posted Nov-12-2005 12:31 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Run Page Run:
Thanks, Leitner.....My back surgery wasn't due to overtraining....it was due to the fact that i ruptured a disc about twelve years ago which degenerated to nothing. I lived with back pain for all those years for it was bone on bone at L4 and L5 and i had a spondylethesis ,not sure of spelling, but that means those vertebrae slipped forward and caused pressure on my sciatic nerve which caused sciatica......nerve pain that shot down my leg..very painfull at times. I have only ran on a track so far that has a half lap up a hill and down a hill walkway that comes off the track. On this short hill about a 100 m up and 100 m down my rate rose only 4bpm. I am going running on a dirt road with good big hills today and i will get back with my results and get further input and will have my distance, time, avg hr, max hr, etc.I will really know after today how effective running by my breathing was. Thanks again for the input.......Page

---

It sounds like, just as the case was with me, you've still got some
recovery ahead and you've got nothing to lose for keeping it slow
for a while. In either case, keep us posted so that we can add some
more data points to the "what works, what doesn't" equation. I think
if you keep your time above MAF to a minimum, it probably won't
make much difference anyway.

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

MyStuff
 

posted Nov-12-2005 08:42 PM            

--Jimmy

Running Profile & Training Schedule

posted Nov-12-2005 09:14 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by jjwaverly42:
I just finished a book by Maffetone, and one by the Leitnerj wannabe, Stu Mittleman :> ), called Slow Burn. I was convinced enough to try an aerobic base rebuild following next week's Philly marathon. I'm convinced that I'm burning too much sugar on my runs, and need to reestablish a fat-burning body for endurance. I don't want to change anything before the marathon, but after a rest week, I'm going to get to it. Also going to try some of the diet reccomendations like cut sugar products and add more oils. So, this will be grand experiment number 4 for me. The plan is to run exclusively at MAF or below for 12-16 weeks. I'll keep the thread posted on my progress.

--Jimmy

Running Profile & Training Schedule

---

cool, Jimmy - yeah, Mittleman is my favorite me wannabe! I got my
ideas for trying Maffetone from your original posts, so I would just say
we've gone full circle! Slow Burn is certainly a good read. Looking
forward to your progress posts.

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

MyStuff
 

posted Nov-13-2005 09:19 AM            

Anyhow, I run either 6 or 7.5 miles most runs. Actually been having problems the last two runs keeping my HR down all of a sudden but not sure why (don't feel ill and the weather is cool). I wonder sometimes if my body is tired but I feel like I need to be running a lot to train for a marathon (my first) in the spring).

I love the program itself just been questioning my fitness lately - unfortunately if I do not exercise I gain weight easily hence the reason I ever started running.
Anyhow, here is a link to my 3-4 week base building progess below.
Jesse has already seen this

------------------
Me ~~~ Find a Race
My Base Building

[This message has been edited by hurryinhoosier (edited Nov-13-2005).]
 

posted Nov-13-2005 08:57 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by hurryinhoosier:
I have noticed I actually feel like I am gaining weight since I slowed down and started this program. My wieght fluctuates between 168 and 170 and today was 171 for the first time in e LONG time. May not seem like much but I feel flabbier. When I ran all out every day (admittedly incorrect) I always felt lean. My diet is pretty much the same - maybe a couple of days with more junk (wedding and movie theater crapola). I feel like as much as I run this shouldn't cause me to gain weight though...

---

Honestly, I think you are looking at your weight with a resolution
finer than you can actually measure. If you had said something much
greater
than a 1 lb difference, it might be something to think about. My
weight during the day fluctuates between 159 and 172 lbs and I only
measure that often to make sure that I rehydrate properly. The fact
that you feel flabby - not sure what to say about that, nor how it would
connect to a single pound added on! You would only gain weight as
compared to before for one of the following reasons:

1. eating differently, mainly more calories
2. running less mileage
3. walking a significant amount and counting it as running

One possibility is that when you are going more slowly (and as
the weather gets cooler), you are not dehydrating as much. Therefore,
you may be hydrated better (I guess you could be over-hydrated, but
I doubt it). Keep in mind that your body is mostly water and water is
most of what you see in day-to-day fluctuations.

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

MyStuff
 

posted Nov-13-2005 09:16 PM         

Week #1 summary 10 miles @ 12:07/mile with 134 BPM.
Week #2 summary 11 miles @ 12.13/mile with 133 BPM.

