posted Dec-31-2005 12:53 AM         

quote:

---

Originally posted by briandirect:

The 220 age formla for max HR estimation assumes that we start life at a known maxHR and decline by one beat per year. It is widely known that (a) we don't all start with the same heart rate, and (b) we don't all decline by exactly one beat per year. Still, it gives a reasonable stab at a value in the absense of any test data.

The Maffatone formula assumes we start life at a known MAF and decline by exactly one beat per year. This is identical mathematically to the 220 rule has identical assumptions and must suffer exactly the same difficiencies. He may have done scores of independent tests and found he could not improve on the 220-age formula one bit, but that does not protect him from its limitations.

So one my well ask why does he not say just: "take 40 off your max and apply my 'fudge factors'?"

[This message has been edited by briandirect (edited Dec-30-2005).]

---

Point taken. In general, I agree that the two formulas appear to suffer from the same limitations. IAnd as evidenced by my previous posts I certainly don't treat it as some absolute. I am definitely not trying to argue the validity of the Maffetone formula. I was just indicating that without more info on the origins of the formula, the relationship to 220-age may be more or less superficial.
 

posted Dec-31-2005 01:26 AM         

quote:

---

Originally posted by briandirect:
Hi jm

I'll try it again in a couple of weeks and see how it looks then. Basically, I am pleased with how things are going. Since I started three weeks ago, my slow pace has increased noticibly and my HR dropped a few beats. I am looking to bringing it down a notch more -perhaps from 124 to 120. This will give me more of a 'cushion'. I have noticed that my HR is usually much more resiliant at low rates than it was three weeks ago. Generally it seems to climb slower and is much less likely to balloon up on a hill or in a wind - unless I am very tired, thirsty or sick. Sometines it's like the rate is stuck in a grouve. So I am pleased and will continue..........

---

Sounds like you're off to a good start. HR trending down along with pace is definite progress. The pace may drop in a step-like fashion, so there may be some local plateaus you have to fight through. I find these local flat spots to be relatively short (< 1 week).

good luck.

 

posted Dec-31-2005 03:54 AM         

quote:

---

Originally posted by junkmiles:
In general, I agree that the two formulas appear to suffer from the same limitations. And as evidenced by my previous posts I certainly don't treat it as some absolute.

---

OK Phew! I though you were holding out against simple arithmetic and was beginning admire your conviction

Sooooo, do we have something better than the formula? The cardiac drift test? If so could you please elaborate the parameters again?

posted Dec-31-2005 06:28 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by briandirect:

Your actual max is higher than predicted using the 220, your actual MAF must also be higher than predicted using 180 rule.

---

That's definitely not the case. I know this both experimentally
and through the results from my vo2max test, which indicate
that I should not be running at heart rate much higher. But, I should
ask, being 36, what would you then calculate my MAF HR to be,
if you base it on my max of 210? I can then take that number and
figure out how much fat vs carb I burn at that heart rate.

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

MyStuff
 

posted Dec-31-2005 06:36 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by junkmiles:
Point taken. In general, I agree that the two formulas appear to suffer from the same limitations. IAnd as evidenced by my previous posts I certainly don't treat it as some absolute. I am definitely not trying to argue the validity of the Maffetone formula. I was just indicating that without more info on the origins of the formula, the relationship to 220-age may be more or less superficial.

---

This is definitely one that I disagree with. While I do agree that for
very low max heart rates, Maffetone's formula may have to be adjusted
downward, I don't believe it would ever have to be adjusted upward (being
one with a max heart rate well above the 220-age prediction). Base training
based on a % of 220-age can cause a problem in either direction. In
short, I think there was something to Hadd's reasoning that when HRMax
was above a certain point, you remain below a fixed value (whatever it
was, 140 or 145 or so) no matter what the % of HRMax was.

The real quantity, is %anaerobic threshold heart rate, which is difficult
to come by. Even better, I would assert, would be to know your
respiratory quotient at your range of heart rates to determine what the
base training zone is. However, I believe the Maffetone formulas will
be close enough to avoid the hassle of a vo2max test.

