posted Dec-10-2005 03:33 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by StealthRunner:
As a note, I found that my HR has dropped 10 beats at the same pace I was running before my hamstring injury last February. I'm sure that it is probably more than that since I don't feel that I have fully recovered from the marathon.

---

I'm just now beginning to fully recover from the marathon. It takes awhile. I figure my next MAF test will show significant improvement, but will really only reflect recovery (I did my first MAF test 10 days after the marathon.

I missed your report for the marathon. Is there one somewhere?
Las vegas?

How did it go?

--Jimmy

My Running World

posted Dec-10-2005 04:52 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tchuck:
Hey Jessie,

I think my max HR is around 182-185. My MAF HR is 146. I comfortably run at 75% which is a HR of 138 for me. I try to do first have of my runs below this and last part of run at about 138 and it feels awesome. Not that hard. I feel like I am working the MAF system while still getting a good work out based on the%. Does this contradict your quote above?

---

Nope - it doesn't contradict it at all - in fact, it's quite consistent.
My point with that is that 75% HRMax may be appropriate for
some and inappropriate for others. For most, it will probably
be high. If you're following Hadd's
approach and others that are similar, it will say run at less than
70% HRMax, unless your max is over a certain level, and if
it's higher, just run under 140. If you're following Maffetone/Mark Allen,
you use the formula (and it may put you at 60%, 70%, 80%, or
whatever). There is no approach that generically says that
running all miles under 75% HRMax will do anything. However,
if you follow the guidelines of any of those approaches, you're
likely doing the right thing. If you just arbitrarily say that you
are running all below 75%, that's not enough information to say
whether you're doing anything right. Hopefully that makes it clear.

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

MyStuff
 

posted Dec-10-2005 04:54 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Run Page Run:
Yeah, Maff at it's best, I ran a mere 40 mins at the track last night and and with a Maff of 136 -10, I stay in between these two magical figures. In my mind i was flying around the track to try and make matters feel better but the lone lady that was walking disprooved my theory. It took me three laps to overtake her at my blazing pace and i could see the elation on her face as if she knew she was the fastest walker in Opelika Al. or I was the slowest runner in America. I'm glad I was bundled up due to the cold so maybe it made me look more obese than i am and gave me an excuse in her mind rather than her possibly thinking I'm just a fat, Lazy person just a mere step ahead of couch potatoes. I felt good the whole time phsically but my ego was being bruised with every step.....but i persisted with this torturous means, with expectations of an awesome final Finish.

---

The more bruises to the ego you get earlier on, the tougher you get!

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

MyStuff
 

posted Dec-10-2005 08:34 PM         

I missed your report for the marathon. Is there one somewhere?
Las vegas?

How did it go?

--Jimmy

Nope, you didn't miss it, I'm race report shy!

I think overall the race went very well. I had a lot of fun and would definitely do this race again next year. The only complaint I had was there were no pace markers at the start of the race. I had no idea where to line up at. I started out too far back and ended up having to weave in and out of slower runners and walkers. I'm happy to report that I enough endurance to run the entire way. That was my main goal. I even had a chance to run with Elvis! I did crash and burn the last two miles. I never realized that I was jogging so slowly until I got home and figured out my mile splits. What a bummer! Lessons #1- don’t pace off the guy next to you because he may be slowing down too! I must admit though, I pulled off one heck of a sprint to the finish line. I passed up quite a few runners that last .2 mile. Lesson #2- when your legs are telling you that they are going to fall off at mile #24, don’t believe them. Just run faster! I am looking foreword to beating my horrible time at the San Diego Rock n Roll! But hey, I’m a runner. I ran the whole way! -StealthLady

 

posted Dec-11-2005 10:23 AM         

My second question is this. What makes Mafftone's formula so solid. 180-age to me seems to much like 220-age which = crap. I haven't read his book but by the text on rrca.org he states his formula is scientifically based, yet he doesn't explain the science. Can anyone here prove his formula's? Not just by personal results but by scientific proven fact.

Thanks
 

posted Dec-11-2005 01:28 PM         

quote:

---

Originally posted by ultrasteve:
Great links, I especially like the last one. One thing I have been telling people is that you can't just go out and run easy all the time and expect to reach your best race times. You will have to do some fast running....not much, but a little won't hurt. Of course, there's nothing wrong with just running under your MAF all the time, you will be fit and uninjured.

