posted Dec-19-2005 04:51 PM            

Forget that 220 formula, it just doesn't work. According to the 220 formula, my max HR is 166. I have taken a max HR test and my max is about 186, 20 beats higher!

If I take 186 and subtract my RHR of 50 I get 136. 136 X .60 (60%MHR)=81.6+RHR (50)= 131.6 (132). My Maff zone is 180-54+5=131! I really think for most people the Maff formula will get you somewhere around 60-70%, which is a rest and recovery/aerobic building HR. After you have done this for awhile (I'd say 3-6 months), you can begin to play with higher HR's to yet improve...if you want to.

I like Mittleman because he will tell you how you should feel at different zones and he is right on. I have been running competitively for 30 years and can tell by feel (RPE) what zone I am in...and by zone I don't mean numbers. I mean I know when I am training easy, medium or hard.

So I would say for now stick with the Maffetone formula and you will be a better runner for it.

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

My Photo Page
 

posted Dec-20-2005 11:11 AM         

In practice I aim for an average per mile/lap around 132 (MAF-5) since this also corresponds to 70% HR (Max ~188). My max is probably a little higher (~2-5bpm), but 188 is all I've seen on the HRM after a few hard 400s.

I've had to slow down about 3 min/mile to maintain around the 132 target, but I've probably dropped my pace overall by 1:15 min per mile since starting (in 2 weeks). This is more than likely due to learning how to run on the treadmill than any real improvement in aerobic fitness. Either way, I'm working towards a faster pace which used to be run 15bpm higher.

I started doing this on a treadmill a couple of weeks ago and one problem I have is the TM only allows me to adjust pace in 15-20 sec intervals (0.1mph).

Right now I'm building up from 40mpw to 50mpw by improving my pace. Basically I've maximized the time I have to dedicate to running and will increase mileage by improving my pace to fit within the given schedule. I hope to build to about 60mpw over the next couple of months. I'm not thinking about racing until I feel I have a solid base, which I'll give about 16 weeks or as long as I see improvement whichever is longer. Ultimately, I'd like to get my easy pace down to <8:00m/mi and then start working on pushing my LT up with some more "conventional" approaches. I'll keep cycling on this base building/LT training to improve year over year.

I know there are a lot of skeptics (on low HR training) out there, but I can't really see how running significantly faster (and harder) right now will actually make me faster overall. My goal is to improve my pace at all levels of effort/HR. It makes sense (to me) that maximizing performance at the low-end will provide a faster "base" on which to improve speed at the top-end; at least, to the limits of my biomechanical and genetic ability. Clearly, if I can run a 8:00min mile at 70%HR, than I should be able to run 1-2min/mile faster at 80-85%. However, if I can only run 10-11min/mile at 70% than I can't realistically expect to run sub< 7min/mile at 80-85%.

I'm new to the boards here and I'm going to try and stay out of the "arguments" about low HR training and just
1. ask questions/advice
2. and post my experience/progress

Hopefully some other new runner may find some actual data to help figure out what works for them.

Any recommendations on my approach would be appreciated.

sorry for the long initial post.

Thanks.

--another experiment of one
 

posted Dec-20-2005 02:54 PM         

quote:

---

Originally posted by junkmiles:
below MAF, which is about 137 (or 65% of HRR).

---

when I do the math on this I get your HRmax at about 250.........??? HRR refers to heart rate reserve, right?

this is another one of those MAF posts that make me wonder what I'm doing so wrong. Two weeks and you've dropped 1:15 in pace at MAF, and I'm at five weeks now with no sign of any pace improvement. Very frustrating, even though I try to ignore and convince myself I'm doing some good somehow.......
 

posted Dec-20-2005 03:19 PM         

quote:

---

Originally posted by tpr55:

this is another one of those MAF posts that make me wonder what I'm doing so wrong. Two weeks and you've dropped 1:15 in pace at MAF, and I'm at five weeks now with no sign of any pace improvement. Very frustrating, even though I try to ignore and convince myself I'm doing some good somehow.......

---

-brian

 

posted Dec-20-2005 05:33 PM         

quote:

---

Originally posted by tpr55:
when I do the math on this I get your HRmax at about 250.........??? HRR refers to heart rate reserve, right?

this is another one of those MAF posts that make me wonder what I'm doing so wrong. Two weeks and you've dropped 1:15 in pace at MAF, .......

---

Not sure about your math skills :-), but yes HRR is heart rate reserve. Resting HR is about 45, max HR is 188, so that gives 65% = 138bpm. Although, I haven't tested my resting HR in a while, it may be a few beats lower.