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

MyStuff
 

posted Dec-31-2005 08:32 AM         

quote:

---

Originally posted by leitnerj:
That's definitely not the case. I know this both experimentally
and through the results from my vo2max test, which indicate
that I should not be running at heart rate much higher. But, I should
ask, being 36, what would you then calculate my MAF HR to be,
if you base it on my max of 210? I can then take that number and
figure out how much fat vs carb I burn at that heart rate.

---

Jesse, I would not presume to suggest what your actual MAF is. I am sure you know what you are doing and doing it very well.

I can't understand, however, the confidence in the 180 estimate on one hand and the lack of confidence in the 220 estimate on the other. To sustain this we have to believe that, a one-size-fits all formula is more acurate for estimating MAF HR that it is for maxHR, even though:
(a) it uses exactly the same formulation i.e MAF and max HR both reduce by one beat per year.
(b) it is known that there is a wide variation is heart rate among people at all effort levels.
(c) the 220 rule has been exposed very widely and is known to be inaccurate.
(d) the almost identically formulated 180 estimate for MAF has had very much less exposure but is assumed to be accurate.
(e) we would have to hold that it is more accurate to base one characteristic of a heart MAF, on a generalised formula, than on another characteristic (max HR) of the same heart.

It will work for some, but surely not for all. What about the runners who are trying to be faithful to the formula but are reduced to a 15 min pace walk? Should they wonder?

[This message has been edited by briandirect (edited Dec-31-2005).]
 

posted Dec-31-2005 09:46 AM         

quote:

---

Originally posted by briandirect:
Jesse, I would not presume to suggest what your actual MAF is. I am sure you know what you are doing and doing it very well.

I can't understand, however, the confidence in the 180 estimate on one hand and the lack of confidence in the 220 estimate on the other. To sustain this we have to believe that, a one-size-fits all formula is more acurate for estimating MAF HR that it is for maxHR, even though:
(a) it uses exactly the same formulation i.e MAF and max HR both reduce by one beat per year.
(b) it is known that there is a wide variation is heart rate among people at all effort levels.
(c) the 220 rule has been exposed very widely and is known to be inaccurate.
(d) the almost identically formulated 180 estimate for MAF has had very much less exposure but is assumed to be accurate.
(e) we would have to hold that it is more accurate to base one characteristic of a heart MAF, on a generalised formula, than on another characteristic (max HR) of the same heart.

It will work for some, but surely not for all. What about the runners who are trying to be faithful to the formula but are reduced to a 15 min pace walk? Should they wonder?

[This message has been edited by briandirect (edited Dec-31-2005).]

---

certainly makes sense to me, brian. Makes it pretty clear that there is room to explore........
 

posted Dec-31-2005 10:59 AM         

quote:

---

Originally posted by tpr55:
certainly makes sense to me, brian. Makes it pretty clear that there is room to explore........

---

I guess you just have to check around for yourself and use a couple of different ways to see if you have the right understanding and appropriate rate to match. Cross-checking should reveal any glaringly inaccurate assumptions.

Anyway, I am sure everyone is tired of me banging on about this, so I will shutup now.

 

posted Dec-31-2005 11:22 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by briandirect:
Jesse, I would not presume to suggest what your actual MAF is. I am sure you know what you are doing and doing it very well.

I can't understand, however, the confidence in the 180 estimate on one hand and the lack of confidence in the 220 estimate on the other. To sustain this we have to believe that, a one-size-fits all formula is more acurate for estimating MAF HR that it is for maxHR, even though:
(a) it uses exactly the same formulation i.e MAF and max HR both reduce by one beat per year.
(b) it is known that there is a wide variation is heart rate among people at all effort levels.
(c) the 220 rule has been exposed very widely and is known to be inaccurate.
(d) the almost identically formulated 180 estimate for MAF has had very much less exposure but is assumed to be accurate.
(e) we would have to hold that it is more accurate to base one characteristic of a heart MAF, on a generalised formula, than on another characteristic (max HR) of the same heart.

