posted Nov-29-2005 12:32 PM         

quote:

---

Originally posted by jjwaverly42:
Thread hog!
You can always go to the edit post icon and erase the extra post.
Make sure you back up what you wrote before you try it, just in case.

--JJ

---

Guess what???

posted Nov-29-2005 02:46 PM         

I hope that knee is OK. I wish you people lived around here. I would do a MRI scan on it for you. The doctor that I work for has bought a new 3 tesla scanner. I will need some warm bodies to practice on! Keep us posted.
 

posted Nov-29-2005 05:10 PM            

Hi Kudzu....

I'll chime in here, if I may....

I am like you, a former road racer and have run several sub 2:50 marathons, a 76:08 HM...even a 16:38 5K. I did this with high mileage, hills and speedwork, while running for a Boston area running club in the late 70's and early 80's (the sweet years of road racing). It seemed like I was injured several times a year and regularly was burnt out by the fall....this was what eventually pushed me into ultrarunning on trails. I had so much knee pain from running fast races on roads that I never thought I'd be running past the age of 50.

For the past 2 years I have been running following the Maffetone/Mittleman system and it has helped me immensely in my UR, as I've have posted a couple of pages back. Now what would I do if I wanted to run as I did back in the 80's? Probabaly add some hills and do some speedwork after that, but it would all be done with a huge aerobic base backing it up.

Maffetone to me is not different than Lydiard in that he recommends you build an aerobic base first, then when you seem to not be improving anymore, add harder workouts to boost your aerobic engine, via whatever methods you choose. That can be hills or it can be speed on the track. it could also be road races! Then, as JJ said above, when you start to get flat again, drop back to the low HR training to recover and possibly improve even more. You'll hopefully be a happier runner also!

I think I have always done this type of training actually because when I ran my fastest marathons, I was a follower of Van Aaken, running around 100 mpw at about an 8mpm pace. On this I ran a 4:55 mile with no speed training for over a year.

Interesting thing is that I have been training recently to try to qualify for Boston again before I move to NM in the Spring. I now live in NH...I have run Boston 13 times, all as a qualified runner and have the urge to do it again. Anyway to bring this whole thread full circle...and this one's for you, Jesse...

I was running a 20 miler on Saturday with my wife on a snowy day, at around 10 miles (as far from my house as I could possibly be), I slipped on some ice and slammed my knee into the road trying to get off of the ice. my knee is now stiff and swollen... stay tuned!

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

posted Nov-29-2005 05:13 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by StealthRunner:
UltraSteve- Now you lost your post!

I hope that knee is OK. I wish you people lived around here. I would do a MRI scan on it for you. The doctor that I work for has bought a new 3 tesla scanner. I will need some warm bodies to practice on! Keep us posted.

---

If I lived closer I would gladly be a test subject!

It is a little better today, but that is mostly due to the Ibu's work. If I get up from my desk, I have to stand for awhile before I can walk. I went outside and walked the 1/4 mile around our building here at work and once it warmed up seemed ok, but I won't be running for awhile, I'm sure.

It's sortof like Maffetone, a little progress every day

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

posted Nov-29-2005 06:25 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by ultrasteve:

I was running a 20 miler on Saturday with my wife on a snowy day, at around 10 miles (as far from my house as I could possibly be), I slipped on some ice and slammed my knee into the road trying to get off of the ice. my knee is now stiff and swollen... stay tuned!

---

Arrgh! Boy do I know that one well! If I were to "go there" again,
I would take a week off from running, but possibly do some water
running, cycling, and swimming in the mean time. (I've noticed
that you'll have the most significant problem if you landed right on
the joint, rather than the front of the patella, at least as it affects
your running. ) Then when you start back up, just run a few
miles at a time to test it, building back up over about 4 weeks,
making sure that it's not getting worse. If it seems to get worse,
you probably do want an MRI to see whether it is a bone bruise
and if there is any fracture or ligament/meniscus damage to
accompany it.

