posted Jun-20-2005 07:00 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by justfartnolek:
Jesse -

This just confuses the hell out of me. Everything else I've read about HR monitor training indicates that your max HR is your max HR. If your HR peaks out at 210 during a race, then that is your HRMax,and that is what you base all of your training on. Use the incorrect HRMax and your training will be negatively affected across the board. But I've seen you post on several occasions that your HR Max varies, depening on the distance of the race. And I just . . . I mean . . . I don't . . . wtf? I see what you're saying - if your HR Max can vary so much, the Maffetone formula approach makes much more sense, but if your HR Max can vary so much, doesn't that bring into question the validity of HR training . . . period?

---

By the way, this is also the reason I don't like using heart rate reserve
(if I were to base training on a percentage of HRMax). While true that
your resting heart rate should be virtually the same every day, it varies
throughout the day and certainly if you've done any intense exercise.
At least it does with me. If I measure mine before I jump out of bed
in the morning, it will be around 47 nowadays (it was about 40 before
my injury and about 80 about 2 months ago). However, in the evening,
if I've had a lot of activity, it will range anywhere from about 65-75.
I have no reason not to believe that whatever the "baseline" that
RHR has given me has actually changed throughout a long intense
run. But, this point is without a doubt purely my opinion and most
professionally knowledgeable coaches, physiologists, etc., swear
by the heart rate reserve, so I'm not suggesting you should buy into
my thoughts on it.

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

MyStuff
 

posted Jun-20-2005 08:43 PM            

Since spring I follow my 1/2 marathon training and still run slow runs up to 75% of my HR. I ran lots of races and I also do tempo runs now and with all that, suddenly my HR is dropping quite a bit.

So I think, it's not just running in the slow range that makes your HR drop, my races and tempo runs also have my HR drop quite a bit.
 

posted Jun-20-2005 09:38 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by susi:
I just want to give my 2 cents here...
All winter I ran just at the low HR zone, not going above the 75% and my HR wouldn't drop, after 3 months finally it dropped a bit (from 7:30 to around 7:10 min/km).

Since spring I follow my 1/2 marathon training and still run slow runs up to 75% of my HR. I ran lots of races and I also do tempo runs now and with all that, suddenly my HR is dropping quite a bit.

So I think, it's not just running in the slow range that makes your HR drop, my races and tempo runs also have my HR drop quite a bit.

---

That is definitely the traditional approach and if you get enough running
in the aerobic zone, there's a good chance you will build a strong
aerobic base. There is absolutely no doubt that many people
have much success without spending a lot of time in low heart
rate zones - it's definitely not a necessary condition. However, I should mention that I'm not surprised that you didn't see any progress when
keeping your heart rate under 75% HRmax, as that is not in the low
zone as described in Hadd and it is very likely well above Maffetone's
MAF heart rate (depends on the individual). Even if most of your
mileage is at a lower heart rate. Maffetone and Hadd both suggest
you should stay strictly under the target heart rate (10 below at
the lower end). For me, 75% HRMax
is 17 beats above my Maffetone
MAF heart rate. In fact, I saw something similar to what you saw -
when I first tried the Hadd-style training, I used my originally calculated max heart rate of 190 and used Hadd's formula to get a low-zone heart
rate of 133. I couldn't even come close to that while running. I then
arbitrarily gave myself 20 beats on that and set my zone at 153.
I ran at strictly under 153 for a few weeks and nothing happened
whatsoever. No change. So, I went back to the basics, read Hadd's
article again, and decided to shoot for a lower target of 143, until
it would go down some, then I would approach the ultimate goal.
This is the heart rate where I saw progress. Eventually, I came
to find out that in the longer distance races, I was reaching max
HRs of 210, from which 70% is 147, so I was staying under that
all along.

So, I fully agree and wouldn't argue with either of your assertions. But I
will say that if you set your target at 75% HRMax, who knows what
results you will come up with, if any. I'm not familiar with any references
that suggest that as a base-building zone - Hadd and Maffetone do
not - perhaps others do that I'm not aware of.