It will work for some, but surely not for all. What about the runners who are trying to be faithful to the formula but are reduced to a 15 min pace walk? Should they wonder?

[This message has been edited by briandirect (edited Dec-31-2005).]

---

First, don't be so presumptuous about my knowledge! I've been
through a small amount of Hadd training and the period of Maffetone
training (which, clearly I've done to the nth degree) so what I've learned
is from my specific experiences and a range of other posters and
colleagues of mine who have tried. Additionally, I've likely read
the same materials that you have. Now, let's talk for just a moment
about the Maffetone formula and 220-age. These are apples and oranges. 220-age is a linear equation fit to a widely scattered
(i.e., high variance or standard deviation, as you prefer) sample
of individuals to provide a crude estimate of maximal heart rate.
180-age + x - y ... is a formula that is empirically derived from a
smaller sample of runners (perhaps all runners above a certain
experience level - were there any "beginners" in Maffetone's
set of trainees?) to represent a heart rate above which there is
a transition to much more in the way of anaerobic properties. It's really not meant to pinpoint an exact value of something. Other
than the fact that the "heart rate intercept" point is a multiple of
10, the only thing these have in common is that they both assume
a linear decay, with slope of one beat per year, with age. So,
at this point, a question that we are debating is that if one has
a higher max heart rate, should the number be higher? I can only
answer this based on (1) there's some validity in Maffetone's
experimentation, (2) my readings of Hadd, in particular about the
basebuilding zone, (3) my own experience because my max
heart rate does not fit 220-age, and (4) the fact that peak heart
rates are exercise specific to the point at which, they may peak
out differently for different durations of exercise. My peak for
short term activities has been measured at 194, at the point of
absolute failure, however, I have sustained over 205, peaking out
at 210 numerous times for races of 10-16 miles. Why am I so
adamant about this? Because about everyone (at least 95%) says
that the MAF heart rate is too low for them because their max
heart rate is too high. Some of these same inviduals don't feel
they possibly could "run" at less than 5 mph. I felt the same way
and said the same thing. Then, I found when I was starting out that
I could "run" at 3.7 mph on the treadmill. Fortunately, I did not
have to do very much of this! I spent a good deal of time slower
than 5 mph also. It paid off. If I hadn't done this and if I had set
my heart rate higher because I was "higher than 220-age", I can
almost guarantee that the results part of this thread would be a
lot different. After now having completed 6 marathons and a 50
miler in the last 3 months, I am convinced that the crux of this
whole thing is spending a lot of time in a zone where you are using
mostly fat for fuel. It is quite an experience to now be able to go
through a 26-50 mile run without ever running out of glycogen stores!
Generally, I would say that running in a fat-burning zone is an ambiguous
statement, except for the fact that in my vo2max test, I was able
to see exactly the percentage of carb vs fat I burn through my
range of heart rates. For sake of interest, here are the percentages
tied to various aerobic zone definitions:

60% HRMax (126): 75% fat/25% carb
70% HRMax (147): 51% fat/49% carb
75% HRMax (158): 41% fat/59% carb
70% HRR (159): 40% fat/60% carb
75% HRR (167): 21% fat/79% carb
MAF using 180-age (144): 55% fat/45% carb
MAF using 180-age - 5 (139): 58% fat/42% carb
MAF using 180-age + 5 (149): 51% fat/49% carb

So, I would contend that there would be no reason, at least not
based on my max heart rate, that my MAF should be defined higher
than someone of the same age and fitness level that has a max
heart rate of, say, 188. I will then, without scientific basis,
extrapolate this to anyone with a high max heart rate (the
marvels that we can do if we do not get paid to write thist stuff!)
(However, it only takes one counterexample to demonstrate that
a "high max heart rate" alone is not a basis to raise the MAF heart
rate. I am that counterexample.)