Todays course was more hilly than last week. Here are the splits from my Garmin 301:

1 - 10:56 126 bpm
2 - 10:53 133 bpm
3 - 12:39 134 bpm
4 - 13:18 134 bpm
5 - 9:44 133 bpm (I think this reading is wrong but it seems to average out with the next reading)
6 - 15:52 133 bpm
7 - 12:55 134 bpm
8 - 12:16 134 bpm
9 - 12:06 135 bpm
10 - 12:05 135 bpm
11 - 12:00 135 bpm

As I watched my pace creep up during the run I wondered if there was an optimal amount that pace is supposed to increase? How much should pace increase per mile? Also I noticed that my pace slowed noticeably over the first three miles but not much more after that (of course I was doing little more than a fast walk/shuffle).

I'm travelling next week end, so it may be hard to get in the long run. We'll see.

cheers,

Bill

 

posted Nov-13-2005 09:31 PM            

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

MyStuff
 

posted Nov-14-2005 09:29 PM         

I bought a heart rate monitor on the weekend and tried running at a low heart rate for the first time today. I went 7km was running about 45 seconds-1 minute/km slower than normal for my easy runs. My Maff. heart rate would be 148. I think I averaged around 140-142 most of the time with lots of dips into the 130s and a few spikes to 148-150. My km splits time-wise are all over the place due to gusting winds though.

Running at that pace was easy--it almost felt too easy, like I wasn't actually getting a work out. Is that a normal feeling when starting low heart rate training? I did notice that when I got up to 146-148 heart rate, my breathing rate started to change, which I found was an interesting reinforcement of keeping my heart rate low.

posted Nov-14-2005 09:54 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Yes Again:
Since winter is setting in around here and I won't be running any races until next spring, I thought I'd try out maffletone method. I've been running since summer 2004, going from the c25k program to 3 half marathons this spring/summer. Currently running 40-45km on 4-5 days/week (25-28 miles).

I bought a heart rate monitor on the weekend and tried running at a low heart rate for the first time today. I went 7km was running about 45 seconds-1 minute/km slower than normal for my easy runs. My Maff. heart rate would be 148. I think I averaged around 140-142 most of the time with lots of dips into the 130s and a few spikes to 148-150. My km splits time-wise are all over the place due to gusting winds though.

Running at that pace was easy--it almost felt too easy, like I wasn't actually getting a work out. Is that a normal feeling when starting low heart rate training? I did notice that when I got up to 146-148 heart rate, my breathing rate started to change, which I found was an interesting reinforcement of keeping my heart rate low.

---

Around one min/km slow down is not too bad for first run! Indeed,
one of the features of base-building is that you finish feeling like
you did nothing, and boy does that bother a lot of people! After
my 20-23 mile training runs, which are now around 8:45-8:55/mile
average at the low heart rates, I still feel nothing. Then, I feel so
guilty, that I go for a 30-40 mile bike ride on the big local hills. Since
I keep my heart rate under MAF on the bike as well, I return with
the same problem. Then I play with my kids for a few hours. After
that I'm tired (which I would have been without the run or bike). I'm
just as happy to not return to the days where I came back from
a 20 mile run (at about the same pace I do now) and all I could do
the rest of the day was sleep!

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

MyStuff
 

posted Nov-15-2005 06:55 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by tpr55:
I'm a casual follower of this thread and haven't committed yet.... but have a question. I notice Maffetone has several books. Which one would best cover the program as discussed here? The one I suspect is the HIgh Performance Heart, but many reviews I've read are very lukewarm about the depth and detail of the book. Is it worth getting?

---

I'm only familiar with "training for endurance" but there are other suggestions
throughout this thread. There are some silly things in there, I must warn
you, such as about wearing cheap crappy shoes and so forth, as well
as about weightlifting. Whichever you get, I would supplement the thoughts
with some of the Mark Allen links and Stu Mittleman's Slow Burn.

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

MyStuff
 

posted Nov-15-2005 10:47 PM         

quote:

---

Originally posted by leitnerj:
I'm only familiar with "training for endurance" but there are other suggestions
throughout this thread. There are some silly things in there, I must warn
you, such as about wearing cheap crappy shoes and so forth, as well
as about weightlifting. Whichever you get, I would supplement the thoughts
with some of the Mark Allen links and Stu Mittleman's Slow Burn.

---

thanks, jesse. I have to tell you, I'm really on the fence on this training concept; fascinated yet not quite able to "give up" the training gains I've made. I've followed some of the previous HR training threads you and Jimmy were very active in; made a couple casual attempts at getting on board but never embraced it. I must say, I did start reading Slow Burn and just couldn't stay with it. It seemed a little superficial and a shameless Tony Robbins commercial.