Thanks,

---

this point really gets to the core of the challenge in accepting this whole concept of low-HR training. I think we need to accept the fact that it's a relatively long-term commitment (3 mos. minimum?) at exclusively sub-MAF training in order to restructure our aerobic fitness/capacity. Jesse, et al, say that you will not lose ANY speed during the course of this training, but it would seem reasonable to expect that you may lose some upper-end speed capabilities, albeit temporarily, which may build very quickly when you resume some speed stuff.

posted Dec-11-2005 02:05 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by runawayjesse:
If I were to go with the mafftone how would I calculate. Here's my stats. I am 25 (180-25=155) and have been running mostly anaerobicly for about 1.5 yrs. Do I add 5? I am on 2 medications regularly and have allergies. Do I subtract 5?

My second question is this. What makes Mafftone's formula so solid. 180-age to me seems to much like 220-age which = crap. I haven't read his book but by the text on rrca.org he states his formula is scientifically based, yet he doesn't explain the science. Can anyone here prove his formula's? Not just by personal results but by scientific proven fact.

Thanks

---

Rule 1. No such formula is gospel. The same goes with "70% HRmax"
or "70% HRR" or similar. Maffetone's formula is empirical, that is it
is obtained experiementally from training a large number of people. Those
with exceptionally low max heart rates may need to LOWER the MAF
heart rate. The MAF number is NEVER too low, with the following
POSSIBLE exceptions:

1. Novice runners. It may take an inordinately long time for a novice
runner to see significant results. There have been many novice runners
who have posted that they've been successful. There have also been
some who have been unsuccessful, but many were (1) frustrated after
2-4 weeks and quit, (2) let their heart rate go over MAF somewhat
frequently, or (3) incorporated higher heart rate workouts or races
during the base phase. I would like to make a guess as to what may
be the issue - perhaps it's too tight of a gap between resting heart
rate and MAF heart rate, i.e., new runners may not be trained to the
point of having a very low resting heart rate. For some new runners,
just crossing the threshold between walking and running already gets
them into near-anaerobic heart rates. In this case, I don't know the
best advice to give. I can only say this - when I started running again
in May after recovering from my bone bruise injury, my pace was
17 min/mi on the treadmill for my first run to keep right at MAF. If
your conscience and/or pride does not allow you to run slower than,
say, a 10, 12, 14, or whatever min/mi, then this approach is probably
not for you. I can only say that it doesn't last long - how long is
dependent on the individual and the training.

2. Runners under ~25 or over ~55. These ages are not hard and fast,
but if you are near one of them, the results may be questionable. How
I interpret that is that Maffetone's and Mark Allen's results for training
people were probably essentially linear between the ages of 25 and 55,
whereas outside of that range there is a lot more scatter.

(using myself as an example, I'm 36 and my max heart rate is at least
210. If I dont give myself extra 5s here and there, my MAF would be
144. I use 139 as a target and try to stay under that in training, for
all activities I do.)

Rule 2. You need to personally assess your own feedback and
see what's going on. Below MAF, you should be able to easily
and comfortably talk without any break-ups at all while running.
Your heart rate should not be climbing tremendously during a
run of 5 miles or so, unless it is very hot and/or humid, or for
some other reason you are rapidly dehydrating and not replenishing.
If you find that your heart rate is climbing a lot (say by more than
10 beats over 5 miles), you need to reset to a lower target MAF
heart rate.

If I were to give my unprofessional and minimally-knowledgeable
opinion, worth about the "paper" it's written on, it would be that you
should use 150 as a target, and even strive to keep a bit lower
than that, say 145.

