posted Sep-15-2005 09:32 AM            

Edited: Typo.

------------------
topdown

[This message has been edited by topdown (edited Sep-15-2005).]
 

posted Sep-15-2005 10:11 AM            

Here is what I get in, in about 35 minutes 2 sets, 12-15 reps

Deadlifts (bent leg, from the floor)
Bench Press
Squats (ATF)
Standing Presses (bar from waist)
Ham String curls
Adductor/Abductor (Good for IT band)
Abs
Calves
..and then bi's and tri's if time.

------------------
topdown
 

posted Sep-15-2005 03:13 PM         

quote:

---

Originally posted by topdown:
That is excactly what is expected. Read my observations from my 1/2 marathon above. The further you go the harder it is to maintain the same heart rate at the same pace. That is for me the number 1 goal of this training. When running a marathon, I want my heart rate to stay at a lower rate for a longer period, period!

---

So, ok I understand that. I am considering running either a mar. or 1/2 in mid December. I have begun a training schedule for a marathon with the mindset that if I feel like it is too much to take on right now that I will do the 1/2 instead. So far I feel fine, but I'm not that far into it as far as longer distance runs. I have read about Maf, heart rate reserve and max hr formulas and basically have just picked some ranges for me that are kind of hybrids (based on my rate of perceived exertion and it's correlation with my hr). The MHR felt too low, the HRR felt too high; my MAF would be 150.

I have been running 20-25 mpw for close to a year. Previous running experience of about 30 mpw, but with a long layoff. No history of injuries. Is the fact that my heart rate started to creep up after 8 miles a sign that I am nowhere near ready to even consider the marathon (even with a goal of finishing in less than 6 hours)? It got into the low 140's which was still within my calculated "easy" range, I didn't feel anymore out of breath, I just slowed down because it was my longest run to date and I didn't want to overdo it. Honest opinions, I can take them! (as long as they are not mean...)

Thanks very much.
 

posted Sep-15-2005 09:33 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by gooddogs:
HI there,

I am just getting into the HRM stuff, so I am still learning. I ran 10 miles on Sunday. My goal was to keep my HR under 140. I was able to do the first 8.5 miles at a constant but slow pace (12.5 mm), but had to slow down for the last 1.5 miles to 13.5 mm to maintain my hr of 139. Is this normal or does it just mean I am not well conditioned? I was on a treadmill if that matters. My legs felt like I could have kept running farther although I was a bit fatigued later in the day. Felt fine the next day. Thank you.

---

As mentioned earlier, it's absolutely normal. And the pace will
slow at a higher rate as you get later. Just did through my running
logs and you'll see it every long run. Once you start dehydrating,
your "dehydration pace" will pick up as you get later and later and
your heart rate will really start to increase. I also have a point
around 15 or 16 miles where my heart rate really starts to push and
it becomes a major struggle to keep below MAF. As you get better
aerobic conditioning, you can push this distance out more and more
as long as you can stay hydrated.

------------------
MyRunningLog

MyStuff
 

posted Sep-15-2005 09:35 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by reddiscoii:
I have been following this thread with interest. I just noticed, however, that Maffetone feels that weight lifting is anaerobic, and should be eliminated totally. How much trouble will I have with base building if I continue to lift two to three times per week?

---

I just ignored that, but I should say that I don't do any lower
body weightlifting because my legs get too big. I do a lot of
upper body workouts. Keep in mind that you really only have
to follow the rules strictly during a basebuilding period, generally
around 12 weeks.

------------------
MyRunningLog

MyStuff
 

posted Sep-15-2005 09:40 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by gooddogs:
Is the fact that my heart rate started to creep up after 8 miles a sign that I am nowhere near ready to even consider the marathon (even with a goal of finishing in less than 6 hours)? It got into the low 140's which was still within my calculated "easy" range, I didn't feel anymore out of breath, I just slowed down because it was my longest run to date and I didn't want to overdo it. Honest opinions, I can take them! (as long as they are not mean...)

Thanks very much.