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

MyStuff
 

posted Nov-29-2005 06:33 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by KudzuRunner:

Perhaps it's worth starting a new thread: "Maffetone made easy."

---

First, I'll give you Maffetone made easy, better yet, Mark
Allen made easy. You've got enough running under your belt
to get a bunch of extra points, so you can just take 180-age
and then add 10 to it, to give you your MAF number. Give
yourself 12 weeks (obviously in the off-season). Run all of
your mileage strictly less than MAF, even if initially you have
to walk or putter up even the small hills. Try to run most of
your mileage at MAF-10 or MAF-15 - you'll really see significant
benefit. Avoid taking in carbs just before your runs and you're
best off starting your runs at a very slow warmup (but MAF-15
should be fine). After 12 weeks, move mostly to your traditional
training approach, but try to maintain about 90% of your mileage
mostly below MAF.

Now, I absolutely cannot disagree with you on the benefit of
hill intervals. However, I will contend that after 12 weeks or
more of MAF training, you will get much more benefit out of
them.

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

MyStuff
 

posted Nov-29-2005 10:16 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by leitnerj:
First, I'll give you Maffetone made easy, better yet, Mark
Allen made easy. You've got enough running under your belt
to get a bunch of extra points, so you can just take 180-age
and then add 10 to it, to give you your MAF number. Give
yourself 12 weeks (obviously in the off-season). Run all of
your mileage strictly less than MAF, even if initially you have
to walk or putter up even the small hills. Try to run most of
your mileage at MAF-10 or MAF-15 - you'll really see significant
benefit. Avoid taking in carbs just before your runs and you're
best off starting your runs at a very slow warmup (but MAF-15
should be fine). After 12 weeks, move mostly to your traditional
training approach, but try to maintain about 90% of your mileage
mostly below MAF.

Now, I absolutely cannot disagree with you on the benefit of
hill intervals. However, I will contend that after 12 weeks or
more of MAF training, you will get much more benefit out of
them.

---

Jesse,

Where did you get the "add ten to it" rule.
did I miss that?

I ad five to it according to the "If you have been exercising for more than two years without any problems, making progress in competition without injury, add 5." rule.

--Jimmy

My Running World

posted Nov-29-2005 10:34 PM         

quote:

---

Originally posted by jjwaverly42:
Jesse,

Where did you get the "add ten to it" rule.
did I miss that?

I ad five to it according to the "If you have been exercising for more than two years without any problems, making progress in competition without injury, add 5." rule.

--Jimmy

My Running World

---

Stu Mittleman in his book "Slow Burn" states that Dr. Maffetone recommended adding 5-10 beats for healthy, well-trained endurance athletes.

posted Nov-29-2005 10:41 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by StealthRunner:
Stu Mittleman in his book "Slow Burn" states that Dr. Maffetone recommended adding 5-10 beats for healthy, well-trained endurance athletes.

---

Thanks. Perhaps I'll use that extra 5 beats for hills. Let hills rise to 146.
Or maybe I'll just give them to someone else for Christmas.

--Jimmy

My Running World

posted Nov-29-2005 11:54 PM         

date/ day/ dist./ HRavg/ Pace (m/m)
11/15 TU 7.0 136 9.41
11/16 WE 5.8 137 9.33
11/17 TH 5.9 137 9.11
11/18 FR 6.6 136 9.32
11/20 SU 14.6 138 9.57
11/22 TU 7.0 138 9.44
11/23 WE 6.9 138 9.35
11/24 TH 7.5 137 9.44
11/25 FR 6.0 138 9.22
11/26 SA 5.2 138 9.01
11/27 SU 14.3 138 9.31
11/29 TU 5.9 137 9.50

my MAF calculates out to 135 (180-50+5); I figured if I could stay a couple bpm under 140 I'd call it good.

Am I on track here????