Now, a little bit about these "magic" MAF numbers. There are two
categories of elements that come together with strictly aerobic (which
is a bit of a misnomer, but I'll abuse the term anyway) base-building -
the first is the training of your aerobic system and the second is the
build-up of mitochondria and capillary infrastructure. (You can read a
little bit about these here: Pfitzinger on Aerobic Base.
I can't speak much about the capillary and mitochondria part - hopefully
Pfitzinger and the others (Hadd, Maffetone, Mark Allen, etc.) explain it
well enough. However, when you're talking about the aerobic system,
the key properties go together: use of slow-twitch muscle fibers and the
use of fat for fuel (vs carbohydrate). Hence, if you are burning mostly
fat for fuel, you will also be using mostly slow-twitch muscle fibers, and
hence you will be training your aerobic system. Now, if you were to have
a vo2max test performed, you would see a table produced of, among
other things, your "respiratory quotient" (RQ), which tells what percentage
of fat vs carbohydrate you are using for energy. At the lower heart rates
(above certain "very low" values, not much higher than rest), the RQ
values will be very low, indicating large percentage of fat burn vs
carbohydrate. When you hit anaerobic threshold, you are at 100%
burn of carbohydrates. Because of individuality (which we all seem to
have :-) ), the MAF number over a sample of people in the 25-55
range will likely associate with RQ values in the .82 to .85 range.
RQ of .82 corresponds to about 61% fat burn/39% carb burn, and
RQ of .85 corresponds to about 51% fat burn/49% carb burn. I would
imagine that there is a similar breakdown in these values between
fast twitch vs slow twitch muscle fiber use. Unfortunately, neither
Maffetone nor Mark Allen talk about this, but it's something I noticed
by looking at a few people's Vo2max tests. I presume that the
"good aerobic results" were obtained when a higher percentage of
fat vs carb was employed regularly and consistently throughout
training. I would also presume (and I specifically observed this with
myself) that running lower than this zone, being associated with
a lower RQ, will more markedly train these aerobic elements and hence
you will see more significant results. If one were to be really concerned
about choosing a MAF that is low enough, but not too low, the best
way to do it would be to fork over the $130-300 for a vo2max test
(or find a study that's going on that will get you one for free), determine
the RQ that corresponds to much better than 50% fat for fuel, and
use that as the MAF heart rate, during your base-building period.
If you don't want to waste your money, you can use the formula
(perhaps along with "rule 2" above) and you should find a good
conservative number.

Lastly, if you take in much in the way of carbs just before or at
the beginning of your run, you will encourage your body to use
carbs for fuel. That's something to avoid.

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

MyStuff
 

posted Dec-11-2005 02:14 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by tpr55:
this point really gets to the core of the challenge in accepting this whole concept of low-HR training. I think we need to accept the fact that it's a relatively long-term commitment (3 mos. minimum?) at exclusively sub-MAF training in order to restructure our aerobic fitness/capacity. Jesse, et al, say that you will not lose ANY speed during the course of this training, but it would seem reasonable to expect that you may lose some upper-end speed capabilities, albeit temporarily, which may build very quickly when you resume some speed stuff.

---

It's certainly reasonable to believe that you've got to lose something!
However, what is the threshold where you start to lose something?
My first time time doing something like this for 8 weeks, my 1 mile
pace went from 6+ to 5:36. My 2 mile, 5k, and 10k got much faster as
well. Did my 800 get slower? I don't know.
Did my 400 get slower? Maybe. Did my 100 get slower? Probably.
Do I care about any of those? No. Is there some intrinsic property
about myself, some kind of "core speed" that I just carry and retain
even if I don't use it? Sounds strange, but anything's possible! My
vo2max improved by over 8 points by doing this. I was
never fast in the middle school or high school days, which is why
I didn't run track, cross-country, or anything and I'm reasonably sure
that I'm low in the talent department. I'm just a regular guy who had
common running problems and I decided that if I were to post my
progress here, without knowing what the outcome would be, it would
be hard for me to back out of this "experiment."

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

MyStuff
 

posted Dec-11-2005 03:03 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by leitnerj:

Lastly, if you take in much in the way of carbs just before or at
the beginning of your run, you will encourage your body to use
carbs for fuel. That's something to avoid.

---

What if it's 3 hours or longer before? The 3 hour "rule" goes by the theory that the food will have moved out of your system during that time.
 

posted Dec-11-2005 03:31 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by diane143:
What if it's 3 hours or longer before? The 3 hour "rule" goes by the theory that the food will have moved out of your system during that time.

---

I think the 3 hour rule is certainly standard. That's what I use, and
if that's not convenient, I'll go with 2.5. For example, if I'm about
to do a 50 mile race or some other run or bike excursion that's going
to take more than 6 hours or so, eating is certainly essential and
I don't try to eat pure protein and fat. Nor will I wake up an extra
hour or two early to do it, so sometimes 2 hours plus will have to
suffice. There are many, however, who will pop gels or drink a lot
of high-carb sports drinks just before starting - that's what should be
avoided.