You probably aren't doing anything wrong and as I said in my post I think the drop in pace is a function of me learning how to run on the treadmill rather than a real increase in aerobic fitness. Just for reference the actual gap is more like 2:15, but there is a 1 minute gap between the very first time I ran on the treadmill and the second time the very next day. I ignored that in my calculation since it seemed pretty unreasonable. I seriously doubt there was any serious aerobic fitness gained in 24hrs. It is more a function of focusing on form and running relaxed on the treadmill. I had actually never been on a treadmill before 2-3 weeks ago.

Also, you should note the drop in pace is actually measured at MAF-5. I don't really know what my MAF pace is now, the first time on the TM I ran at MAF, but I pushed the HR down on subsequent runs and my pace at the new lower HR relative to my first run at MAF is more like 1:07 faster. I'll do a test at MAF in a couple of weeks to see where I'm at.

brian,

>>As a point of interest, were you running a lot of miles at easy pace before you started MAF, or were you in the camp of people who ran most of their miles above a 'conversational' pace?

not sure if your question was to me or tpr55. but prior to running strictly below MAF I was keeping most runs below 145bpm with a couple runs a week going up to 155. On long runs I'd just run easy, but I wouldn't slow down if my HR rose, on occassion I'd do these with a fast finish, but nothing to hard. I built up this way to about 40mpw, so not a lot of miles. Looking back at my log almost exactly 70% of my runs were below 145 and 30% were over (146-152, but only 2 runs at 155 and one at 157). The 145 HR happened to correspond to Pfitzinger's recovery runs <70%HRR. Now, based on my short experience I think that is too high an effort for a new runner. I think jjwaverly may prove that point after his current experiment running below MAF for the next few weeks.

I saw slow progress on that path, about 3 min/mi over about 20 weeks, and most runs felt pretty easy (I was pleasantly tired, not crawling to the door). However, I felt like I could do better, since I found it hard to hold a decent pace at a steady HR over a reasonable distance (say 10mi or more).

Since I had no race times to correlate, I used other factors to figure out that I had poor aerobic fitness. So I decided to push the HR down further. I thought if I could improve my pace at a lower HR I'd be in a better position to improve my endurance at higher HRs. Ultimately I want to run a marathon. And while first timers are supposed to just plan to finish, i'd rather train to run as best I can the first time out and then continue to improve from there.

Now, over the last 2 weeks the pace vs. HR is stable at the lower HR on runs from 45-90mins. That is, I can stay under MAF for those times without significant slow down, as long as I stay cool and hydrated.

I'm using the MAF thing as a guideline and really I'm aiming to run a decent pace at 70% maxHR (132bpm for me), which is what some respected coaches (daniels, mcmillan, etc.) put out there as the low-end of easy pace. So I'll improve my pace and build miles at the low end and then add in some faster running. I'm thinking of following a lydiard type approach, but without the 100mile weeks, probably more like 70 or so. it will depend on what kind of easy pace I can hit at the low HR.

--
 

posted Dec-20-2005 06:10 PM         

I think I am with you on this reasoning - though I have not done the due dilligence on the Low HR training techniques yet. I am aiming for a pace at which I can do a 2hr run with minimal drift and alteration of pace, and which I can finished 'pleasantly tired'. I am guessing that that will hit the spot and there would be no point in going slower. This looks about 75% for me, though it might be a shade less. I am looking at Lydiard and ramping up miles at the same time, since I can and these is no reason not to. I am thinking of 60 -70 which is more than I have done before. It's quite exciting, really and I feel a fool for not grasping the consequences of giving it too much intensity on too low a base before. Should have listened to what everyone was saying. I just could not stomach the pace.

It has amazed me how I can increase miles on this regime, so this is giving me a really good feeing about it. It puts a different complexion on a lot of training programs. My idea is to shoot up to 60-70 miles all at easy pace. Hover there for about three weeks and then look at adding some tempos if it is going well. I hope by that time I will have built some useful aerobic fitness.

Best of luck with your plan

posted Dec-20-2005 07:06 PM         

quote:

---

Originally posted by briandirect:
Hi Junkmiles

It has amazed me how I can increase miles on this regime, so this is giving me a really good feeing about it. It puts a different complexion on a lot of training programs. My idea is to shoot up to 60-70 miles all at easy pace. Hover there for about three weeks and then look at adding some tempos if it is going well. I hope by that time I will have built some useful aerobic fitness.

Best of luck with your plan

---

it is nice to add the miles and not feel like your killing yourself. I like running now. I didn't like it much when I was younger. I ran as part of conditioning for other sports in school, but I never ran track. Anyway, I like feeling good after a run; and since I run in the morning before the day starts I like the energized feeling I have after a good run. it lasts for most of the day. I don't think that would happen if I was pounding out the miles at HR north of 85% of max.