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

MyStuff
 

posted Jun-21-2005 09:05 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by leitnerj:
By the way, this is also the reason I don't like using heart rate reserve
(if I were to base training on a percentage of HRMax). While true that
your resting heart rate should be virtually the same every day, it varies
throughout the day and certainly if you've done any intense exercise.
At least it does with me. If I measure mine before I jump out of bed
in the morning, it will be around 47 nowadays (it was about 40 before
my injury and about 80 about 2 months ago). However, in the evening,
if I've had a lot of activity, it will range anywhere from about 65-75.
I have no reason not to believe that whatever the "baseline" that
RHR has given me has actually changed throughout a long intense
run. But, this point is without a doubt purely my opinion and most
professionally knowledgeable coaches, physiologists, etc., swear
by the heart rate reserve, so I'm not suggesting you should buy into
my thoughts on it.

---

Jesse -

Thanks for you multiple attempts at explanation. Obviously there are different schools of thought on HR training and I'm still not sure there is any "correct" approach to take. But considering all of the many variables and external factors that affect HR, I'm finding the simplicity of the Maffetone approach more and more appealing. I am convinced that HR training works and I'm willing to stop trying to to figure out exactly HOW and WHY it works and just let it happen. Thanks again for your feedback and advice!

------------------
My User Profile
 

posted Jun-21-2005 09:47 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by joescool:

Tomorrow morning doing 5 miles but outdoors this time! It will be interesting to see what the time difference will be. I'm in south Texas so it gets pretty hot out. I'm sure I'll have to slow it down, even walk some if I want to keep my HR down.

---

Well I wasn't able to get that 5 miler in on the weekend. But I did get it done today! It was around 4:30pm and hot! I was expecting my HR to shoot up and have to do a lot of walking and thus increase my time/pace. I was surprised though that my time and HR were almost the same as on the gym treadmill!!! I guess thats a good sign!?

posted Jun-21-2005 09:51 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by joescool:
Well I wasn't able to get that 5 miler in on the weekend. But I did get it done today! It was around 4:30pm and hot! I was expecting my HR to shoot up and have to do a lot of walking and thus increase my time/pace. I was surprised though that my time and HR were almost the same as on the gym treadmill!!! I guess thats a good sign!?

---

that's a very good sign, probably mostly that you are getting
acclimatized to the heat. Also, maybe it was slightly less
humid than usual (90% vs 95%!)

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

MyStuff
 

posted Jun-26-2005 09:17 PM            

I just ran across another Mark Allen article which addresses many of
the questions that people have and uses a slightly modified version of
Maffetone's formula, perhaps more to the liking of some -
Mark Allen. Check it out. Also, take a look at the thread in mainstream
racing on heat acclimatization.

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

MyStuff

[This message has been edited by leitnerj (edited Jun-26-2005).]
 

posted Jun-30-2005 01:11 PM         

My MAF rate is 148 and it takes me about 1/2 mile or so to get up to that rate (I can get there faster or slower depending on how fast I start). From there, I can basically hold it at this level for another 1/2 or so. At that point, I need to slow down (walk a bit) and then by the end of my 3 mile's I'm almost walking the whole thing.

What is the best method for keeping at the proper pace? Start way below and slowly work to MAF? Start fast to get to MAF and then hold on as long as possible?

There are times when I can go out faster and not push the MAF until later on, but then at the end I'm out of gas.

I do all of my running on a treadmill, so it's fairly easy to set and keep a pace - but throughout the run, I am constantly lowering and lowering the speed.

I'm not sure if any of this makes sense - if I need to clarify better, please let me know.

Thank you.
Ed
 

posted Jun-30-2005 02:37 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by leitnerj:
I just ran across another Mark Allen article which addresses many of the questions that people have and uses a slightly modified version of Maffetone's formula, perhaps more to the liking of some -Mark Allen. Check it out. Also, take a look at the thread in mainstream racing on heat acclimatization.

---

Great article, thanks for posting the link! It does answer most of the questions I had about base-building.

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

It's a scary thing to breathe free air, to live a life that has no purpose other than what I choose to impart to it, and to die without any comforting notions of an afterlife. But it is unquestionably real and I prefer it to any fantasy.
 

posted Jun-30-2005 03:10 PM         

http://tinyurl.com/8ss8c

And why speedwork (lactic acid) destroys aerobic enzymes.

gb

------------------
George Beinhorn
Fitness Intuition
Essays and stories for runners and other athletes
in search of the spiritual dimension in sports
 

posted Jul-01-2005 08:10 AM            

You inspired me to start running more slowly. I'm finding it very challenging to run much slower than around 9:30 pace though. Slower than that feels almost like a fast walk to me. Ironically, my training pace hadn't been that much faster, around 8:40 or so for up to around 5 miles. Still building up to 25 miles weekly mileage.