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

MyStuff
 

posted Dec-11-2005 03:53 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by leitnerj:
Nope - it doesn't contradict it at all - in fact, it's quite consistent.
My point with that is that 75% HRMax may be appropriate for
some and inappropriate for others. For most, it will probably
be high. If you're following Hadd's
approach and others that are similar, it will say run at less than
70% HRMax, unless your max is over a certain level, and if
it's higher, just run under 140. If you're following Maffetone/Mark Allen,
you use the formula (and it may put you at 60%, 70%, 80%, or
whatever). There is no approach that generically says that
running all miles under 75% HRMax will do anything. However,
if you follow the guidelines of any of those approaches, you're
likely doing the right thing. If you just arbitrarily say that you
are running all below 75%, that's not enough information to say
whether you're doing anything right. Hopefully that makes it clear.

---

Sounds reasonable. I want to just comment on something. I ran outside for 7 miles yesterday and the last mile I ran at my MAF pace and it was around 8 - 8:05 min. per mile pace at HR of 146 at -5 degree windchill. I think right now I could probably run a 10K at just under a 7 min. pace (because I've gained 7lbs since Summer).

It seems to me that my MAF HR and 10K pace are not that far apart which surprises me. Is this typical or does this mean my base is pretty strong?

It has been around 4 weeks or so since MAF training and I feel it has made a difference even at 20 miles per week. I will do a test this coming Friday.

Also, to those who say it is low HR training. It is lower HR training but not that low. My MAF HR is around 80% of my MAX.

Running author MAD DOG (Michael Schreiber) www.training2run.com advocates all running should generally be 75% of Max HR with a progression run type approach (and a kick at the end of runs). He says it isn't necessary to do speedwork like interval training. He thinks year round racing keeps you sharp and fast. Or he says run with someone who is a tad faster than you. He also says you can race all year round with this approach without an "off season". He says all his runners are injury free and are getting personal bests. Jesse, this may explain your PRs in all your events. Maybe MAD DOGs approach is right.
 

posted Dec-11-2005 04:26 PM         

Just for the record my MHR is 191(got the number from a 800m sprint). I am assuming my MAF should be between 70-80% of that correct.
 

posted Dec-11-2005 04:35 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by leitnerj:
I think the 3 hour rule is certainly standard. That's what I use, and
if that's not convenient, I'll go with 2.5. For example, if I'm about
to do a 50 mile race or some other run or bike excursion that's going
to take more than 6 hours or so, eating is certainly essential and
I don't try to eat pure protein and fat. Nor will I wake up an extra
hour or two early to do it, so sometimes 2 hours plus will have to
suffice. There are many, however, who will pop gels or drink a lot
of high-carb sports drinks just before starting - that's what should be
avoided.

---

That's about what I've been doing. I found this summer if I ate 2 hours or sooner to my workout, I was prone to a stitch. So I try to stay within the 2-3 hour window. I have also found that I feel better on certain foods before a race. For a night race, I like to have a plain burger on a bun for lunch, then maybe a banana or other small snack 3 hrs before, yet for an early morning race, I need to stick with a muffin or even pop tarts just to get the calories in! I have yet to bonk so this must be working for me.

Diane
 

posted Dec-11-2005 06:07 PM            

The most I ever ran in the 3 week period after a marathon was 55 miles.
It took a few months after each of my first 2 marathons before I approached anything over 35 miles per week. I've NEVER run 11 days in a row before (6 was my record).

At the very least, this Maffy training is a great way to rebuild miles quickly and safely--a nice active recovery with an eye towards higher mileage.

Now back to mental preparations for tonight's Survivor finale.

--Jimmy

My Running World
 

posted Dec-11-2005 07:14 PM         

quote:

---

Originally posted by leitnerj:
There are many, however, who will pop gels or drink a lot
of high-carb sports drinks just before starting - that's what should be
avoided.

---

The exception being pre-marathon, assuming you're not considering it simply a long run.

posted Dec-11-2005 07:43 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by runawayjesse:
Thanks for your answer Jesse. You explain it better than Mafftone himself. One more question, if I choose a MAF to low will I completly miss all the benifits it has to offer. On the flip side let's say I go over by 2 to 4 BPM over will I also miss out.