------------------
My Profile

[This message has been edited by tpr55 (edited Nov-29-2005).]
 

posted Nov-30-2005 05:37 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by tpr55:
hey, guys- I've got two weeks in now and after tonight, even though I know i probably shouldn't be expecting much after two weeks, I'm a little frustrated that I don't see any signs of improvement, or even any consistent pattern yet! Here's my first two weeks-

date/ day/ dist./ HRavg/ Pace (m/m)
11/15 TU 7.0 136 9.41
11/16 WE 5.8 137 9.33
11/17 TH 5.9 137 9.11
11/18 FR 6.6 136 9.32
11/20 SU 14.6 138 9.57
11/22 TU 7.0 138 9.44
11/23 WE 6.9 138 9.35
11/24 TH 7.5 137 9.44
11/25 FR 6.0 138 9.22
11/26 SA 5.2 138 9.01
11/27 SU 14.3 138 9.31
11/29 TU 5.9 137 9.50

my MAF calculates out to 135 (180-50+5); I figured if I could stay a couple bpm under 140 I'd call it good.

Am I on track here????

---

Just a few of my comments. First, the approach is frustrating,
challenging, and difficult at first. That's just the way it is.
Second, given that even your average heart rate is above the
MAF value, it means you are likely crossing it several times in
your run. Is this that big of a deal? Who knows, but the lower
the better, and the faster the progress. The higher the heart
rate, the slower the progress, at least at first.

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

MyStuff
 

posted Nov-30-2005 11:50 AM            

I'm 47. 180 - 47 = 133. Add ten points gives me 143.

My max HR is 198-200, based on considerable self-testing over the past two years. So 143 is about 72% of HR max.

I always start my runs easy, having read much about Kenyan athletes who start their progression runs "stumbling slow," as the saying goes. I'm also a fan--well, a disciple--of John Kellogg, who encourages the same thing.

Four days a week I run very easy 3 mile recovery runs. HR there is always 140 or below. Maffetone would have no problem with that.

Although they always start slow, with a HR stabilizing in the high 130s, my other three runs of the week have tended to stabilize around 150. And sometimes, quite honestly, I'm able to work my way into marathon pace--with a HR somewhere in the 160s, which is to say between 80 and 85% HR max--and feel strong and solid there.

I suspect that these latter sorts of high aerobic runs, which Kellogg advocates, are heresy to Maffetone. I'm torn, frankly. Kellogg's approach is definitely a moderated one: don't strain during long runs, warm very easily into runs, don't do much V02max work and anaerobic capacity work until racing season and do it very judiciously then.

Thanks, Jesse, for giving me the quick version.

Now what would you say if I told you that I hate the way the HR monitor constricts my chest?
 

posted Nov-30-2005 12:01 PM         

quote:

---

Originally posted by KudzuRunner:
Thanks for the advice.

Now what would you say if I told you that I hate the way the HR monitor constricts my chest?

---

Hi KudzuRunner! I would have to totally agree with you! But I would also have to say, unlike you, I need to use it to stay in my zones. At this point in time in my running I'm not able to go by feel. So, until that time, I guess I will have to put up with it. And by the way, I sort of figured that you were really doing Maffetone and not even realizing it! Way to go.

 

posted Nov-30-2005 12:35 PM         

quote:

---

Originally posted by leitnerj:
First, I'll give you Maffetone made easy, better yet, Mark
Allen made easy. You've got enough running under your belt
to get a bunch of extra points, so you can just take 180-age
and then add 10 to it, to give you your MAF number. Give
yourself 12 weeks (obviously in the off-season). Run all of
your mileage strictly less than MAF, even if initially you have
to walk or putter up even the small hills. Try to run most of
your mileage at MAF-10 or MAF-15 - you'll really see significant
benefit.

---

I've been considering this type of training as a new year's resolution. But I want to be sure I'm clear on this: I'm 32, MaxHR is 189, been running for 3 years, basically injury free for 2 years. So my MAF number should be (180-32)+10=168? That's 89% of my max. Even if I used MAF-15, I would be at 153 or 80%. An easy run for me today is done at 145-148 bpm.

