posted Dec-24-2005 12:54 PM            

--Jimmy

My Running World
 

posted Dec-24-2005 02:06 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by jjwaverly42:
Nothing wrong with a long thread that I can see, Jesse. The way I see it, you can come in anywhere in the thread and get the gist of things.Keep this monster going!

In the meantime, I'm getting through my two-week "off-season" by reading books about ultra-running. I recommend this one to everyone:

Running Through The Wall:
Personal Encounters With The UltraMarathon
by Neal Jamison

It's full of well-written personal stories by these extreme athletes, who endure an amazing amount of pain as they run 100 miles at a shot. I'm finding that their experiences are woking on my psych in a very interesting way. Their accomplishments are pointing me toward a greater human potential that is within each of us. I may never do an ultramarathon, but I'm beginning to believe that I can stretch my limits even further, mentally, physically, and spiritually.

Merry Christmas!

--Jimmy

My Running World

---

I agree....let's keep the thread going and see how many "years" it will go on. It is a great resource for those interested in the Maffetone approach. I send the link to many of my ultrarunning friends to read it like a novel.

My wife and I are both contributors in that book, BTW.
My story is about our first really long run together in the White Mountains, a 20 hour magical oddysey.
My wife's is about how we were engaged at 13,000 feet at our favorite race, the Hardrock Hundred.

Enjoy!

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

My Photo Page
 

posted Dec-24-2005 02:09 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by ultrasteve:
I agree....let's keep the thread going and see how many "years" it will go on. It is a great resource for those interested in the Maffetone approach. I send the link to many of my ultrarunning friends to read it like a novel.

---

As long as we still get your "seasoned" (sorry, not implying anything
about your age - just your experience) experience posts along with
Jimmy's entertaining posts, it will be worth continuing!

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

MyStuff
 

posted Dec-24-2005 02:14 PM            

I hope 2006 brings you all some new running experiences, fat for fuel and a really low training HR at as fast a pace as you'd like!

Old Steve
 

posted Dec-24-2005 02:34 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by ultrasteve:
Merry Christmas, Everyone!

I hope 2006 brings you all some new running experiences, fat for fuel and a really low training HR at as fast a pace as you'd like!

Old Steve

---

Here's to that! Now, Jimmy - it's time for some poetry. I'll get you
started:

Fat burn for you, fat burn for me
by jjwaverly

What dost this band about my chest bring about?
Take my fat, not my sugar, when next time I'm out.

....

My feet piddled along like a slug or a snail
With hopes that my slow-twitchers soon would prevail

...

What's that? My MAF is only 125?
Please tell me, Mark Allen, will this make my running thrive?

...

Oh no, it's up ahead, a miniscule hill
To tolerate much more of this will take extraordinary will!

(All right, so I'm lacking the literary talent as well, but you can
make the best collage of buzzwords!)

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

MyStuff
 

posted Dec-26-2005 08:57 PM            

So, a few of my running buddies have begun to really take a closer
look at this Maffetone, even those who "back in the day" have pummeled
all of my best times (also some who haven't come close), and all
of whom have been entirely skeptical until my results over the last
few months. I talked to
a woman today whom I run with occasionally for long runs when I want
a slower running partner. She had started Maffetone training a few weeks
ago, but today she told me she fell off the wagon. Couldn't take it anymore.

Then there's the friend of mine who had just reached about 3:03 in the
marathon (about 5 years ago), injured his Achilles, and hasn't been able
to run much since.
Every time he's started, it hasn't been long until he has had to stop again.
He started MAF training a few months back. At least he has had not
had any recurrence of Achilles problems since starting back up again.
However, he's disappointed in his progress. He was at about a 12 min/mi
when he started, and now he's just faster than 10 and not progressing
very much. I've been really scratching my head trying to figure it out
because I figured with his background, he would be in the 7s within
2-3 months. Well, I went running with him for a 12 miler a few days ago.
His MAF is 140, 145 if he gives himself the 5 extra. I've been going
extra slowly the last few weeks, partly because I've withered away my
base, and partly because I've hardly been running at all since the last
marathon, just taking a nice holiday break. (paying the price for it now
as my asthma and allergies are now coming back, and I'm catching
colds left and right, which always happens when my running cuts back.)
So, I'm running behind him for the most part, not worried about keeping
HR really, just trying to stay *near* MAF. In either case, he's a few
steps in front of me, clearly leading the pace. At about 8 miles, I asked
him what his HR was - he said 149. After 9 or 10, I asked again - 151.
Hmm, then I asked him again, after the run, "are you sure you've been
staying strictly under MAF for all of your runs?" the answer - "well, I
guess I let it go up later in the runs, but the average is usually below
MAF." aha! Answers my question. He's cheating. Same situation
with another guy at work. Not a big deal, because at least he is able
to run consistently now, so even if his pace doesn't improve that much,
it's better than *not* being able to run.