How did you get over the switch to deliberately running miles in the 10 range?
 

posted Jul-01-2005 08:22 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by keeneye:
I have a few questions on HRM training...

My MAF rate is 148 and it takes me about 1/2 mile or so to get up to that rate (I can get there faster or slower depending on how fast I start). From there, I can basically hold it at this level for another 1/2 or so. At that point, I need to slow down (walk a bit) and then by the end of my 3 mile's I'm almost walking the whole thing.

What is the best method for keeping at the proper pace? Start way below and slowly work to MAF? Start fast to get to MAF and then hold on as long as possible?

There are times when I can go out faster and not push the MAF until later on, but then at the end I'm out of gas.

I do all of my running on a treadmill, so it's fairly easy to set and keep a pace - but throughout the run, I am constantly lowering and lowering the speed.

I'm not sure if any of this makes sense - if I need to clarify better, please let me know.

Thank you.
Ed

---

I have the same questions and also do most of my running on a treadmill.

posted Jul-02-2005 07:04 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by keeneye:
I have a few questions on HRM training...

My MAF rate is 148 and it takes me about 1/2 mile or so to get up to that rate (I can get there faster or slower depending on how fast I start). From there, I can basically hold it at this level for another 1/2 or so. At that point, I need to slow down (walk a bit) and then by the end of my 3 mile's I'm almost walking the whole thing.

What is the best method for keeping at the proper pace? Start way below and slowly work to MAF? Start fast to get to MAF and then hold on as long as possible?

There are times when I can go out faster and not push the MAF until later on, but then at the end I'm out of gas.

I do all of my running on a treadmill, so it's fairly easy to set and keep a pace - but throughout the run, I am constantly lowering and lowering the speed.

I'm not sure if any of this makes sense - if I need to clarify better, please let me know.

Thank you.
Ed

---

Hi Ed! I know what you mean - it is very challenging
to keep under the low heart rates, particularly at first.
There is absolutely no doubt that the treadmill is
the easiest place to start. The best way to keep in
range (that I have found) is to start at a good 10
beats below and every time you edge up about 3-4
beats, bring the speed down, perhaps 0.1 mph. Also,
you'll note that if you keep enough fluids handy and
rehydrate enough, you shouldn't see much climb,
assuming you are acclimated to the area where you
have the treadmill (the temp and humidity). In the
first 1-2 miles, your heart rate may jump around a
bit (and may even go down a little bit), but it should
steadily increase after you are fully warmed up.
Best of luck in the training and feel free to post back
any questions, progress, or lack thereof.

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

MyStuff

[This message has been edited by leitnerj (edited Jul-02-2005).]
 

posted Jul-02-2005 07:09 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by justfartnolek:
Great article, thanks for posting the link! It does answer most of the questions I had about base-building.

---

Yeah, that's how I felt. It seemed like the issue of
slowing down to walk on hills had not really been
addressed well. It's interesting that he says that each
time when he starts base-building, he has to walk even
the easy hills! However, he mentions that when he has
sufficiently built his base that his MAF HR pace goes
to about a 5:30 mile! That's when he knows it's time to
start mixing in forms of speed training. If I got my training
pace to that, I'm not sure I'd even consider speed training!
Note that he even goes to far as saying that you should
keep between 80 and 100% of MAF heart rate (can you
imagine trying to *run* at 80%!) Maybe after several
years of trying this approach.

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

MyStuff
 

posted Jul-02-2005 07:13 PM         

Can you give us an idea of your best performances at various distances? By looking at your shorter distance times and seeing how they correlate to your longer distance times, you can get an idea of your aerobic fitness.

For example, assume a runner has a 5k PR of 21 minutes. Using a calculator such as McMillan (http://www.mcmillanrunning.com/Running%20University/Article%201/mcmillanrunningcalculator.htm), a marathon time of 3:24:43 is "predicted". If that same runner's marathon PR is something like 4 hours, the assumption can be made that there is a problem with aerobic conditioning.

That is where Maffetone comes in...building the strong aerobic base.