Good luck to you as well.

p.s. If you're interested in Lydiard you should check out the following blog. The author is following a pretty strict interpretation of Lydiard and seems to be doing very well. I'm not as fast as he is, but I read it for inspiration.

http://championseverywhere.blogspot.com/

[This message has been edited by junkmiles (edited Dec-20-2005).]
 

posted Dec-20-2005 07:59 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by tpr55:
when I do the math on this I get your HRmax at about 250.........??? HRR refers to heart rate reserve, right?

this is another one of those MAF posts that make me wonder what I'm doing so wrong. Two weeks and you've dropped 1:15 in pace at MAF, and I'm at five weeks now with no sign of any pace improvement. Very frustrating, even though I try to ignore and convince myself I'm doing some good somehow.......

---

Tpr55 - I'm frustrated too - no improvement except that I've never run longer time-wise, but my mpw is lower than ever b/c I have to walk so much. I want to stay committed to this MAF thing b/c I think it makes sense. This summer I never ran my 10m/m runs out of breath at all, I could converse, but now I'm walking and jogging a little to be btn 13:30-15m/m!! I'd love to up my mpw but I'm already at 3-4hours=14-19mpw! and no improvement. But it's a cold winter, so I'll keep trying, if it was nicer out I'd probably quit this thing. I'm not even doing the MAF-5 - I'm just doing the straight 180-age, although technically I should -5. The one positive is that I'm not tired at all - ever - during the week, heck I don't even sweat and my HR goes over sometimes just so I can keep warm. Let us know when you do improve!

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

posted Dec-20-2005 10:59 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by jgilberAZ:
Do you put some kind of gel or something on the HRM strap electrodes? Mine seems to lose signal all too often. Any ideas?

---

Yes, I use buh-bump. It helps quite a bit.

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

MyStuff
 

posted Dec-21-2005 12:01 AM            

I ran tonight and it was incredibly frustrating. I swear it lost signal more than it had it. Then it would regain signal, and say my heart rate was 192. Bull. I was barely running faster than I can walk. I hope the buh-bump fixes this.

Thanks again.

------------------
Me, my log, and my website
 

posted Dec-21-2005 08:03 AM            

I'm determined to keep this up through the winter ( not much else to do in northern Indiana in the winter ) and track the progress until spring, but I sure could use some encouragement that this is correct.

On the upside I can take a nap while running at this pace

 

posted Dec-21-2005 11:50 AM         

I usually try to run at 146-147 and when I warm up around 138. I do feel really slow which i know is normal. But I feel now if I try to run at a higher HR I feel like its a litter harder to do. I do have a cold that I have been fighting for about 2-3 weeks.

I just feel like now I not going to get back to where I was. I was running 10-10:30 mins miles. Now its more like 11 min mile on the TM and 12's outside. (I think wind, snow and hills are making the difference) When do you usually start to see a difference. And is it usually only like a few seconds? Cause I haven't seen any so far and I will comminte but I just hope I am not wasting my time.
 

posted Dec-21-2005 12:29 PM         

quote:

---

Originally posted by jackster:
I haven't posted in a while. I have been doing the HR training for about 3 or 4 weeks. I feel really good doing it, feels most of the time that I could run forever. I am 27 so my maf if 158 with the 5 added........

---

Not much experience to say when you should start to see results, but everything I've read says minor improvements over 3 weeks and "major improvements over 6 weeks. No real indication of what minor or major is. Based on my reading of others experiences, here and elsewhere, you might see that your HR is more stable at a given pace (minor change) and then an actual pace drop (major change). No real data on what a real pace drop would be, but I think 20s per mile is a decent number. Think back and you may find that you've become more stable at pace vs HR (i.e. little or no HR rise) over the last 3-4 weeks rather than getting faster.

Also, if you have a cold it will have an adverse impact on your HR. In my experience you normally see a rise in HR vs pace when sick, but in your case you just might be fatigued. If so, then it is just harder to push yourself to the higher HR. You might want to ease up/cut back to get over your cold and then see how you progress once you're back to full health. Gauging your fitness while sick is probably a hit or miss proposition.

All the proponents here will tell you: patience is the key, your times will improve. 2-3 months and you'll be running near your original pace at lower HR. 1 min gain over that time period is certainly doable as indicated by the experience of others who have posted on this topic.