In short, you'll never get anywhere in this unless you really want to do it.
Cheat a little bit and you probably won't see results. At least not
significant results. Exactly what Mark Allen says.
Beginning of base building: walk even the easy hills
End of base building: 5:20 per mile below MAF (ok, I'll never see that)

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

MyStuff
 

posted Dec-26-2005 09:46 PM         

Just finished 6th week, and have hoped for some faint sign of progress but don't see it...... Rather than overload with data, I'll summarize results by week, with "weighted" HRavg and pace (pace expressed as decimal):

wk/HRavg/Pace
1- 137.06, 9.67
2- 137.9, 9.50
3- 136.13, 9.91
4- 135.7, 9.92
5- 136.6, 10.08
6- 137.5, 9.91

comments/background-
* Mileage volume 40-45 mpw
* Week 6 avgs do not include 2 runs in which I finally gave in and did something higher-exertion
* My MAF hr per formula is 135 (180-50+5)
* Prior to start, have been running 3 yrs, did first marathon in Oct., 2000+ miles this year, training pace had gotten down to ~8:30-45, 10K PR is 48:33, 15K is 1:19:25, marathon 3:56:50.

Jesse will point out right away that I've been "cheating" by averaging over 135 MAF.......true. Not sure I want to totally commit that missing a threshold which is so generic by a beat or two should negate progress. I understand the concepts, but I certainly think there is room for give and take. Also, I really do want the training to work for me, and fear that if this effort is not enough I may ultimately stray.....

Is it possible that I'm just not going to see major pace improvements? Even so, I would like to think that I am gaining something from this experiment/effort, but if the numbers are so unforgiving, I fear I may be wasting time.

Unlike some other posters, I don't find I am likely to embrace the method...... I've read Maffetone and Mittleman, and I certainly don't subscribe to all the beautiful revelations Mittleman shares. I'm not hearing beautiful music, or feeling a heightened awareness, etc. There are times during runs when I zone out a bit and forget about the frustration, and settle into a pace which more comfortably stays at MAF (or close)...... but then at the end of the run when I see how slow it was again, I get frustrated again.
 

posted Dec-26-2005 10:04 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by tpr55:

Unlike some other posters, I don't find I am likely to embrace the method...... I've read Maffetone and Mittleman, and I certainly don't subscribe to all the beautiful revelations Mittleman shares. I'm not hearing beautiful music, or feeling a heightened awareness, etc. There are times during runs when I zone out a bit and forget about the frustration, and settle into a pace which more comfortably stays at MAF (or close)...... but then at the end of the run when I see how slow it was again, I get frustrated again.

---

Certainly understood. Even out of the all of my buddies who
have "agreed to be part of my science experiment", none of them
has really done it. And some are close friends of mine. Oh well.
Aside from all of the volume I did, I actually targeted 5 below my 180
-age and didn't give myself the extra. I found that it made a clear
difference (at the expense of additional early frustration) to target a
lower heart rate rather than a higher one. Lower heart rate = more
use of fat for fuel = higher percentage of slow-twitch vs fast twitch
muscle fibers. Incidentally, the first time I tried something like this,
I stayed strict for eight weeks and my pace at low heart rate went
from about 11:50 to about 9:50 per mile, but my one mile race time
improved from 6:1X to 5:36, 2 mile from 13:26-12:46, 5k from
21:1X to 20:39, 10k from 47:XX to 45:21, and marathon from
4:03 to 3:54. That was on 40-60 mpw and no biking or swimming.
There have been many who have seen virtually no improvement
for at least 8 or 9 weeks.