---

No, and in fact, it sounds like you'll be starting out this form of training
better than most. I only give honest opinions - you'll never see me
give anyone a "go for it" who just got through posting how he
can barely walk, couldn't get any of their long runs in, and now wants
to run a marathon next Saturday because "he's in good shape and
has no problem running 5 miles."

------------------
MyRunningLog

MyStuff
 

posted Sep-15-2005 11:45 PM         

Here are the questions - should I just go ahead and cut over from the C25K program to Maffetone and continue to build mileage at the inevitable slower pace I'll see while staying under my limit? If I do, should I run for distance or time at this pont, or would it be better for me to complete the C25K (only three more weeks) then begin to apply Maffetone's principles then?
 

posted Sep-16-2005 01:05 AM            

The article is called EASY DOES IT ...The key to running faster: lots of slow miles.
A PARAPHRASED SUMMARY:

STUDY THAT WAS CITED: 8 high level Spanish runners were monitored for 7 months as they trained for the national cross country championship.

How much time they spent in three different zones were measured.

ZONE 1: Light intensity--140 beats per minute and below

ZONE 2: Moderate-- 140-171 BPM

ZONE 3: High-- Above 171

As a group the runners spent:
71% of miles in in Zone 1
21% in Zone 2
8% in Zone 3

The runners that spent the most time in ZONE 1 did the best.

How accurate or scientific wa the study? I don't know. I'm a playwright not a researcher scientist, Spock.

The article basically points to the importance of low heart rate training (aerobic training). And that what some like to calll "garbage" miles, are not garbage at all, but the rock solid foundation of a fit body.

The article is found on Page 40 of the October 2005 issue.

--Jimmy

Running Profile

[This message has been edited by jjwaverly42 (edited Sep-16-2005).]
 

posted Sep-16-2005 06:35 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by bgordo3:
Hope you don't mind me asking this in here...I'm a 44 year old undertaking the C25K (W6D3) and already planning what to do next. Obviously I should be concerned with building base mileage, and it appears the Maffetone method is the key to that development.

Here are the questions - should I just go ahead and cut over from the C25K program to Maffetone and continue to build mileage at the inevitable slower pace I'll see while staying under my limit? If I do, should I run for distance or time at this pont, or would it be better for me to complete the C25K (only three more weeks) then begin to apply Maffetone's principles then?

---

If you're doing the C25K, Maffetone's method would not involve
a deviation from that, it would just tell you what heart rate to stay
under for every run. I wouldn't call it a switchover. Given that you
are a new runner, it's probably going to be very challenging to stay
under the MAF heart rate, but if you can, that would be great.

------------------
MyRunningLog

MyStuff
 

posted Sep-16-2005 07:50 AM            

------------------
MyRunningLog

MyStuff
 

posted Sep-16-2005 07:58 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by jjwaverly42:
RUnner's World had an article under THE FAST LANE : Training Advice For PEak PErformers by Ed Eyestone.

The article is called EASY DOES IT ...The key to running faster: lots of slow miles.
A PARAPHRASED SUMMARY:

STUDY THAT WAS CITED: 8 high level Spanish runners were monitored for 7 months as they trained for the national cross country championship.

How much time they spent in three different zones were measured.

ZONE 1: Light intensity--140 beats per minute and below

ZONE 2: Moderate-- 140-171 BPM

ZONE 3: High-- Above 171

As a group the runners spent:
71% of miles in in Zone 1
21% in Zone 2
8% in Zone 3

The runners that spent the most time in ZONE 1 did the best.

How accurate or scientific wa the study? I don't know. I'm a playwright not a researcher scientist, Spock.

The article basically points to the importance of low heart rate training (aerobic training). And that what some like to calll "garbage" miles, are not garbage at all, but the rock solid foundation of a fit body.

The article is found on Page 40 of the October 2005 issue.

--Jimmy

Running Profile

[This message has been edited by jjwaverly42 (edited Sep-16-2005).]

---

I saw that one, too. It was quite interesting. There are many a folk
that call most of my mileage junk mileage! That's ok, I do a lot better
with junk mileage than I did with my old approach of "every training
session is a race."