Now, with that said, I believe one must always
question a formula like this. However, it is too easy to say that the
heart rate is not high enough. I used to be dead slow at a heart rate
of 160. Now, at the top of my fitness (where I was several weeks ago,
not today), I can run a 9-9:30 min/mi at a heart rate of 125, which is
a heart rate that I was previously able to barely walk at, even when
conditioned to run a marathon. I would say that if you have to do
much slower than 3.5 mph to keep the heart rate below MAF, on
flat ground, you should either bag this form of training for a while,
try a higher target for a while, with a goal of getting it down, or spend
some time on a declined treadmill (which I do have at my local gym).
One may find that the heart rate will not go down and progress will
not be made in that instance.
If one is convinced that this is the right form of training for him/her,
but has significant doubts in the formulae, the only way to get the
"real formula" would be through a vo2max test, determining the
crossover heart rate (50/50) from fat burn to carb burn, and stay under
it. A less direct method would be to determine HR at anaerobic
threshold (the point at which 100% carb burn starts to occur), and
choose zones as a % of that, MAF being about 80% of that.

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

MyStuff

[This message has been edited by leitnerj (edited Dec-31-2005).]
 

posted Dec-31-2005 12:05 PM         

Fair enough. Points well taken here. Many thanks for the lenghty reply. You seem to be quite good at these

I can accept that maxHR might be very 'ragged' at the upper end and so it's not the best point in the curve to base subsequent factors on - tempting though it is as it is so simple to comprehend. And it's not as if we spend much time there, at our maxHR to it give it such importance. Better to use the generalised formula to target a more useful part of the curve.
 

posted Dec-31-2005 12:23 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by briandirect:
Jesse.

Fair enough. Points well taken here. Many thanks for the lenghty reply. You seem to be quite good at these

I can accept that maxHR might be very 'ragged' at the upper end and so it's not the best point in the curve to base subsequent factors on - tempting though it is as it is so simple to comprehend. And it's not as if we spend much time there, at our maxHR to it give it such importance. Better to use the generalised formula to target a more useful part of the curve.

---

Keep up the good posts, question everything, try not to believe
most of what I say, and you'll really keep the good dialogue going!
Perhaps one day we'll find the answers to everyone's questions
(but I still don't think that will remove the early frustrations in trying
something like this!)

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

MyStuff
 

posted Dec-31-2005 06:33 PM            

Where exactly should one try to keep HR following Maff training?

My Maf HR is 133 + 5 = 138

I initially started running with HR monitor with the intention of staying below 138. I would occasionally let it drift up to 141 when peaking a hill (LOTS of rolling hills). I have since slowed down a bit more so average HR is now about 129-135. It is my intention to be consistant at average HR of 129. By the way, after 4 weeks, my avg. HR is 129 and my pace is a bit faster than when running with avg. HR of 136 .

I have seen in a couple of posts some remarks indicating goals 10 below Maf, etc. What does this mean? Should I be running with an even lower HR?

Karen
 

posted Dec-31-2005 07:14 PM         

quote:

---

Originally posted by leitnerj:
This is definitely one that I disagree with. While I do agree that for very low max heart rates, Maffetone's formula may have to be adjusted downward, I don't believe it would ever have to be adjusted upward (being one with a max heart rate well above the 220-age prediction). Base training
based on a % of 220-age can cause a problem in either direction. In short, I think there was something to Hadd's reasoning that when HRMax was above a certain point, you remain below a fixed value (whatever it was, 140 or 145 or so) no matter what the % of HRMax was.

The real quantity, is %anaerobic threshold heart rate, which is difficult to come by. Even better, I would assert, would be to know your respiratory quotient at your range of heart rates to determine what the base training zone is. However, I believe the Maffetone formulas will be close enough to avoid the hassle of a vo2max test.

---

Please don't take my post as validating or recommending the 220-age formula. I was just responding to a specific criticism of the Maffetone formula, which I didn't think was valid (the criticism).