So, just knowing the heart rate on your runs leaves a lot of variables out (ie. age, race times, etc.).
 

posted Jul-02-2005 07:15 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by runbei:
Very good article on Lydiard-style periodization:

http://tinyurl.com/8ss8c

And why speedwork (lactic acid) destroys aerobic enzymes.

gb

---

Nice article, thanks for posting, seems to combine a lot
of the different elements of aerobic/anaerobic training
into one place. It's quite interesting how she mentions
that for newer runners that ~65% level of effort is
appropriate but it's higher for experienced runners,
which somewhat correlates with Maffetone's formulas
(but is distinct in that it uses % HRMax rather than
another empirical formula).

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

MyStuff
 

posted Jul-02-2005 07:24 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by dgb2n:
Very good thread leitnerj.

You inspired me to start running more slowly. I'm finding it very challenging to run much slower than around 9:30 pace though. Slower than that feels almost like a fast walk to me. Ironically, my training pace hadn't been that much faster, around 8:40 or so for up to around 5 miles. Still building up to 25 miles weekly mileage.

How did you get over the switch to deliberately running miles in the 10 range?

---

I know exactly what you mean. It was very painful
at first. The first time I tried this, when I was reasonably
fit, my typical training pace was around 8:40 for my long
runs, much faster for shorter ones. My first runs had
me at slower than 11:30/mi! Can you imagine the
torture? Fortunately, it was only that bad for a couple
of weeks and it was in the 9s (which I still thought to
be miserably slow) about 4 weeks later. Ironically,
I thought the 9s were miserably slow, but if I looked at
the last few miles of most of my long training runs,
they always fell into the high 9s to mid-10s, so really
this was a mental issue on the earlier miles in the
run. Fastforward to a month or so ago, just starting
running again after a 3+ month hiatus after my
knee injury. Although I had been swimming a lot to
stay in shape, it didn't help my running at all. My pace
was now a 15 min mi! I basically had to train myself
to do this on the treadmill and I found that I could do it
there without a total breakdown of my stride. Fortunately,
the 15 min mi did not last long! There is absolutely no
doubt that after you run this slowly for the first few times,
you will feel a lot more fatigue as if you were doing a
new form of cross-training. But, I do assure you that
if you are absolutely strict in following the rules, your
pace will pick up and your fatigue will diminish. The
rate of progress, without a doubt, will depend very much
on your particular running background, history, and
perhaps, natural speed.

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

MyStuff
 

posted Jul-02-2005 07:32 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by wvdad:
leitnerj,
been running about 2 yrs off and on now.finally got a heart rate moniter.found out i have been running at 165 to 175.
outside i keep about a 8:45 pace on the treadmill i run a even 10:00 minute pace but a incline of 2 degrees.i have been running 6 to 7 miles 3 to 4 times a week with the ultimate goal of a half marathon.i guess with youre history and experience, my question is am i benefitting by running a hour or longer with that high of a rate or should i slow down.i would like to keep my runs down to a hour or so as of now.
thanks

---

Hi wvdad! Honestly, it's really hard to say whether your
running has been suffering any of the effects of having an
insufficient aerobic fitness. There is no doubt that many
people are very successful following traditional approaches.
As enigma21 pointed out, I don't see enough of your
data to make a realistic determination.
I firmly believe that if you were to jump into a Maffetone-style
approach and followed it strictly and to the letter (that
means not letting your heart rate climb by 15 beats over
the MAF heart rate for one reason or another, or just
trying to keep under 75% HRMax, or similar) for at least
12-16 weeks, then you will likely see yourself at a similar
pace to where you are now, but at a much lower heart
rate. It can really expand your gas tank. It is very clear
that you have sufficient running background to start preparing
for a HM. My unprofessional recommendation, if you felt
like experimenting a bit (you have to *want* to do this, you
will be unsuccessful if you are half-hearted about it), would
be for you to give this form of base-building a try for a
few months, then jump into a HM training program. I
think you will see good results.