Just for the record my MHR is 191(got the number from a 800m sprint). I am assuming my MAF should be between 70-80% of that correct.

---

I'd like to comment here, if I may....

I have found that my MAF zone is more like 60% of my max, which I have found through a running test I got from a coach/pro-triathlete/Olympian to be 186. I am 54 year's old...it is a good base building/recovery pace for me. If you are running around 70-80%, I would say that you are running too hard most of the time to be teaching your body to burn fat.

I am one of those people who have to run a tad faster than my MAF to get in a good workout. I do run MOST of my running in my Mittleman MEP zone of 127-137, but at least once a week I will run closer to 75% for an hour. My friend believes in the Maffetone theory, but also thinks that after you have plateaued, you should train closer to 75-78% to improve.
Many of us are not interested in racing and to those runners, it is fine to stay in your zone.

Jesse, did you run the VHTRC 50K today? I have a link to pictures if you did...

------------------
Steve
My User Profile

My Photo Page
 

posted Dec-11-2005 09:00 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tchuck:
Sounds reasonable. I want to just comment on something. I ran outside for 7 miles yesterday and the last mile I ran at my MAF pace and it was around 8 - 8:05 min. per mile pace at HR of 146 at -5 degree windchill. I think right now I could probably run a 10K at just under a 7 min. pace (because I've gained 7lbs since Summer).

It seems to me that my MAF HR and 10K pace are not that far apart which surprises me. Is this typical or does this mean my base is pretty strong?

It has been around 4 weeks or so since MAF training and I feel it has made a difference even at 20 miles per week. I will do a test this coming Friday.

Also, to those who say it is low HR training. It is lower HR training but not that low. My MAF HR is around 80% of my MAX.

Running author MAD DOG (Michael Schreiber) www.training2run.com advocates all running should generally be 75% of Max HR with a progression run type approach (and a kick at the end of runs). He says it isn't necessary to do speedwork like interval training. He thinks year round racing keeps you sharp and fast. Or he says run with someone who is a tad faster than you. He also says you can race all year round with this approach without an "off season". He says all his runners are injury free and are getting personal bests. Jesse, this may explain your PRs in all your events. Maybe MAD DOGs approach is right.

---

I'd say your 10k pace can probably be much faster than your pace
at MAF. Your 10k pace should be at the very upper end of your
aerobic zone, just below anaerobic threshold, where you are using
mostly carbohydrate for energy. Nonetheless, based on your PRs
you've posted, there's little doubt you have good aerobic fitness
already. If you were to go run a 10k tomorrow and you find you are
barely higher than MAF, expending yourself to the limit, I would
say it indicates the formula gives a MAF that's too high for you.
I think if one already has good aerobic fitness, running all runs
around 75% HRmax is probably reasonable. I think Pfitzinger
suggests even higher (and obviously a lot of vo2max workouts
and tempo runs in addition). For many with poor
aerobic fitness, it likely won't fix the problem. I am a fan of
progression runs after basebuilding period, in similar fashion to
the McMillan "fast-finish" long run.

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

MyStuff
 

posted Dec-11-2005 09:04 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by runawayjesse:
Thanks for your answer Jesse. You explain it better than Mafftone himself. One more question, if I choose a MAF to low will I completly miss all the benifits it has to offer. On the flip side let's say I go over by 2 to 4 BPM over will I also miss out.

Just for the record my MHR is 191(got the number from a 800m sprint). I am assuming my MAF should be between 70-80% of that correct.

---

If you choose a MAF too low, it won't matter at all, as long as you
can still "run" by some definition. In fact, the lower you're able to use, the
better. If you choose a MAF too high, then you will miss the benefits.
If you are using Maffetone or Mark
Allen's approach, it really doesn't matter what your max heart rate
is, as long as it isn't extremely low (such that your MAF heart rate
is only 10 or 20 beats under it).

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

MyStuff
 

posted Dec-11-2005 09:07 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by jjwaverly42:
After the Philly Marathon (Nov. 20th), I rested for 5 days, after which I ran 80 miles total in a 14 day span with one days rest. I also ran 11 days in a row at one point with a 7 day high of 46 miles. After a 6.5 miler and 2 sessions of aerobic snow shoveling (one 2 hours and the other 45 minutes) on Friday, I took yesterday and today off. I'll be starting up tomorrow with an MAF test. I'm feeling strong, recovered, and ready to proceed.