On 220-age: I don't use it since it isn't accurate for me. It is low by more than 10bpm. I wasn't recommending adjusting (up or down) a MAF based on maxHR found from 220-age in any circumstance. If you know your true maxHR, then MAF may be adjusted downward for low maxHR relative to age. I agree that MAF would probably never be adjusted upward relative to your maxHR.

It appears to me that unadjusted MAF is in the ball park (for average person) if you're over 30. It is probably a tad high for folks under 30. It's not until age 35 that MAF hits the 145 max for easy running recommended by Hadd.

I think the sweet spot for MAF is for folks 35-50, then the numbers start to fall in a range likely to be 'close enough' for most folks. MAF may make the most sense for new, unfit runners, since it will likely force easy running in all instances.

I agree on the % of AT or LT as a better target (in the absence of RQ or VO2max), unfortunately most folks don't know that either. There are ways to estimate, but they are generally strenuous and probably not recommended for new runners. I've seen some coaches propose a 30min time trial (ran all out and take avg of last 20min) and then train relative to that HR. Chris Carmichal (Lance Armstrong's coach) proposes an 8 min all out run to determine your Max Sustainable Heart Rate (the avg over the 8min run). Then you pick your easy running zones relative to that MSHR. Supposedly, both these methods provide reasonable estimates of an individual's LT HR.

--jm
 

posted Dec-31-2005 07:25 PM         

quote:

---

Originally posted by leitnerj:
.................. A less direct method would be to determine HR at anaerobic
threshold (the point at which 100% carb burn starts to occur), and
choose zones as a % of that, MAF being about 80% of that.

---

Nice response. I agree the problem most folks have with MAF is that it does make them run slow for awhile. I won't even bother to point out the things in this post I agree with.

I will say that I think you make a reasonable argument (which I stated, but didn't elaborate on) that the comparison between 220-age and 180-age is superficial.

Interesting that you put MAF at 80% LT, which is where Chris Carmichael puts his easy training zone. Base building in his system is in the 80-85% range of MSHR (max sustainable HR), which is an estimate of LT HR.

--jm
 

posted Dec-31-2005 07:42 PM         

quote:

---

Originally posted by leitnerj:
In
short, I think there was something to Hadd's reasoning that when HRMax
was above a certain point, you remain below a fixed value (whatever it
was, 140 or 145 or so) no matter what the % of HRMax was.

---

Where did you read that? I read, 50 bpm below MHR(in his example using Joe, it was 145 because that is 50bpm under Joe's MHR). Also in his "Joe example", he mentions he would be doing his easy running at 70-75% MHR(145 and below). It's kinda coincidental for me 50bpm below my MHR=153 or 75% of my max. My MAF is 155 unadjusted(althohgh I subtracted 5).

Here's my question to you. I see your carb to fat ratio %% zone's you've displayed. The one that interests me is your 70% MHR zone and I believe this is the one to train at. Would that be the same for me at that zone (70%MHR) or can it differ? For me 70% MHR would be 142 bpm which is far below 50 bpm below max(like Hadd says)and also below my MAF. I just want to get all the same benifits you did from this type of training but I don't want to kick it down a notch if I can go on as I am. That is, running between 142-and never over 150 bpm(70-74% MHR). Just for the record, I noticed a slight pace increase in the 2 weeks that I've been doing this.

[This message has been edited by runawayjesse (edited Dec-31-2005).]
 

posted Dec-31-2005 07:51 PM         

quote:

---

Originally posted by junkmiles:
Nice response. I agree the problem most folks have with MAF is that it does make them run slow for awhile. I won't even bother to point out the things in this post I agree with.

I will say I think you make a reasonable argument (which I stated, but didn't elaborate on) that the comparison between 220-age and 180-age is superficial.

Interesting that you put MAF at 80% LT. This is where Chris Carmichael puts his easy training zone. Base building in his system is in the 80-85% range of MSHR (max sustainable HR), which is an estimate of LT HR. In my case, MSHR should be about 170 and 80-85% is 136-145, which is a range that encompasses my MAF and MAF+5.