Now, about you, it is interesting to note that your times don't fall
terribly off as the distances get longer, only moderately, although
a 5k might be more indicative. Your 10k predicts a 3:47 marathon,
really not much faster than you already did and possibly can be
explained by differences in heat, hills, humidity, training methods,
etc. You may not have much further that you can go with aerobic
speed development in other words. For myself, my 5k times predicted
marathon times more than 1/2 hour better than I was doing, so I clearly
had a problem that needed to be fixed. If I were you, I would stick
it out for 8 weeks, try to shoot for a lower MAF, and then start adding
in tempo runs. Go through the race season, see where you are, and
then go back to aerobic development in the off-season. Good luck,
in either case. Find what works for you.

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

MyStuff
 

posted Dec-26-2005 11:41 PM         

Results: 5K: 23:00, 10K 48:50, 1/2: 1:50:12, MAR 4:19
Have ran 6 mararathons and 7 1/2s'.

Today I ran 8 miles with my Garmin and Polar in tow, as many of you have noted my high hr (based on 220-50=170 x .75%) should be around 145. I had a heck of a time getting it below 152 at a 11:00 pace vs. my regular workout of 9:30 pace. Talk about running slow!!

Now, not to cause a uproar, I use an abreviated Galloway run/walk method, with 30 sec. walks every mile, but even with that my overall hr at the end was 142. I'm starting training for RNR in San Diego and want to break 4:00, based on the results I've had and the McMillan tables I should be ok, but I always bonk at 18-20. (Similar to other posts, diff pace) I'm using a program that peaks at about 55 miles a week.

Anybody's thoughts?

 

posted Dec-26-2005 11:46 PM         

quote:

---

Originally posted by tpr55:
.......Unlike some other posters, I don't find I am likely to embrace the method...... I've read Maffetone and Mittleman, and I certainly don't subscribe to all the beautiful revelations Mittleman shares. I'm not hearing beautiful music, or feeling a heightened awareness, etc. There are times during runs when I zone out a bit and forget about the frustration, and settle into a pace which more comfortably stays at MAF (or close)...... but then at the end of the run when I see how slow it was again, I get frustrated again.

---

You're in a tough spot. I think 6 weeks is a reasonable amount of time to see some progress. You may have hit your peak, but you may not actually be training at a lowHR for you.

Within the context of MAF: I think that 1 or 2 beats over your MAF is not a big deal if that was a peak HR on a given lap or run. The impact may be different if your average is 1 or 2 beats over MAF. In that case it is likely that your HR is really fluctuating 2-3 beats over and below your average and you are in fact spending a non-trivial amount of time 5 beats or more over your MAF target. If you're seeing peak HRs in the low 140's, with averages like 136,137,138, then you're probably spending too much time too far over MAF.

Also, I agree with you that the 180-age formula is somewhat generic. I suspect it is statistically derived from real data, and it is probably inaccurate for a small, but non-zero segment of the population. It may be helpful if you relate it to your "conventional" training zones, based on MaxHR. For example, if I recall correctly, Jesse has a maxHR of 205 or so and a MAF HR of 145. That puts his MAF right around 70% (144bpm) of max HR. According to some traditional training approaches I've read base building is supposed to be done at or near 70% maxHR (e.g. Daniels, McMillan). And I can't recall seeing one that recommends anything above 75% during base building.

You may see progress by pushing the HR down a few beats. I don't know your actual maxHR, but for the sake of argument, let's say the totally discredited 220-age method worked for you. That puts maxHR at about 170, which puts your MAF+5 (135) at about 79-80%. I don't know any program that prescribes base building at that level of effort. Even with max HR of 180 (205-.5*age, which supposedly is a better estimate for fit individuals over 40), you'd still running north of 75%. Anyway, just a thought experiment, your real numbers may or may not apply.

Good luck.