What would a maffetone schedule look like for me? Maybe I just don't work for this "formula", and should consider a different type of HR-based plan?

posted Nov-30-2005 02:56 PM         

quote:

---

Originally posted by batfish:
Is this just dogma or can someone point me to some credible documentation of this phenomena? I'd love to not believe it! I find it hard to imagine that if I run at a steady pace for over an hour, that I'd get no benefit by running that steady pace too fast (and, by definition, that steady pace would be sub-LT for a run lasting over an hour)...

---

These are basically my own opinions, with some Maffetone/Mittleman thrown in in places... that being said. If you train the way you describe, you are burning calories, getting exercise and working you cardiovascular system. That goes for almost all exercise. These are all nice things. The question in this case is, are you conistently making gains, ie. increasing your pace, settings PRs through out the year and staying injury free, or are you like many who go through the motions but their performance stays the same year after year, with very little to show other than that they are cardiovascullary healthy? If your method of trainging works for you, awesome you have found a training method that works for your body. If instead you have platued and perhaps even gone backward, then a new aerobic (MAF and under) base building period can and probably will be beneficial if you stick with it.

[This message has been edited by scoobydoobie (edited Nov-30-2005).]
 

posted Nov-30-2005 03:09 PM         

quote:

---

Originally posted by portlander:
I've been considering this type of training as a new year's resolution. But I want to be sure I'm clear on this: I'm 32, MaxHR is 189, been running for 3 years, basically injury free for 2 years. So my MAF number should be (180-32)+10=168? That's 89% of my max. Even if I used MAF-15, I would be at 153 or 80%. An easy run for me today is done at 145-148 bpm.

---

FYI 180 - 32 + 10 = 158. The other thing I would mention is that the formula is a guide. Maffetone talks about periodically testing yourself (every three weeks IIRC?) to better determine if you have chosen the right range. You could try the test right from the get go and see whether 158 is too high and adjust accordingly. Also just to guide you, Mittleman talks about how you perceive the things around you when you run. When you are running aerobically you will be aware of things all around you as well as sounds, but when you are working too hard you should tend to notice everthing calescing to the point in front of you (tunnel vision) and be very aware of you own breathing and not notice the sounds around you. Sometimes Mittleman sound a bit you metaphysically for me but it interesting none the less. Hmm I've started to ramble now, but in summation 180 - age +or- modifies is mearly a guide to get you started.

posted Nov-30-2005 03:27 PM         

I HATE what happens to my pace and HR when winter rolls around and suddenly I'm wearing three layers of clothes to avoid frostbite. I ran 7 miles the other day in a 5 degree wind chill, with gusty wind. 3 weeks ago I did a 5 mile with only a long sleeve shirt and running tights. Hope the winter is treating the rest of you kindly anyway. There I feel better now.
 

posted Nov-30-2005 03:29 PM         

quote:

---

Originally posted by scoobydoobie:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by batfish:
[b] Is this just dogma or can someone point me to some credible documentation of this phenomena? I'd love to not believe it! I find it hard to imagine that if I run at a steady pace for over an hour, that I'd get no benefit by running that steady pace too fast (and, by definition, that steady pace would be sub-LT for a run lasting over an hour)...

---

[This message has been edited by scoobydoobie (edited Nov-30-2005).][/B][/QUOTE]

Sorry - I deleted my two posts a little bit after writing them. I thought them a little whiney
 

posted Nov-30-2005 03:37 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by leitnerj:
Now, I absolutely cannot disagree with you on the benefit of hill intervals. However, I will contend that after 12 weeks or
more of MAF training, you will get much more benefit out of
them.

---

Do you run the hills at your MAF heart-rate or according to another program. I am still in aerobic only phase but am trying to plan for what I will be doing in a couple of months. Seems you would not follow MAF HR for hills as you already do that during the 12 week phase.

Thanks!