Today I did a little test of my own. Did about 7m; based on the MAF formula mine is 135, so I gave myself 5 extra points to see if I could make it work and tried to stay under 140. I recently completed my first marathon, and my training had gotten me to fairly routine training paces of 8:30-45. So today I forced myself to see if I could stay <140 and see how bad the pace would come out. It came out around 9:40, but I think I was expecting much worse.

It's hard to get your mind around the concept of how this will end up working out.......for example-

* if I had improved over the last couple years from starting out at 9:30-45 to around 8:30 at similar perceived intensities, why can I not assume I will continue to improve, so why do I need to go backwards to improve?

* it's hard to swallow cutting back so much on intensity knowing all the indicators are that you're doing less; today I generated noticeably less perspiration, burned less calories according my HRM (which only makes sense).

So Jesse, you and others show some convincing improvements according to the numbers. When you do this base building, along with the improved paces at lower HR, what does it do to your speed, as in tempo runs, 10K pace, etc.? Do you basically sacrifice one for the other- speed/anaerobic for aerobic capacity?

posted Nov-16-2005 12:15 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by tpr55:

So Jesse, you and others show some convincing improvements according to the numbers. When you do this base building, along with the improved paces at lower HR, what does it do to your speed, as in tempo runs, 10K pace, etc.? Do you basically sacrifice one for the other- speed/anaerobic for aerobic capacity?

---

Every time I've tried a period of aerobic base building, it has improved my race times across the board, 5k thru half marathon.

If you try the Maffetone method, he has a test called the MAF test. You test yourself for 5 miles, keeping your HR at your MAF (in your case, the 135 bpm). It might come out looking something like this:

Mile 1= 9:00 pace
Mile 2= 9:20 pace
Mile 3=9:30 pace
Mile 4=9:40 pace
Mile 5=9:50 pace

All miles run at 135 bpm.

Maffetone says that when your numbers level off, or become negative splits, it is time to start adding anaerobic work (tempo, intervals, etc.).

I got this info from "High Performance Heart" by Maffetone.

--Jimmy

Running Profile

posted Nov-16-2005 05:32 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by tpr55:

thanks, jesse. I have to tell you, I'm really on the fence on this training concept; fascinated yet not quite able to "give up" the training gains I've made. I've followed some of the previous HR training threads you and Jimmy were very active in; made a couple casual attempts at getting on board but never embraced it. I must say, I did start reading Slow Burn and just couldn't stay with it. It seemed a little superficial and a shameless Tony Robbins commercial.

Today I did a little test of my own. Did about 7m; based on the MAF formula mine is 135, so I gave myself 5 extra points to see if I could make it work and tried to stay under 140. I recently completed my first marathon, and my training had gotten me to fairly routine training paces of 8:30-45. So today I forced myself to see if I could stay <140 and see how bad the pace would come out. It came out around 9:40, but I think I was expecting much worse.

It's hard to get your mind around the concept of how this will end up working out.......for example-

* if I had improved over the last couple years from starting out at 9:30-45 to around 8:30 at similar perceived intensities, why can I not assume I will continue to improve, so why do I need to go backwards to improve?

* it's hard to swallow cutting back so much on intensity knowing all the indicators are that you're doing less; today I generated noticeably less perspiration, burned less calories according my HRM (which only makes sense).

So Jesse, you and others show some convincing improvements according to the numbers. When you do this base building, along with the improved paces at lower HR, what does it do to your speed, as in tempo runs, 10K pace, etc.? Do you basically sacrifice one for the other- speed/anaerobic for aerobic capacity?

---

well, first I would ask why you would change to something like this
if you're making great progress with other approaches. Nonetheless,
the first time I used this approach I improved my one mile race time
from 6:10 to 5:36, 2 mile race time from 13:46 to 12:46, my 5k from
21:10 to 20:39 and my 10k from 48:46 to 45:21. This time around
as described probably 60 posts ago within the morass, I took my
10k from 45:21 to 43:03 (same course). No speed work at all. Didn't
even run at the pace I ran in the 10k for more than about a mile.
I haven't done speed work or tempo runs in a long time, so I can't
make a logical comment on it. Nowadays, I save anything intense
for races. I may change that once I plateau, but at the moment I'm
not close to that from what I can tell.