[This message has been edited by junkmiles (edited Dec-27-2005).]
 

posted Dec-27-2005 12:41 AM         

quote:

---

Originally posted by HarryRuns26:
.....Today I ran 8 miles with my Garmin and Polar in tow, as many of you have noted my high hr (based on 220-50=170 x .75%) should be around 145. I had a heck of a time getting it below 152 at a 11:00 pace vs. my regular workout of 9:30 pace. Talk about running slow!!

.........Anybody's thoughts?

---

Well, folks on this board would probably tell you to run below HR 135bpm (180-age+5) for 3 months and then step up to a traditional marathon training plan for the next 3 months leading up to the June race. You might want to run at <130. You'd probably slow way down, but your pace would improve. The theory is that this approach will help you develop your ability to burn fat as a fuel, rather than glycogen. Your success at using fat as fuel at faster paces will play a big part in your ability to not hit the wall, or at least push it out farther (hopefully farther than 26.2 miles ).

The math above is flawed or a typo. If your max HR is 170 then 75% would be about 128, not 145, which is 85%.

If running below 135 won't work for you check out posts here by jjwaverly42 and take a look at his running site that outlines his training experiments. The multi-zone HR training has gotten him very solid PRs. In those approaches you'll be better served by knowing your true maximum heart rate, not based on a formula.

good luck

--jm

[This message has been edited by junkmiles (edited Dec-27-2005).]
 

posted Dec-27-2005 05:19 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by HarryRuns26:
Ok, here we go, after slogging thru this forum I decided to get the Polar A3 unit out and give it another go. A little background, I've been running steady for about 4 years, about 1000 miles a year, weigh 205, 6' tall and age 50. Currently, I'm averaging about 30+ miles a week.

Results: 5K: 23:00, 10K 48:50, 1/2: 1:50:12, MAR 4:19
Have ran 6 mararathons and 7 1/2s'.

Today I ran 8 miles with my Garmin and Polar in tow, as many of you have noted my high hr (based on 220-50=170 x .75%) should be around 145. I had a heck of a time getting it below 152 at a 11:00 pace vs. my regular workout of 9:30 pace. Talk about running slow!!

Now, not to cause a uproar, I use an abreviated Galloway run/walk method, with 30 sec. walks every mile, but even with that my overall hr at the end was 142. I'm starting training for RNR in San Diego and want to break 4:00, based on the results I've had and the McMillan tables I should be ok, but I always bonk at 18-20. (Similar to other posts, diff pace) I'm using a program that peaks at about 55 miles a week.

Anybody's thoughts?

---

My comments similar to jm's - first, 220-age is a virtually useless
approximation for max heart rate. My max is 210 at age 36. Second,
75% max heart rate is not a good choice (for most people) to be well
into the aerobic regime. (For me, at 75% max heart rate, my RQ
indicates that I'm burning 60% carb/40% fat for energy, but it will
be different for others). Unfortunately, as jm said, you'd want to use
a lower target if you wanted to see some of the effects that have been
described in this thread. Now, I don't think you'll see an uproar in
reference to Galloway training here, but I will say that I'm not sure
how valid pace predictors and so forth will be when employing walk-run
in races.

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

MyStuff
 

posted Dec-27-2005 05:27 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by junkmiles:

Also, I agree with you that the 180-age formula is somewhat generic. I suspect it is statistically derived from real data, and it is probably inaccurate for a small, but non-zero segment of the population. It may be helpful if you relate it to your "conventional" training zones, based on MaxHR. For example, if I recall correctly, Jesse has a maxHR of 205 or so and a MAF HR of 145. That puts his MAF right around 70% (144bpm) of max HR. According to some traditional training approaches I've read base building is supposed to be done at or near 70% maxHR (e.g. Daniels, McMillan). And I can't recall seeing one that recommends anything above 75% during base building.

[This message has been edited by junkmiles (edited Dec-27-2005).]