------------------
MyRunningLog

MyStuff
 

posted Sep-16-2005 10:06 AM         

quote:

---

Originally posted by leitnerj:
If you're doing the C25K, Maffetone's method would not involve
a deviation from that, it would just tell you what heart rate to stay
under for every run. I wouldn't call it a switchover. Given that you
are a new runner, it's probably going to be very challenging to stay
under the MAF heart rate, but if you can, that would be great.

---

You've actually identified the reason I call it a switchover - staying under the MAF heart rate. I've been running for time, not distance in the program, I'd probably make what I'm calling a switch for distance rather than time.

At this point there would probably be a combination of jogging/race-walking involved, which I'm fine with. I guess it really doesn't matter - I'm just thinking that if I switch now, given that I can do the 2.25 steady, why not just do the 2.25 at or below MAF.

Sort of a change in "training philosophy" question now that I think about it. Right now my HR goes up to 162 or so during the workout (the upper limit is getting lower every week). I could complete the C25K with time as a goal (building the run up to 30 minutes) just to say I've completed it and then slow down, or I could just go ahead and slow down and work the mileage up to 3 miles.

Given that I'll have to crawl at this point to stay under my MAF, the point is if I used the MAF limit today, I'd already have met the 30 minute goal of the C25K program. And, since I'm under MAF, I imagine I could do the 5K today too. (Hey I completed the 9 week program in 6 weeks!) Maybe I'm missing something though.

The obvious benefits of this method versus the conventional wisdom make this an important issue for this newbie.

 

posted Sep-16-2005 04:47 PM            

------------------
My Profile
 

posted Sep-16-2005 08:46 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by wvdad:
Today i did my first outside run using maff. To me it was easier than using the treadmill.This is my third week and i am starting to see improvement already.Before using this i ran 9 to 9:30 miles and usually ran six miles at a time before my half marathon training.I started this maff after my half and was running 12 to 12:30 minute miles for five miles at a time.I havent ran more than 5 miles in a run yet but my time today was 27 minutes for the first 2.5 mile loop and 28:30 for the second loop.I found it alot easier to control my hr outside than on the treadmill.I do have a confession that i would like to share and maybe get your thoughts on.While running my second loop,i ran across a few gals coming the other way on the trail and i unknowingly sped up for about 60 seconds and once past them i looked at my hrm and i had shot up to 159.my high maff is 149,it only took 30 seconds or so for my hr to drop back below 147.The whole incident didnt last longer than 1:30 to 1:45.The strange thing is after the elevation i noticed that ran at a faster pace than before but my rate,once dropped,stayed lower than before. Kind of like the one minute spike in hr had given me a second wind.Honestly that spike didnt last 2 minutes and i never went above 149 again.

---

Which were you confessing, that you checked out the gals coming
the other way or that you sped up when you saw them? Just kidding -
it's great to see the progress. I notice the same thing when I just
complete a long and/or steep downhill - my pace is then picked up
for a while even after the hill is done.

Good for you that you had a good today. Today was my worst run
of the whole season. Dew point was 72 and temperature went up
to 87 on the run with high humidity. Other than the dew point,
the temp wouldn't have been so significant had it not been cool
and dry here for the past couple of weeks and I was in San
Francisco before that where the weather was great as well.
After about 10 miles, I couldn't even walk at MAF. Doesn't
matter at this point anyway as my races begin in three weeks
and I don't have any more basebuilding to do at this point.
I need to go for 20 tomorrow and Sunday again in one of my
triple-20 preps for the tahoe triple.

------------------
MyRunningLog

MyStuff
 

posted Sep-16-2005 08:50 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martlet:
I'd like to give this a try. I noticed he had quite a few books out. Unfortunately, I'll have to order online since I can't find them in stores. Would you happen to know which of his books I should pick up for instruction? I'm a novice runner, so I need things broken down fairly simply.

---

I like Training for Endurance, but there are several suggestions within
this thread for various ones for various reasons. However, I'll break
things down simply for you. Run all of your runs for a good 12 weeks
or more strictly below the MAF heart rate. Don't ever let it go above.
Walk the hills if you have to. Follow any accepted training schedule
based on your objectives and abilities. If you do other activities,
such as swimming and biking, keep those below MAF as well.
If you didn't see the article, you can calculate your MAF (maximum
aerobic function) heart rate from this article: Mark Allen. good luck.