--jm

---

posted Dec-31-2005 09:44 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by junkmiles:
Please don't take my post as validating or recommending the 220-age formula. I was just responding to a specific criticism of the Maffetone formula, which I didn't think was valid (the criticism).
>-< snip

I agree on the % of AT or LT as a better target (in the absence of RQ or VO2max), unfortunately most folks don't know that either. There are ways to estimate, but they are generally strenuous and probably not recommended for new runners. I've seen some coaches propose a 30min time trial (ran all out and take avg of last 20min) and then train relative to that HR. Chris Carmichal (Lance Armstrong's coach) proposes an 8 min all out run to determine your Max Sustainable Heart Rate (the avg over the 8min run). Then you pick your easy running zones relative to that MSHR. Supposedly, both these methods provide reasonable estimates of an individual's LT HR.

--jm

---

No question you weren't validating 220-age. We all know that the
standard deviation is huge such that it's not a good predictor. vo2max
test provides the unambiguous anaerobic threshold and the range of
RQs, so, while you've gotta fork out the cash, at least you get what
you're paying for. It would have been nice if Maffetone or any of
the others would have characterized the MAF as a HR associated
with a specific RQ.

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

MyStuff
 

posted Dec-31-2005 09:48 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ksabbo:
I feel kind of stupid even asking this question at this point, but here goes.................

Where exactly should one try to keep HR following Maff training?

My Maf HR is 133 + 5 = 138

I initially started running with HR monitor with the intention of staying below 138. I would occasionally let it drift up to 141 when peaking a hill (LOTS of rolling hills). I have since slowed down a bit more so average HR is now about 129-135. It is my intention to be consistant at average HR of 129. By the way, after 4 weeks, my avg. HR is 129 and my pace is a bit faster than when running with avg. HR of 136 .

I have seen in a couple of posts some remarks indicating goals 10 below Maf, etc. What does this mean? Should I be running with an even lower HR?

Karen

---

You're going in the right direction, but there's no need to keep going
down. That's excellent progress after 4 weeks. Setting an eventual
target of, say, 180-age-10 is sufficiently low, letting it go up by 10
beats up steep hills. In my opinion the +5s and +10s are better added
in later seasons of base-building, or perhaps in times when the hills
are just unbearably steep.

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

MyStuff
 

posted Dec-31-2005 09:52 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by junkmiles:

Interesting that you put MAF at 80% LT, which is where Chris Carmichael puts his easy training zone. Base building in his system is in the 80-85% range of MSHR (max sustainable HR), which is an estimate of LT HR.

--jm

---

I just went back and checked where I got that from. My AT occurs
at HR of 177, 80% being 141.6, just above my MAF-5 target. Seems
close enough for government work.

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

MyStuff
 

posted Dec-31-2005 10:11 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by runawayjesse:
Where did you read that? I read, 50 bpm below MHR(in his example using Joe, it was 145 because that is 50bpm under Joe's MHR). Also in his "Joe example", he mentions he would be doing his easy running at 70-75% MHR(145 and below). It's kinda coincidental for me 50bpm below my MHR=153 or 75% of my max. My MAF is 155 unadjusted(althohgh I subtracted 5).

Here's my question to you. I see your carb to fat ratio %% zone's you've displayed. The one that interests me is your 70% MHR zone and I believe this is the one to train at. Would that be the same for me at that zone (70%MHR) or can it differ? For me 70% MHR would be 142 bpm which is far below 50 bpm below max(like Hadd says)and also below my MAF. I just want to get all the same benifits you did from this type of training but I don't want to kick it down a notch if I can go on as I am. That is, running between 142-and never over 150 bpm(70-74% MHR). Just for the record, I noticed a slight pace increase in the 2 weeks that I've been doing this.

[This message has been edited by runawayjesse (edited Dec-31-2005).]