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

MyStuff

[This message has been edited by leitnerj (edited Jul-02-2005).]
 

posted Jul-02-2005 07:57 PM            

On June 1, I ran an indoor treadmill, with about 75 deg,
35% humidity and here were my results (pace at
each mile, average HR over the mile). In this run, I
hydrated continuously, going through 1 20 oz and
2 16.9 oz bottles of water during the run.
The first 2 miles are really warm-up miles, but I include
them because they are fairly consistent with the rest.
11:56.18/141, 12:19.19/142, 11:55.74/142, 11:57.60/143,
11:49.79/144, 11:56.37/145, 12:18.22/144

The day before yesterday, I ran 5 miles on the same treadmill
under the same conditions, but without fluids, and these
were my results:
10:45/131, 9:43/138, 9:41/139, 9:52/139, 9:51/139

This morning, I built up to a 16 mile run in heat, 80 deg,
98% humidity at start, up to 92 deg, 90% humidity at the
end. Here were my results:
10:30/129, 10:21/135, 10:40/137, 10:49/137,
10:56/138, 11:16/137, 11:03/137, 11:14/138,
11:37/138, 11:50/140, 12:20/142, 13:02/143,
13:56/140, 13:13/143, 14:32/141, 14:56/141
I only carried 70 oz of water in my camelbak, which
was entirely insufficient. I was very sparing the
whole time and I ran out completely at mile 11, after
which I had start adding walk breaks in to keep my
heart rate under 145. 140 is my target and I try
to keep strictly under, but Mark Allen's article
gives me a 145 target, so that's my hard cutoff
late in the run. Eventually, once I'm fully acclimated
to heat and distances, I will try to keep strictly under
140. It gets better each time. Notice the improvement
is significant, even under (what I consider) challenging
conditions (although I know many out there have much
worse to deal with!) Also, this was my first 16 mile
run in probably 4 or 5 months, I finished it in high
heat and humidity, and felt completely fine afterwards,
something I can always count on after a HR-controlled
run! In the old days, after a long run of a new distance
(recently new distance, anyway) I could always count
on requiring a full day or two of recovery.

One interesting side note is that the other day I noticed
that my aerobic conditioning for swimming has fully
kicked in. I suddenly noticed that my heart rate was
down at 125 for my long distance (1-3 mile) swimming,
whereas a couple of months ago, it was over 160. At
that point, I started picking up my pace substantially,
while still remaining under MAF. I'm looking forward to
the same feeling running, which I have experienced
once before.

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

MyStuff
 

posted Jul-03-2005 12:48 PM         

Have you ever tested your max HR? One of the big things that jumps out in your situation is that the majority of your runs are likely being run between 85-90% HR. The low heart rate community would argue that this intensity may have contributed to your injury in November. Ramping up mileage quickly at high intesity is a recipe for trouble.

The argument could also be made that as a relatively new runner, your intial focus should be on forming a solid aerobic base. If you are truly running at 85-90% (just an estimate on my part), it is hard to establish that base.

Maffetone would likely have you running all of your runs between 138 and 148 bpm (assuming you are 32). This will undoubtedly seem insanely slow in the beginning. You will find yourself having to walk at times to keep the HR that low. But as your aerobic ability increases, your pace at the same heart rate will improve. After a few months, you progress will plateau and actually start to regress. This is a sign that your aerobic base is complete and a few higher intensity runs can be added. The majority of your running, though, will still be within the 138-148 range.

These are just my thoughts on your situation and, by no means, are they gospel. But after running myself into the ground run after run, feeling like garbage afterwards, and developing a few injuries, lower heart rate training has been a breath of fresh air. I used to have trouble walking without stiffness after a 10 mile run the old way and I wouldn't even be able to consider running the next. Now, I can finish a 10 mile run and feel great. Runs the next day are no problem. And I have seen good improvement in the pace at low HR.

posted Jul-04-2005 09:34 AM         

Do you heed Maffetone's injunction against strength training during the base period?

I read somewhere in the thread that it doesn't "work" for "low-volume" training loads, where low-volume is defined as less than about 30 miles per week. At 11-minute (or slower!) miles, we're talking about an awful lot of time running each week, no?

What about form - cadence, stride etc. Don't worry about it during the base period?

Thanks,

Jim
 

posted Jul-04-2005 10:44 AM         

I do think gains are possible at lower mileage. Maybe they just don't happen as quickly. I haven't done any weekly mileage over 30 this year and I have seen my MAF at 150 go from 10:30/mile in the beginning (April) to 9:00/mile a few weeks ago. I suspect that has gotten slightly better as my run this morning averaged 8:45/mile at 145 bpm. Maybe others can shed some light on the correlation between weekly mileage and gains. But, for me, improvement was possible on lower volume.