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

posted Nov-30-2005 03:56 PM         

quote:

---

Originally posted by batfish:
Sorry - I deleted my two posts a little bit after writing them. I thought them a little whiney

---

Actually they are things I hear all the time when I try to explain Maffetone to friends and family. Skepticism is healthy. I think I raised the same issues when I first tried this type of program. Besides when you feel horribly slow at first, it feels good to wine

Out of curiosity, have your current training methods been paying off for you?
 

posted Nov-30-2005 04:10 PM         

quote:

---

Originally posted by scoobydoobie:
Actually they are things I hear all the time when I try to explain Maffetone to friends and family. Skepticism is healthy. I think I raised the same issues when I first tried this type of program. Besides when you feel horribly slow at first, it feels good to wine

Out of curiosity, have your current training methods been paying off for you?

---

Sort of - thought hard to tell because I've only been running since the end of June (so, about 5-6 months). During that time I've run several 5K races - the first in July, the last in October and my PRs went from 26:09 to 21:28.

That's a decent improvement, but I was coming from a very low level of fitness, so any running I did was bound to cause improvements.

I'm done racing 5Ks for the year (NH winter) and wanted to engage in some sort of base-building over the winter, which is why I started looking into the HRM training.

------------------
Batfish

Profile
Running Log
The Newbie Wiki
 

posted Nov-30-2005 04:28 PM         

quote:

---

Originally posted by scoobydoobie:
FYI 180 - 32 + 10 = 158. The other thing I would mention is that the formula is a guide. Maffetone talks about periodically testing yourself (every three weeks IIRC?) to better determine if you have chosen the right range.

---

doh - stupid math! OK, so 158 makes more sense, particularly if I were to run at MAF-15, but it still seems high. For example, I ran a marathon this fall with avg HR of 160. What is the test, and how does it work to tell you if you're in the correct range? Thanks...

 

posted Nov-30-2005 04:45 PM         

quote:

---

Originally posted by portlander:
doh - stupid math! OK, so 158 makes more sense, particularly if I were to run at MAF-15, but it still seems high. For example, I ran a marathon this fall with avg HR of 160. What is the test, and how does it work to tell you if you're in the correct range? Thanks...

---

They talk about it briefly in this article http://www.rrca.org/publicat/slowdown.html.
Leitnerj knows more about this than I do (or at least always sounds that way). The basic premise revolves around your split times over the course of the test and your MAF heart rate. You should see a gradual change in each split. Instead if you hit a big drop pace or a big spike in HR it is your body signalling to you that you are pushing harder than your body can maintain aerobically. Someone please correct me if I saying this wrong or expand on it.

Mittleman in his book urges you to uses your senses, predominately sight and hearing to gauge how hard you are working. See my recent post for a short explanation.

PS If your really lucky it just means that your Marathon at a HR 160 means that you have a very strong aerobic base and did the marathon at your Maffetone pace. If so, that would be conventient.

 

posted Nov-30-2005 05:44 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by portlander:
doh - stupid math! OK, so 158 makes more sense, particularly if I were to run at MAF-15, but it still seems high. For example, I ran a marathon this fall with avg HR of 160. What is the test, and how does it work to tell you if you're in the correct range? Thanks...

---

You should probably only add 5 to your MAF HR so for you - with your experience, your max MAF HR would be 153 and Jesse says, the lower the better especially early in the runs.

You can also do steady hill work with this type of training but again, stay under the MAF HR.

To test yourself, warm up a mile or more starting slowly (don't count this as part of the 3 - 5 MAF miles). At the end of that mile try to get to your MAF HR and then maintain that HR as close as possible for the next 3 - 5 miles adjusting the speed as needed. Do the test on the treadmill at the same incline each time for consistency
eg. test below and time
Mile 1 9:00
2 9:10
3 9:14
4 9:21

and then every 3 weeks do the same test at same MAF HR and compare the times. They should go down over time. I just started so I am excited to see what my times will do since I have always trained intensely.

posted Nov-30-2005 05:57 PM            

------------------
Each day is a gift from God, let's live like we believe it...