---

My max is actually 210. My personal belief is that %max HR
is not the way to go because it doesn't account for an individual's
fitness. There's no doubt that there can be problems with any
formula based approach, but if one really wants to use the "right"
numbers, they would have to have their anaerobic threshold
determined and use a percentage of that for zones, or use their
respiratory quotient which would come out of a vo2max test
and find the heart rate that associates with the crossover point
where 50% carb/50% fat is burned, and I always stay lower
during the base phase. That corresponds within a couple of
beats to my MAF heart rate. Just my opinion, I'm not sure that's
been stated anywhere by a professional, but it makes sense to
me. For any others out there who have had vo2max tested
recently, I would be curious to see what their numbers state
and how they compare to MAF, in particular, at what heart rate
RQ (or RER) hits about .85. Given that it's expensive to have
a vo2max test done, I believe the MAF formula probably gives
you the best starting point for a "low-zone" heart rate. However,
one may have to go even lower, especially if his/her max heart
rate is especially low.

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

MyStuff
 

posted Dec-27-2005 10:20 AM            

My observations on MAF approach.

*Don't think it will work for many of people doing the low mileage I am doing - 20 miles per week over 4 days unless they are coming off an injury, beginning or have no base
i.e. with my faster training approach my PRs last year were
5K 19:55, 10K 41:15 1/2 Mar 1:33.30

*Communicating with experts or so called experts on various sites, they have told me with my profile and mileage limitations that I would respond better with more intensity so I am back to doing tempos and faster striders and 10K pace short intervals until early spring when I prepare for races. My tempo run on Friday was a challenge. My legs felt heavy and I almost felt a regression in aerobic threshhold OR maybe it is my 5 lbs I gained. HA! I was also sore the next couple days. One expert told me I should never, ever give up tempo work in off season. This got me thinking and with more communication with others, I decided to halt MAF training after 6 weeks

* One of the experts who worked with Maffetone for a couple years told me my results should be almost immediate. He told me if you notice no improvements in 2 weeks, to give it up and he had much success from Maffetone and respects him greatly

* I have a pretty strong base (apparently) and have been doing intense aerobic conditioning for 15 years with more running focus the last 7 years. If this wasn't the case, maybe I would have had some benefit

* I loved the slower pace but for me, the pace wasn't that slow. At 10 beats below my MAF HR I was still working over 70% of my MAX HR and within a 1/1/2 - 2 min. of my current 10K pace. This also tells me I have a strong base. When I do the MAF test on a treadmill with 0% incline my MAF HR at mile 3 is 7:48 which is about 1 min below my current 10K pace

* I would absolutely recommend this training for those who are starting out, coming off injury, need a break from intense training or those who want to run into older adulthood and remain injury free. At some point, I know this is how I will be running all the time or most of the time but right now at 39 going on 40, I have a lot of intensity left PLUS I love working at higher intensity - which also says something about my make up

Just my thoughts - good luck to those who are starting MAF training or who have recently started. Also, just because it didn't work for me, doesn't mean it won't work for you.

Todd

posted Dec-27-2005 10:25 AM         

quote:

---

Originally posted by junkmiles:

You're in a tough spot. I think 6 weeks is a reasonable amount of time to see some progress. You may have hit your peak, but you may not actually be training at a lowHR for you.

Within the context of MAF: I think that 1 or 2 beats over your MAF is not a big deal if that was a peak HR on a given lap or run. The impact may be different if your average is 1 or 2 beats over MAF. In that case it is likely that your HR is really fluctuating 2-3 beats over and below your average and you are in fact spending a non-trivial amount of time 5 beats or more over your MAF target. If you're seeing peak HRs in the low 140's, with averages like 136,137,138, then you're probably spending too much time too far over MAF.

Also, I agree with you that the 180-age formula is somewhat generic. I suspect it is statistically derived from real data, and it is probably inaccurate for a small, but non-zero segment of the population. It may be helpful if you relate it to your "conventional" training zones, based on MaxHR. For example, if I recall correctly, Jesse has a maxHR of 205 or so and a MAF HR of 145. That puts his MAF right around 70% (144bpm) of max HR. According to some traditional training approaches I've read base building is supposed to be done at or near 70% maxHR (e.g. Daniels, McMillan). And I can't recall seeing one that recommends anything above 75% during base building.