[This message has been edited by junkmiles (edited Dec-21-2005).]
 

posted Dec-21-2005 02:24 PM         

quote:

---

Originally posted by BJL:
Tpr55 - I'm frustrated too - no improvement except that I've never run longer time-wise, but my mpw is lower than ever b/c I have to walk so much. I want to stay committed to this MAF thing b/c I think it makes sense. This summer I never ran my 10m/m runs out of breath at all, I could converse, but now I'm walking and jogging a little to be btn 13:30-15m/m!! I'd love to up my mpw but I'm already at 3-4hours=14-19mpw! and no improvement. But it's a cold winter, so I'll keep trying, if it was nicer out I'd probably quit this thing. I'm not even doing the MAF-5 - I'm just doing the straight 180-age, although technically I should -5. The one positive is that I'm not tired at all - ever - during the week, heck I don't even sweat and my HR goes over sometimes just so I can keep warm. Let us know when you do improve!

---

tpr55 & BJL
Improvement may come initially in the form of stable HR over a 1 hour run or so. pace improvement comes after that. I've been at it less than you, but noticed less rise in HR (i.e. more stability) for 45-90min runs before any pace improvement.

I've found that warming up is more important to maintaining stable and low HR than I thought. For an easy run I would almost never warm up, I'd just go. Now, I'll walk/jog to get the blood flowing for a while and I find my HR is more stable on the easy low HR runs.

 

posted Dec-21-2005 04:18 PM         

quote:

---

Originally posted by junkmiles:

I've found that warming up is more important to maintaining stable and low HR than I thought. For an easy run I would almost never warm up, I'd just go. Now, I'll walk/jog to get the blood flowing for a while and I find my HR is more stable on the easy low HR runs.

---

When I was living in a colder place than I do now, I found it difficult to warm up gradually in winter because I was dressed for running and needed to get moving or freeze. So I used to row on my machine first to 15 mins - that fixed the problem and I was more relaxed at the start of a run on cold days.

Still reading these posts I keep wondering if there really is any point in going so slowly you have to walk, especially if you can run continuously at an easy conversational pace at an albeit higher heart rate. Isn't that just the formula not fitting an individual - especially if there is no improvement for weeks on end.

There is a huge body of practice that makes the case for easy-paced, or conversational-paced running. It is the basis almost every training schedule - just the amount of the other stuff differs. How clear is the case for going slower than this?

OK, I could be so unfit that I could not run without going out of my 'fat burning zone' - then I should rather keep my heart rate up by walking fast. But anyone who has months or years of running experience should be able to jog continuously at a comfortable pace. Isn't this what the whole jogging revolution was about in the first place? Time for a reality check perhaps?

posted Dec-21-2005 05:13 PM         

quote:

---

Originally posted by briandirect:

Still reading these posts I keep wondering if there really is any point in going so slowly you have to walk, especially if you can run continuously at an easy conversational pace at an albeit higher heart rate. Isn't that just the formula not fitting an individual - especially if there is no improvement for weeks on end.

There is a huge body of practice that makes the case for easy-paced, or conversational-paced running. It is the basis almost every training schedule - just the amount of the other stuff differs. How clear is the case for going slower than this?

OK, I could be so unfit that I could not run without going out of my 'fat burning zone' - then I should rather keep my heart rate up by walking fast. But anyone who has months or years of running experience should be able to jog continuously at a comfortable pace. Isn't this what the whole jogging revolution was about in the first place? Time for a reality check perhaps?

---

Two different approaches for getting your HR down and still run. I've seen successful anectdotal data on the following:

1. For absolutely new runners, never ran before, probably never exercised. Do the run/walk thing by running until you hit your upper limit HR (e.g. MAF or 70% maxHR or whatever) then walk, do this until you can run at or below your target HR continuously for 30 minutes. After awhile increase your duration and throw in faster running.

or

2. If you've been hammering the miles and can't run well at low HR: push it down to 5-10bpm over your target, even if you slow down, but still run. When pace at that HR improves 20s/mile push it down 5bpm, even if you slow down again. When pace improves push it down 5bpm again until you get to your target. Then keep it there and pace should continue to improve. When improvement stops throw in faster running. Starting more than 10bpm over your target is probably counterproductive, because your pace isn't likely to improve at thetop end if you can't run at the low-end.

I essentially followed approach number 2. I wasn't hammering the miles, but running below 140 was agonizingly slow. so I got comfortable in the 140-150 range (68-75%HRR or 75-80%maxHR), clearly too fast to build a base, but at least I was running for up to 2-2.5 hrs. Then I aimed for strictly below 145 (70% HRR) and I saw small pace improvements at that lower HR. So I pushed my target HR down to below MAF and slowed down by 3min/mile. It isn't very fast, but I'm seeing improvement, since I can run 90min with minimal rise in HR below MAF. I should be back to a reasonable pace in a few weeks and continue to improve from there.