------------------
MyRunningLog

MyStuff
 

posted Sep-17-2005 08:22 PM            

------------------
MyRunningLog

MyStuff
 

posted Sep-17-2005 09:47 PM            

But, and granted this is just once out, for the first time since I started running 2 months ago, my knee didn't hurt. My legs were more tired than normal, but that may be only because I haven't found a gait to match such a slow pace.

I ran my first 5K (25:56) today, so I'll start this tomorrow. While I'm waiting for my book to come in, I have a few questions that I haven't seen answered yet.

1: I see mention that staying below MAF keeps you in your "fat burning zone". I get confused by talks of blood fat, liver fat, etc. Does this mean that 180-age is the best rate to run not only to build my base, but also if I want to lose a few extra pounds?

2: So far in my running, I've built up to running 4 miles at a time over a 38 minute period. Since my MAF time is slower, should I focus more on time, or work on building upon the 4 miles I've already built?

3: Since MAF training is less stressful, can I increase to 5 or 6 days a week? I've always wanted to, but have been afraid I'd overtrain and injure myself.

------------------
My Profile
 

posted Sep-17-2005 10:22 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martlet:
I gave it a shot on Thursday, just to see if I could stomach going to this method. You folks didn't lie, it was painfully slow. I had to move right to let a line of ants pass me.

But, and granted this is just once out, for the first time since I started running 2 months ago, my knee didn't hurt. My legs were more tired than normal, but that may be only because I haven't found a gait to match such a slow pace.

I ran my first 5K (25:56) today, so I'll start this tomorrow. While I'm waiting for my book to come in, I have a few questions that I haven't seen answered yet.

1: I see mention that staying below MAF keeps you in your "fat burning zone". I get confused by talks of blood fat, liver fat, etc. Does this mean that 180-age is the best rate to run not only to build my base, but also if I want to lose a few extra pounds?

2: So far in my running, I've built up to running 4 miles at a time over a 38 minute period. Since my MAF time is slower, should I focus more on time, or work on building upon the 4 miles I've already built?

3: Since MAF training is less stressful, can I increase to 5 or 6 days a week? I've always wanted to, but have been afraid I'd overtrain and injure myself.

---

I think that one of the things that has made this appealing to many
runners is that suddenly the pains that have been haunting them
have gone away. You will feel new soreness and fatigue because
the slow running will be like cross-training. It shouldn't last long
though.

Now, your questions:

1. Keep in mind that it's not just 180-age - be sure that you look
at the other elements that add or subtract 5 or 10. Unfortunately,
this will not help you lose more weight or burn more fat. It will
help you better use fat rather than carbohydrate for fuel, which
isn't exactly the same. Take a look at Pfitzinger's article on the
subject: Pfitz on Fat Burning

2. You'll get answers both ways. If you've got a lot of time between
races and you are very patient, just go by time, especially if you've
had some lingering kinks (such as any knee problems you've had).
I go by distance exclusively.

3. This will give you a better chance to increase your workload without
overtraining. However, you can only find out whether it will work for
you by experimenting. Whatever you do, be gradual in any buildup.

Good luck!

------------------
MyRunningLog

MyStuff
 

posted Sep-17-2005 11:37 PM         

However the faster you run, the more TOTAL fat you will burn. So even though you might be burning 50 percent fat 50 percent carbs the total fat burned will be more going fast rather than slowly.
 

posted Sep-18-2005 07:55 AM            

------------------
My Profile
 

posted Sep-18-2005 02:44 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martlet:
Thanks guys. So, if one of my goals is to lose another 10 pounds as well, I may be better off continuing my current style until I meet that goal, then switching to MAF?

---

I don't think it will make a difference for you at all. If you find
that you are running shorter distance per week, you will burn
that "prorated" number of calories in that week. If you take a bit
longer time and run the same distance, you will burn about the
same number of calories. You should find that after a few weeks,
your body should be able to tolerate more mileage, and hence
give you the ability to burn more calories, hence lose more
weight.

------------------
MyRunningLog

MyStuff