You may see progress by pushing the HR down a few beats. I don't know your actual maxHR, but for the sake of argument, let's say the totally discredited 220-age method worked for you. That puts maxHR at about 170, which puts your MAF+5 (135) at about 79-80%. I don't know any program that prescribes base building at that level of effort. Even with max HR of 180 (205-.5*age, which supposedly is a better estimate for fit individuals over 40), you'd still running north of 75%. Anyway, just a thought experiment, your real numbers may or may not apply.

Good luck.

[This message has been edited by junkmiles (edited Dec-27-2005).]

---

Daniels says easy running done between 65-79% MHR in his book. Thats right as high as 79%! What about Lydiard? He prescribes fast aerobic running througout the whole base phase. I can only assume this means upper end aerobic running(75-80%).

What is one to do such as myself? My MAF= 155 (I'm 25). I subtract 5 bpm and I'm still at 79% of my MHR. My MHR is 191. This pace is more than conversational. In fact I could probley drink a cup of joe while on the run at this pace. Should I slow down even more?

 

posted Dec-27-2005 11:35 AM         

quote:

---

Originally posted by leitnerj:

Now, about you, it is interesting to note that your times don't fall
terribly off as the distances get longer, only moderately, although
a 5k might be more indicative. Your 10k predicts a 3:47 marathon,
really not much faster than you already did and possibly can be
explained by differences in heat, hills, humidity, training methods,
etc. You may not have much further that you can go with aerobic
speed development in other words.

---

yes, that's another angle I've looked at. I plugged my times into the McMillan calculator, and it didn't seem like I was far off as distances increased (note: my 10K PR was on a pretty favorable course, 15K big hills). Maybe I'm trying to see some logic were logic may not always apply. I suppose it could be possible that the message for me is that my aerobic base is better off than I expected. I haven't experienced the 11-12m (or higher) paces oft' heard in this thread; just went from 8:30-ish to 10:00, but no signs after six weeks of any downward creep in pace........ Again, I would still like to think that the exercise, even if I could have gone consistently lower by a few bpm, has still created some benefit, even if currently undetected.

Still not sure how I will proceed from here.......

By the way, I use 180 as my HRmax, as I have hit that on the HRM.

[This message has been edited by tpr55 (edited Dec-27-2005).]
 

posted Dec-27-2005 12:00 PM            

Anyway, my usual routine on the treadmill is to warm up by walking for about 4 to 5 minutes and then run/jog for about 70 to 100 minutes. I would go from a 3.5MPH warm up walk to a 5.2 to 5.3MPH jog right out of the gate and within two minutes my heart rate would exceed my MEP (150) and I would spend the next 60 to 90 minutes tweaking the speed to stay at the absolute high end of my MEP. I would generally finish up averaging 150bpm for the majority of my run at approximately 5 MPH (12 minute miles).

Today, Instead of bolting to 5.2MPH or so right after my warmup, I went to 4.8MPH for about 5 to 10 minutes and finally settled in at 5.0MPH for the remainder of my run. The longer, slower warmup definately had an impact as I completed my entire run below 145 bpm with the majority of my run around 140 - 142bpm. The longer, slower warmup (really only about 5 to 10 extra minutes) allowed me to keep my heart rate about 6 to 8 beats slower than usual at the same average 5MPH speed. Prior to today, I did not think it was possible for me to keep my HR below 145.

So the moral of this story is to really take your time in warming up.

A side note - while I have not yet seen great pace improvements using this method yet, I definately have been able to dramatically increase my mileage while staying uninjured. The last 3 weeks have seen me with 59, 55 and 60 Miles per week respectively. I was averaging around 30 to 40 before I started. And now that I think I have the long, slow warmup down, I trust that my pace issue may begin to improve as well.
 

posted Dec-27-2005 12:06 PM            

Sooo...I'm a newb at this and will start reading this afternoon. I ran Chicago with a modified Galloway method, so I'm not a total newb at running.

I plan on running a late spring early summer marathon-maybe San Diego. In your professional and experienced opinions, using the Maffetone method, will I be ready to run this marathon using HRT? I hear the first month or two can be painfully slow running and I definitely want to improve my time over my last marathon. My goal is to do it in 5 hours or less...I cramped up big time in Chicago and ended up with a dismal 5:38:46. Proud to have finished, disappointed in my time.

posted Dec-27-2005 12:41 PM         

quote:

---

Originally posted by sibelius:
I've been on low HR training for just over 3 weeks and had one of those "aha" moments today that I wanted to pass along. Instead of using Maffetone, I've been using Mittleton which allows you some additional bpm's to stay within "target". So instead of MAP, I've been using MEP. Same concept.