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

MyStuff
 

posted Nov-16-2005 07:52 AM            

One thing that has suprised me though, is that I am more tired than I expected. For example, I ran exactly the same mileage last week on exactly the same routes without too much variation in temp and averaged 8:00/mile. This week after an eight miler on Sunday, I thought that this was going to be too easy b/c I wasn't tired at all. Now, I wouldn't say that I am tired, but I am more tired than I expected. Has anyone else noticed this early on? And, do you think that it is simply b/c it has taken me nearly 35 minutes longer to run the same mileage?
 

posted Nov-16-2005 08:00 AM            

I have found in the past that I do much better (and race faster) on 100MPW at a very slow pace than 50 miles a week at a fast pace. So maybe there is a good middle ground? What I think we all learn here from training with a HR monitor is that we all tend to run too fast when we should be running slow for recovery....I do it, you do it. So if you do most of your running at about 70% or your Mittleman pace (I'll say Mittleman because he gives you 5 more beats to play with) you will be sufficiently rested to run your races well... So if you run 7 days a week, run 6 of them at your aerobic pace and take that one day and run how you feel...I like running for time and shoot for a minimum of 10 hours a week, getting up to 15 in the Spring as my 100 mile races are coming up. I do this by running an hour a day during the week, 2 hours on Saturday and 3 hours on Sunday! In the Spring my wife and I head to the mountains one of the weekend days and run/hike for up to 12 hours!

I'll give you one of my personal examples of how this training has helped me.
I usually run alone most of the time. I like that because I can control my pace and do what I want to do, what course to run, etc. Yesterday a friend asked to join me on my lunchtime run. This guy is always trying to win his age group in races and usually does, so he's a pretty good runner. We started off at a pace faster than I like (because I like to ease into my aerobic zone), but I went with it because it was just a 5 mile run and he was a guest. After about a couple of miles or so, he was running a couple of steps ahead of me huffing and puffing, while I cruised behind him very comfortable. I was breathing easily and looked down at my watch and I was running at 150, which is out of my zone according to Maff/Mitt, but is below 75% MHR, which is very aerobic. (As a side note I will mention that this guy always seems to have a cold and is always tired.) He noticed how comfortable I was and started to run faster, thinking he was holding me back. I stayed where I was and he slowed down to get back with me. I told him I was running about as fast as I wanted, as a matter of fact I was running much faster than I preferred for training. We got to talking and I started to explain to him how he was breathing heavy because of his compromised aerobic system from running faster than he should be all the time. I was basically selling him on Maffetone! I told him about how he would not only run his races as fast as he has been eventually, but possibly faster! This intrigued him, so when I got back to work I printed out the "Want Speed, Slow Down" article by Dr Maffetone
( http://www.rrca.org/publicat/slowdown.html ) for him to read and today I brought in for him "Training for Endurance" to read. I think the article got him interested enough to try it and I'm sure I will be hearing of his frustration with the slower pace. He'll return to his old ways, but will come back again and again until he sticks with it for good, where he will then be a smarter runner

Happy Maffetoning!

------------------
Steve

http://community.webshots.com/user/ultrastevep
 

posted Nov-16-2005 08:11 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by tconnor:
I have been doing the low heart rate training for only 4 days now. So far this week I have ran 22 miles and my average heart rate on those runs has been 138bpm with an average pace of 9:35. I am 35 yo, so I am pretty happy with how I have done at keeping my HR at the appropriate level.

One thing that has suprised me though, is that I am more tired than I expected. For example, I ran exactly the same mileage last week on exactly the same routes without too much variation in temp and averaged 8:00/mile. This week after an eight miler on Sunday, I thought that this was going to be too easy b/c I wasn't tired at all. Now, I wouldn't say that I am tired, but I am more tired than I expected. Has anyone else noticed this early on? And, do you think that it is simply b/c it has taken me nearly 35 minutes longer to run the same mileage?

---

Tom, first of all, if you have been running some for awhile, your Maff zone would be 140-150 (adding 5 beats for already doing some training) or with Mittleman it would be 145-155! The formula is just an average number to get you to feel comfortable with running at a low HR. Once you get comfortable and learn what it feels like, you can adjust your zones, which is explained in Stu Milleman's "Slow Burn".
Also, if you were training at a faster pace and now running much slower, you are using different muscles that need to adapt to this new gait. You will, in time, be more comfortable, running more upright and have less aches, pains, injuries and colds. You will be a rested athlete ready to race!