---

I just did some digging. The first part was from Hadd, Part 6, the
relevant part of which I'll quote here:

"If your HRmax is 193 OR HIGHER, then the following applies:
HRmax: 193+ (even if over 200)
Best possible HRmarathon: 175-177 HRav (note, this is the average taken from mile 5 to mile 25, not the peak. Your HR might peak to 181 in the final miles as you throw everything onto the fire).
Suggested training HR's: Easy every day running: 145 HR or lower (If you begin really unused to this form of training, initially you might start at 150, but as soon as the pace at this HR improves, it is recommended that you reduce your easy running HR to 145 or lower). This can often feel very slow to begin with, but should improve within 3-6 weeks and continue to improve for months. You may do as much running as you wish at this HR/intensity (always being careful to avoid overuse injury). "

Now, for the second part. The training zone I really target is
MAF-5 (139 heart rate), a bit lower than 70%HRMax (although,
at least for me 70% HRMax is probably good enough). The lower
I've used, the faster progress I've seen. But that's not all that
relevant to your question. Unfortunately, those training zones
can and will differ on a personal basis. The two sides of the
coin for you are - (1) if something is working for you and you
are seeing progress at low heart rates, why mess with it?, or
(2) I don't believe there is any risk in going at too low of a heart
rate, as long as you are still running. Note my comment a few
lines above. I generally lead towards the lower, more conservative
MAF, as long as it isn't the difference betweeen walking and
running. But, if I were a coach, I wouldn't accept the excuse
(from anyone but someone who runs a 4:30 mile or faster), such
as "I can't run slower than an 11 minute mile." If I, as a 5:36
miler can "run" a 17 minute mile, then someone who runs 6:30
can certainly do a 13-15 minute mile. (But, I'm not a coach and
you can tell me anything you want!) Nonetheless, if you meet
the requirements for 180-age+5 and that's a good pace for you,
stick with it and see where it takes you. As long as you make
notes of all of your assumptions along the way, you'll have some
ideas of the adjustments you have to make if something's not
going right later.

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

MyStuff
 

posted Jan-01-2006 05:42 AM         

quote:

---

Originally posted by leitnerj:
Keep up the good posts, question everything, try not to believe
most of what I say, and you'll really keep the good dialogue going!
Perhaps one day we'll find the answers to everyone's questions
(but I still don't think that will remove the early frustrations in trying
something like this!)

---

I am going to give it a shot at a lower pace for a few weeks. I have been training more or less on my MAF. I got to like it and am seeing some nice improvements. Anyway I will try cutting it by another 10 and see what happens. I think this will bring me down to about a 12:30 pace (ughh).

This will mean that I will be running almost 20 beats (or 15%) lower than where I used to run normally. Now I can't believe that I used to run 90% of my runs at 93-95% of my LT heart rate. Small wonder I overtrained during by last marathon buildup. I never did recover from that last 20 miler with a 5 miles LT pace tagged on the end. My heartrate never came back down to normal during the three-week taper

[This message has been edited by briandirect (edited Jan-01-2006).]
 

posted Jan-01-2006 08:44 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by briandirect:
I am going to give it a shot at a lower pace for a few weeks. I have been training more or less on my MAF. I got to like it and am seeing some nice improvements. Anyway I will try cutting it by another 10 and see what happens. I think this will bring me down to about a 12:30 pace (ughh).

This will mean that I will be running almost 20 beats (or 15%) lower than where I used to run normally. Now I can't believe that I used to run 90% of my runs at 93-95% of my LT heart rate. Small wonder I overtrained during by last marathon buildup. I never did recover from that last 20 miler with a 5 miles LT pace tagged on the end. My heartrate never came back down to normal during the three-week taper

[This message has been edited by briandirect (edited Jan-01-2006).]

---

Good luck. That's pretty fierce, ending your 20 miler with a tempo
run! I sometimes warm up for a 5k-10k race with an 8-10 mile jog,
but that's pushing it a bit! It will be interesting to see where (if
anywhere) targeting the lower heart rate takes you. Hopefully it
will be beneficial (but I wouldn't worry about being as strict at it
as you would for the formula MAF).