The most I ever ran in the 3 week period after a marathon was 55 miles.
It took a few months after each of my first 2 marathons before I approached anything over 35 miles per week. I've NEVER run 11 days in a row before (6 was my record).

At the very least, this Maffy training is a great way to rebuild miles quickly and safely--a nice active recovery with an eye towards higher mileage.

Now back to mental preparations for tonight's Survivor finale.

--Jimmy

My Running World

---

darn it, Jimmy - I was hoping this post would be more poetic, perhaps
in a haiku format. I hope you're recording your aerobic snowshoveling
on your running log. All aerobic volume counts!

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

MyStuff
 

posted Dec-11-2005 09:14 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by pmbooks:
The exception being pre-marathon, assuming you're not considering it simply a long run.

---

I believe the same thing pre-marathon. No gels or carb-loading
just before any race longer than about 10 miles. It encourages
the use of glycogen as an energy source instead of fat. Definitely
not something you want to do in a marathon. It's discussed in
this article, for one: Pfitz on Fat Burning. If you are either not well-trained aerobically or you
are you are a top running performer, able to run a marathon up near
your anaerobic threshold, then you'll need to take in a good amount
of carbs during the marathon, but even then you'll still want to hold
off for at least a few miles into the race. My last, and best, marathon,
I took one gel at mile 17, but I'm not sure I really needed it. There's
no doubt I still ran it conservatively because I had plenty of energy
at the end even after picking up speed on the hills in the last two
miles.

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

MyStuff
 

posted Dec-11-2005 09:18 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by ultrasteve:

Jesse, did you run the VHTRC 50K today? I have a link to pictures if you did...

---

I did not because there were too many family events involving
different kids in different places and my wife has had enough
of my shenanigans. I wish I would have with the snow, but I
guess I won't get to experience the course until all has melted
for the Bull Run Run.

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

MyStuff
 

posted Dec-11-2005 11:57 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by pmbooks:
The exception being pre-marathon, assuming you're not considering it simply a long run.

---

My most recent marathon (my best), I ate three pieces of French toast at 4:00 AM, and had some water--race time was at 8:00. I didn't eat anything, or take sports drink, until 45 minutes into the race ( I had a GU). All I had was a few sips of water between 4:00-8:00 (I woke up hydrated and with clear pee, no need to get hyponutremic before the race). I never hit the wall, and never slowed down. My second marathon, I ate about 2 hours before the race, drank Gatorade a hour before, and had a huge cramp in my abdomen at one point. Also ran out of gas the last 3 miles.

Now, how much these eating practices played into each performance is anyone's guess, but I believe eating too close to race time in my second one contributed to that stitch and the slowing down. At the very least, eating four hours out in my most recent one didn't hurt me.

--Jimmy

My Running World

posted Dec-12-2005 12:22 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by leitnerj:
darn it, Jimmy - I was hoping this post would be more poetic, perhaps
in a haiku format. I hope you're recording your aerobic snowshoveling
on your running log. All aerobic volume counts!

---

I know you're a fan
I'll do the best I can
But it's all about endurance
and paying the health insurance
cause if I collapse on the trail
and bruise my cute skinny tail
no one will come to save me
or for the operation shave me
which is what training's all about
relying on the spirit spout
that pours within
beyond glory, beyond sin
one more step, one more
one more K, two more
not building the mythic lactate
working at an aerobic heart rate
and after 30 miles, I drool and go:
GU GU, Ga ga
GU Gu Ga ga

P.S. written at 25% MHR or MAF-92
--Jimmy

My Running World

posted Dec-12-2005 08:51 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by leitnerj:
I believe the same thing pre-marathon. No gels or carb-oading just before any race longer than about 10 miles. It encourages the use of glycogen as an energy source instead of fat. Definitely not something you want to do in a marathon.

---

posted Dec-12-2005 10:56 AM         

Of course, I always eat 2 hours before running (you end up burning more fat that way).

You do not need to carbo-load for any run less than 22 miles. I am considering carbo loading before my next marathon as follows:

6-8 days before marathon - low carb/high protein
3-5 days before marathon - high carb
1-2 days before marathon - normal diet

This apparently fools the body in to storing 500 cals of additional glycogen for up to 3 days.