When I first started Maffetone 2 years ago, I started on the treadmill because the slow pace made me feel like I was pounding the road...I eventually got a smoother gait and now I just love this training! One day a week I will run a faster pace, it might be a fartlek run or could just be a tempo run, but it reminds me what the old pace felt like and keeps me ready to race when I want to.

Good luck with it!

------------------
Steve

http://community.webshots.com/user/ultrastevep
 

posted Nov-16-2005 08:42 AM            

I have a marathon on Sunday, and plan to carboload and do GU, as I don't want to try anything new the last three days before the race. The past two days, I have cut out sugar, and have been eating almond butter on low-carb crackers for snacks, and adding olive oil to my eggs and soup. I feel different already. I am not hungry and craving sugar all day.

So, after the marathon, I plan to go full force on Maffetone's/Mitt's diet recommendations.

I'm hoping it will help me finally lose that extra15-20 pounds I can't seem to shake. With all the running I do, I would figure I would weigh 155-160, but I never get past 170-175.

Anyone here also follow the diet recommendations?

--Jimmy

Running Profile
 

posted Nov-16-2005 09:23 AM            

I try to follow that diet as much as possible, which isn't always possible.
I drink water all day long, gave up the sodas. I have switched to sugarless jelly for my PB&J's which I love and try to not eat much junk. My wife and I also try to eat little to no meat at all, preferring a plant based diet. Next week I'm sure I'll be having a little turkey
I feel that the best way to think of your food is "garbage in, garbage out". If you want to look, feel and perform at your your best, eat good, healthy foods and less junk.

Now as far as what I use for fuel during my races, which are predominantly 100 milers that can take anywhere from 20-40 hours. I use only Hammer Nutrition products, which is the only product that says it uses no sugar. I basically will use their Sustained Energy, which is a maltodextrin based drink that tastes a lot like skim milk. It's very bland and I like that. I will do an occasional Hammer gel, but not many and sometimes none at all. That is all I use! SE has protein and carbs, to provide you with about 250 calories per 20 ounces, which is about an hourly consumption. No sugar means no sugar crashes.
Using this fueling startegy and also Maffetone's idea of starting slow and gradually moving into your zone, I was able to move from close to last place to finishing 13th in the Bighorn 100 miler in Wyoming in 2004 in under 30 hours, which was my goal. I started slowly, walking down the road to get into my groove/zone, then as we hit the trail I was able to start jogging and walking, sipping on my SE. I passed people all day and night, finishing strong.

Best of luck!

------------------
Steve

http://community.webshots.com/user/ultrastevep
 

posted Nov-16-2005 10:26 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by ultrasteve:
Jimmy....

Using this fueling startegy and also Maffetone's idea of starting slow and gradually moving into your zone, I was able to move from close to last place to finishing 13th in the Bighorn 100 miler in Wyoming in 2004 in under 30 hours, which was my goal. I started slowly, walking down the road to get into my groove/zone, then as we hit the trail I was able to start jogging and walking, sipping on my SE. I passed people all day and night, finishing strong.

Best of luck!

---

Thanks, Steve.
When you say "starting slow", how slow?

E.G. I plan to run my first 6 miles in the marathon on Sunday about 10 seconds slower than goal pace, then speeding up to about 5-10 faster than goal pace for as long as I can hold it.

I'm just curious if going out slower than that is recommended.

--Jimmy

My Running World

posted Nov-16-2005 01:52 PM            

I could not imagine being able to run my PB marathon by going out slow, I just don't think it would work....so go for a warmup jog beforehand (just enough to begin sweating). You could never do this at any large marathon because you end up hanging around the start too long.

The reason I can use this method in a 100 is because most times I have more than a day to move up through the field. If you read Slow Burn, one of the best examples I read in there was when Maffetone had him walk the first day of a 6 day race in France. Stu was getting booed at by the foreigners, telling him to go home. By day 4 he had passed most of the field and caught all but one guy, the world record holder of the event. Stu set the American record that day thanks to Phil Maffetone's suggestion of starting out walking and taking regular walking breaks during the race.

Does this help to answer your question?

------------------
Steve

http://community.webshots.com/user/ultrastevep
 

posted Nov-16-2005 07:31 PM            

One thing to add - I'm not as strict on the diet stuff. I eat everything
all day long because if I don't, I shrivel into a raisin. My office is like
a snack bar. However, I don't take in carbs before any races or runs,
nor at the very beginning. I don't use gels or sports drinks in training,
but in long runs in warm weather, I make sure I get some sodium
intake. I will take in some carbs during marathons and I'll drink sports
drinks during races when available.

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

MyStuff