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

MyStuff
 

posted Jan-01-2006 10:23 AM         

quote:

---

Originally posted by leitnerj:
I just did some digging. The first part was from Hadd, Part 6, the
relevant part of which I'll quote here:

"If your HRmax is 193 OR HIGHER, then the following applies:
HRmax: 193+ (even if over 200)
Best possible HRmarathon: 175-177 HRav (note, this is the average taken from mile 5 to mile 25, not the peak. Your HR might peak to 181 in the final miles as you throw everything onto the fire).
Suggested training HR's: Easy every day running: 145 HR or lower (If you begin really unused to this form of training, initially you might start at 150, but as soon as the pace at this HR improves, it is recommended that you reduce your easy running HR to 145 or lower). This can often feel very slow to begin with, but should improve within 3-6 weeks and continue to improve for months. You may do as much running as you wish at this HR/intensity (always being careful to avoid overuse injury). "

Now, for the second part. The training zone I really target is
MAF-5 (139 heart rate), a bit lower than 70%HRMax (although,
at least for me 70% HRMax is probably good enough). The lower
I've used, the faster progress I've seen. But that's not all that
relevant to your question. Unfortunately, those training zones
can and will differ on a personal basis. The two sides of the
coin for you are - (1) if something is working for you and you
are seeing progress at low heart rates, why mess with it?, or
(2) I don't believe there is any risk in going at too low of a heart
rate, as long as you are still running. Note my comment a few
lines above. I generally lead towards the lower, more conservative
MAF, as long as it isn't the difference betweeen walking and
running. But, if I were a coach, I wouldn't accept the excuse
(from anyone but someone who runs a 4:30 mile or faster), such
as "I can't run slower than an 11 minute mile." If I, as a 5:36
miler can "run" a 17 minute mile, then someone who runs 6:30
can certainly do a 13-15 minute mile. (But, I'm not a coach and
you can tell me anything you want!) Nonetheless, if you meet
the requirements for 180-age+5 and that's a good pace for you,
stick with it and see where it takes you. As long as you make
notes of all of your assumptions along the way, you'll have some
ideas of the adjustments you have to make if something's not
going right later.

---

Thanks Jesse. You convinced me to bring my pace down a notch. I'm going to subtract 15 from my MAF and just run at 140 bpm. This would equate to 70% MHR and below.. I shouldn't have to slow too much.

posted Jan-01-2006 12:21 PM         

quote:

---

Originally posted by runawayjesse:

Thanks Jesse. You convinced me to bring my pace down a notch. I'm going to subtract 15 from my MAF and just run at 140 bpm. This would equate to 70% MHR and below.. I shouldn't have to slow too much.

[This message has been edited by runawayjesse (edited Dec-31-2005).]

---

You should see a better rate of progress at the lower target. As a point of reference, I ran similar to you when I started out. I simply kept my HR below 150 (re: Hadd), but would let it climb on hills, longer runs and fast runs twice a week. I saw some marginal pace improvement over 3 months, but I still felt slow for that HR. Eventually I pushed it down below 145 (re: Hadd and Pfitzinger <70%HRR) and saw slightly better progress. My pace at <145 hit what it was at ~150. The goal was to push down to <140 for my easy runs. About a month ago I got a treadmill and jumped in with both feet; I run strictly below 137/138 (MAF/maxHR-50). In practice, I aim for an avg HR in 130-135.

Obviously I started out slower (at the start ~3-4min/mi), but the rate of progress is a lot faster than when I was averaging even 10bpm higher. I haven't bothered to do a MAF test, but the pace dropped >1 min (absolute terms) in 2 weeks and it continues to drop at about 30-45s/week. I expect that rate to slow a bit, but it still makes the initial slow pace tolerable, since I can see the progress.

good luck.

--jm

Happy New Year to all!

[This message has been edited by junkmiles (edited Jan-01-2006).]