Anyway, my usual routine on the treadmill is to warm up by walking for about 4 to 5 minutes and then run/jog for about 70 to 100 minutes. I would go from a 3.5MPH warm up walk to a 5.2 to 5.3MPH jog right out of the gate and within two minutes my heart rate would exceed my MEP (150) and I would spend the next 60 to 90 minutes tweaking the speed to stay at the absolute high end of my MEP. I would generally finish up averaging 150bpm for the majority of my run at approximately 5 MPH (12 minute miles).

Today, Instead of bolting to 5.2MPH or so right after my warmup, I went to 4.8MPH for about 5 to 10 minutes and finally settled in at 5.0MPH for the remainder of my run. The longer, slower warmup definately had an impact as I completed my entire run below 145 bpm with the majority of my run around 140 - 142bpm. The longer, slower warmup (really only about 5 to 10 extra minutes) allowed me to keep my heart rate about 6 to 8 beats slower than usual at the same average 5MPH speed. Prior to today, I did not think it was possible for me to keep my HR below 145.

So the moral of this story is to really take your time in warming up.

A side note - while I have not yet seen great pace improvements using this method yet, I definately have been able to dramatically increase my mileage while staying uninjured. The last 3 weeks have seen me with 59, 55 and 60 Miles per week respectively. I was averaging around 30 to 40 before I started. And now that I think I have the long, slow warmup down, I trust that my pace issue may begin to improve as well.

---

I'm just finishing up reading Slow Burn, after reading one of Maffetone's books. One of the things that stood out to me in Mittleman's zones was that MAP is MAF and below; MEP is MAF on the low end of the range. So using MEP is totally different than subscribing to Maffetone's MAF methods; it's a whole level ABOVE. I've been trying to stay at MAF for about six weeks, and haven't really considered Mittleman's approach yet. I'll have to go back and refresh; I recall his approach more of a variety of sessions in the different zones.
 

posted Dec-27-2005 12:43 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by sibelius:

Today, Instead of bolting to 5.2MPH or so right after my warmup, I went to 4.8MPH for about 5 to 10 minutes and finally settled in at 5.0MPH for the remainder of my run. The longer, slower warmup definately had an impact as I completed my entire run below 145 bpm with the majority of my run around 140 - 142bpm. The longer, slower warmup (really only about 5 to 10 extra minutes) allowed me to keep my heart rate about 6 to 8 beats slower than usual at the same average 5MPH speed. Prior to today, I did not think it was possible for me to keep my HR below 145.

So the moral of this story is to really take your time in warming up.

---

I did a very similar thing with my past 3 runs. I was able to ultimately maintain a more consistant pace at a lower HR. I will venture to say that on the 2nd run my pace was a bit quicker. I was hoping for the same thing today, but there was enough of a head wind to keep my pace slower.

Each bit of improvement is encouraging.
W00-HOO!
Karen
 

posted Dec-27-2005 12:47 PM         

quote:

---

Originally posted by leitnerj:
There's no doubt that there can be problems with any
formula based approach, but if one really wants to use the "right"
numbers, they would have to have their anaerobic threshold
determined and use a percentage of that for zones, or use their
respiratory quotient which would come out of a vo2max test
and find the heart rate that associates with the crossover point
where 50% carb/50% fat is burned, and I always stay lower
during the base phase. That corresponds within a couple of
beats to my MAF heart rate. Just my opinion, I'm not sure that's
been stated anywhere by a professional, but it makes sense to
me.

---

Jesse,
What is special about the 50% carb/ 50% fat point? I have not read the books, so I don't know the reasoning for its significance. Would not the point of max fat consumption be just as, or perhaps even more significant?

I have never been near a VO2/max test. How to they measure the % fat and carbs you are using?

