yes please" said Squirrel "biscuits are our favourite things."

tiermat

  • According to Jane, I'm a Unisex SpaceAdmin
Re: Peak Flow 270
« Reply #10 on: July 10, 2008, 11:22:09 am »
The last time I had one of these done (along with lung capacity test) I had to do it twice, as the first time it nearly went of the scale and the person doing the test thought they had got it wrong.

Maybe that is a reason I can shout so loud(as those on the Tykes ride can attest to)? hmmm, ponders...
I feel like Captain Kirk, on a brand new planet every day, a little like King Kong on top of the Empire State

mattc

  • n.b. have grown beard since photo taken
    • Didcot Audaxes
Re: Peak Flow 270
« Reply #11 on: July 10, 2008, 11:28:33 am »
When I was 12 and first diagnosed with asthma I was one of the fastest sprinters in the school, I could out-swim everyone and I could happily do 50+ mile bike rides at a reasonable pace. 200m sprint was ok, usually first or second. 400m run I'd be slowest by 5 seconds. 1500m I'd be slowest by a minute. Football I relied on being skillful rather than being able to race around the pitch for 90 minutes. All with a peak flow of about 180 (at its worst but usually 200 or so).
Blimey - you're a walking physiology paper!

(I'm jealous of anyone who could actually WIN stuff at skool.)
Has never ridden RAAM
---------
No.11  Because of the great host of those who dislike the least appearance of "swank " when they travel the roads and lanes. - From Kuklos' 39 Articles

Re: Peak Flow 270
« Reply #12 on: July 10, 2008, 11:30:44 am »
Everyone else was just more shit than me. :)
"Yes please" said Squirrel "biscuits are our favourite things."

clarion

  • Tyke
Re: Peak Flow 270
« Reply #13 on: July 10, 2008, 11:34:40 am »
It's true that I used to be best at the explosive sports - throwing, jumping & sprinting, and collapsed with an asthma attack before finishing a 1500m.  And that was only on the days when I was able to do PE at all.  90min of foopball was beyond me, though I could cope with the stop-start nature of volleyball and rugby (and captained the hockey team, too).

But I find that now I'm best at activity which requires a longer, more even power input.  Walking is fine, but I keep an even pace up a hill.  Similarly, I try to keep a level power output when cycling.  I'm quick away from the lights, but my top speed is generally no higher than 30-35kph, and I wouldn't be able to get into a sprint - probably due to the limits you're talking about.

I need to up my mileage though...
Getting there...

Jezza

Re: Peak Flow 270
« Reply #14 on: July 13, 2008, 09:42:44 am »
740 here. They measured it when I did a diving course. The nurse thought there had been an error, and made me do it three times. 740, 720, 730. She then told me to enter the Tour de France.

Valiant

  • aka Sam
    • Radiance Audio
Re: Peak Flow 270
« Reply #15 on: July 13, 2008, 02:40:53 pm »
I'm 350 on a *very* good day, so 270 isn't too low for me. My lung capacity is tiny.

No wonder I am rubbish on the bike.

I can manage 530 and I'm half the athlete you are! You my dear are anything but rubbish.
You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say will be misquoted, then used against you.

Support Equilibrium

Re: Peak Flow 270
« Reply #16 on: July 13, 2008, 10:16:50 pm »
I'm 350 on a *very* good day, so 270 isn't too low for me. My lung capacity is tiny.

Peak flow relates to the rate of flow through the airways rather than lung volumes.

clarion

  • Tyke
Re: Peak Flow 270
« Reply #17 on: July 14, 2008, 10:45:20 am »
Only full spirometry measures lung capacity and breath profile.  Peak flow is a bit of unscientific 'finger in the air' stuff.

*resists temptation to rant for hours about PF*

Breathing is a bit better this week, but I am suffering the effects of amoxycillin.  That reminds me - gotta go! :-\
Getting there...

peliroja

  • Mrs Woolly
Re: Peak Flow 270
« Reply #18 on: July 14, 2008, 10:49:19 am »
I'm 350 on a *very* good day, so 270 isn't too low for me. My lung capacity is tiny.

Peak flow relates to the rate of flow through the airways rather than lung volumes.
You nurses.  ::-) You knew what I meant.  ;)

Re: Peak Flow 270
« Reply #19 on: July 14, 2008, 12:13:18 pm »
When I last did the test I assume you are talking about (blowing into the little machine?), the doctor kept making me try again, as she said it was lower than it should be for somone of my height. She then sent me for a chest x-ray when I couldn't make it any higher. Found nothing though.

Embarrassingly enough, I had taken myself along to my GP because, when I first started cycle commuting around London a few years ago, admittedly on a very heavy steel SS, I could go all of three miles before the pain in my lungs got so bad I had to get off and have a rest. That slight incline up the Charing X rd near did me in. I went because I was worried something was wrong! As unfit as I am now, I did used to be so much worse.

Until very recently my lungs always gave out on a hill before my legs did, but my legs have taken over hurting first these days.

Re: Peak Flow 270
« Reply #20 on: July 14, 2008, 10:16:51 pm »
I'm 350 on a *very* good day, so 270 isn't too low for me. My lung capacity is tiny.

Peak flow relates to the rate of flow through the airways rather than lung volumes.
You nurses.  ::-) You knew what I meant.  ;)

 ;D

Well after Saturday I concluded that your lungs were at least as big as mine  ;D