--jm

[This message has been edited by junkmiles (edited Dec-21-2005).]

[This message has been edited by junkmiles (edited Dec-21-2005).]
 

posted Dec-21-2005 05:30 PM         

quote:

---

Originally posted by junkmiles:
Two different approaches for getting your HR down and still run. I've seen successful anectdotal data on the following:

1. For absolutely new runners, never ran before, probably never exercised. Do the run/walk thing until you can run continuously for 30 minutes and don't worry about HR. After awhile start to push your HR down to your target.

or

2. If you've been hammering the miles and can't run well at low HR: push it down to 5-10bpm over your target, even if you slow down, but still run. When pace at that HR improves 20s/mile push it down 5bpm, even if you slow down again. When pace improves push it down 5bpm again until you get to your target. Then keep it there and pace should continue to improve. Starting more than 10bpm over your target is probably counterproductive.

I essentially followed approach number 2. I wasn't hammering the miles, but running below 140 was agonizingly slow. so I got comfortable in the 140-150 range (68-75%HRR or 75-80%maxHR), clearly too fast to build a base, but at least I was running for up to 2-2.5 hrs. Then I aimed for strictly below 145 (70% HRR) and I saw pace improvements at that lower HR. I still couldn't maintain any reasonable pace at 70% HRmax (132bpm). So I pushed my target HR down to 132 and slowed down by 3min/mile. It isn't very fast, but I'm seeing improvement, since I can run 90min with minimal rise in HR. I should be back to a reasonable pace in a few weeks and continue to improve from there.

--jm

---

jm - that makes sense to me. I have been working on the similar lines. I was running too big a proportion of my runs too fast.

So....

First start with a big cut in pace and HR (though jogging, not walk-run), then ratchet the HR down some more and perhaps the pace as the fitness in the 'zone improves. But I am looking for, and finding improvement, on a weekly basis. The improvement is either lower HR, more miles, or more flexibility with pace - usually all three.

Some of the other experiences I read above are a bit alarming. Weeks of walk-run and 13 or 14 min pace for an experienced runner with no improvement for weeks sounds wrong. Unless I misunderstood something.

-brian
 

posted Dec-21-2005 06:02 PM         

quote:

---

Originally posted by briandirect:
First start with a big cut in pace and HR (though jogging, not walk-run), then ratchet the HR down some more and perhaps the pace as the fitness in the 'zone improves. But I am looking for, and finding improvement, on a weekly basis. The improvement is either lower HR, more miles, or more flexibility with pace - usually all three.

---

One caveat is maybe you walk on hills or shuffle up the hill. I bit the bullet and ate the 3 min hit on pace, in the long run it should be worth it.

I think it's a reasonable approach for folks who can't stomach walking during their runs. It'd be interesting to see the differences in rate of improvement, but I doubt you could set up the experiment to isolate the variable.
 

posted Dec-21-2005 08:01 PM         

quote:

---

Originally posted by junkmiles:
Not much experience to say when you should start to see results, but everything I've read says minor improvements over 3 weeks and "major improvements over 6 weeks.

---

I'd like to see where you read anything like that; certainly not in any of the threads I've been studying here for months.
 

posted Dec-21-2005 08:09 PM         

quote:

---

Originally posted by junkmiles:
Improvement may come initially in the form of stable HR over a 1 hour run or so. pace improvement comes after that. I've been at it less than you, but noticed less rise in HR (i.e. more stability) for 45-90min runs before any pace improvement.

---

I hear you, but it seems everyone has their own adaptation to add to this training. Seems to me you're doing it one way or the other, controlling your HR at a certain level (MAF, for example) and monitoring the resulting pace results OR controlling pace at a set level and monitoring the resulting HR drift.......... similar, maybe, but not the same method. The former is Maffetone, the latter is what you're describing.

posted Dec-21-2005 08:34 PM         

quote:

---

Originally posted by tpr55:
I hear you, but it seems everyone has their own adaptation to add to this training. Seems to me you're doing it one way or the other, controlling your HR at a certain level (MAF, for example) and monitoring the resulting pace results OR controlling pace at a set level and monitoring the resulting HR drift.......... similar, maybe, but not the same method. The former is Maffetone, the latter is what you're describing.

---

I think jm's method has merit. A problem with MAF seems to be you can easily be way off with your target HR - its just a generalised calculation - a guestemate at best. So its easy to see how this can be 10 beats off - a huge amount.