-brian

posted Dec-27-2005 12:52 PM         

quote:

---

Originally posted by runawayjesse:
[B]
Daniels says easy running done between 65-79% MHR in his book. Thats right as high as 79%! What about Lydiard? He prescribes fast aerobic running througout the whole base phase. I can only assume this means upper end aerobic running(75-80%).
........B]

---

I agree those are the numbers Daniel's states. And as far as I can tell from my limited reading of Lydiard he'd have you running as fast as possible, but still aerobic. Also probably in the upper range. Estimates I've seen from some of Lydiard's disciples were around 65-70% HRR, which may be approximated by 70-75% maxHR.

I think, however, in both cases folks who have implemented the above approaches would recommend doing your easy running at the low-end of the scale early in the base building phase and working your way up to the higher end as your fitness improves.

I believe for inexperienced runners early in a base building phase 75-80%maxHR is probably not primarily aerobic. Remember a main goal of the lowHR training, as espoused in this thread, is not just easy, conversational running, but using fat as fuel. You may very well be running easy at 150-155, but are you using fat as your main energy source at this level of effort?

As far as specific advice, I've researched a lot, but I'm new to the implementation of the lowHR approach. Others here with more experience might have more sage advice. But don't let that stop me from expressing an opinion .

I think your in an interesting spot with a MAF that high, relative to your MaxHR. Personally, I'd push the easiest runs down to 145 say 3-4 days/week and do a couple days a week at the 150-155 target. You'd still be below MAF on all your runs and you'd be able to work effectively in multiple HR zones.

If your pace is intolerable at 145, then stick at 150 until you see improvement, say 20-30s per mile, and then push it down to 145 for the easiest runs. You should definitely see some improvement. Eventually you could probably push your easiest HR down to <140.

[This message has been edited by junkmiles (edited Dec-27-2005).]
 

posted Dec-27-2005 01:08 PM         

quote:

---

Originally posted by sibelius:

.................
So the moral of this story is to really take your time in warming up.
...............

---

In general, you want to approach your HR target from below not hit it right away (or exceed it) and then struggle (slow down) to maintain it. You'll definitely have an easier time if you slowly approach your target from below.

--jm
 

posted Dec-27-2005 01:51 PM            

--jm
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yep - It only took me 3 weeks to figure this one out. However it is exciting when one has a mini-victory of sorts.
 

posted Dec-27-2005 02:02 PM         

quote:

---

Originally posted by leitnerj:
..............For any others out there who have had vo2max tested recently, I would be curious to see what their numbers state and how they compare to MAF, in particular, at what heart rate RQ (or RER) hits about .85. Given that it's expensive to have a vo2max test done, I believe the MAF formula probably gives you the best starting point for a "low-zone" heart rate. However, one may have to go even lower, especially if his/her max heart rate is especially low.

---

Jesse definitely has a point, but %maxHR as a guideline is better than nothing. MAF HR as a guideline is also better than nothing. Folks may find better results comparing MAF to the Heart Rate Reserve (HRR) method. The HRR method does try to account for personal fitness, since it tracks resting HR. For the uninitiated HRR is computed as follows:

x%*(MaxHR-RHR) + RHR = x%HRR

where RHR = resting HR.
x% = 60, 70,75, whatever percent you want to compute.

Personally, I prefer the HRR approach over straight percentage of maxHR, but I also found that running at 70% HRR was still a little fast for promoting fat burning. My MAF correlates with about 65%HRR and I try to do most of my runs at about 60%HRR (MAF-5). Very roughly, HRR is approximately between 5-10% higher than the corresponding maxHR % (e.g. 70%HRR ~75%maxHR).

70%HRR is a figure Pfitzinger uses for recovery runs, but I think folks here have indicated this is a little fast for new runners and promoting fat burning. I can run easy (conversational) at that level, but I've seen improvement by pushing the HR down below MAF.

I think MAF can over estimate if it is high relative to your actual maxHR. Based on the folks here who have successfully implemented the MAF approach, pushing HR down even further than MAF (-5, -10, even -15) can lead to improvements. Maybe if folks put up their numbers we can see what the correlation is between MAF, %maxHR and %HRR.