posted Jan-17-2006 07:27 PM         

clear answer

that's what I like
 

posted Jan-17-2006 08:01 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hairy Trotter:
Leitner: I've looked in on this thread on and off over the past few months, curious but skeptical the whole time, but I'm convinced of one thing .... you do a great job. Clearly, you're a smart guy and you bring a body of knowledge and an inquisitive nature to all this, but you also bring a refreshing degree of humilty and responsibility to your "work" here. I don't mean you're a humble guy -- seems like you're proud of what you've accomplished, and why the hell not? But even though you've become something of a guru (though not self-appointed) on a pretty strict "method," you don't come across as the usual "method" freak who preaches The One True Way (and, as you know, there are a lot of folks in the fitness world who do). And you seem to take your responsibility as a guru seriously by being responsive, receptive, and flexible. Impressive, especially considering how you seem to squeeze it along with a kick-azz training schedule and family/professional life.

I would bet that, by this point, you might have done more than Maffetone himself to spread the word about Maffetone to mid-pack runners. Which is appropriate -- he's not very impressive.

---

Thanks, I take that as a compliment, and I do have many reservations
about Maffetone's methods across the board, although the strict heart
rate/fat burning thing seems to have some real substance. Note
that in my FAQ, the Maffetone article is not even the first one I
mention - Mark Allen is the one who has been there and done that
with 6 championship trophies to show for it. However, he's not a
regular guy. Humility -
there is one thing that I am "excited about" which comes across as
probably overly proud - and that's my improvement. Nothing special
about my absolute times but I was overly thrilled on how much one
can improve, assuming he/she has the right problems that need
correcting. But the big reason I cite my results over and over again
is really for the fact that there are dozens of people here that give
advice, many of whom have not been particularly successful with
what they are suggesting (and I'm sure I was guilty of that in the
past - simply passing on what I've read that seems to make sense)
so I like to make a point that at least one example of a "regular guy"
has done this. And you've certainly caught my attempt to convey
a need for flexibility, but still stay strict with what you're doing (seems
like an oxymoron, I guess).

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

MyStuff

Low Heart Rate Training FAQ
 

posted Jan-17-2006 10:51 PM         

I’ve been keeping my HR below 145 pretty consciously for last 5 mths. Have had an aching knee for a couple of days & my resting HR prior to today’s run was 72 (with caffeine from 1 coffee in system). Normally my resting HR in the morning is high 40s.

Went ahead with the 5 mile run. The knee was fine but the HR got up to 160 even though the effort was nothing different. Note: Weather was warm & windy (I’m in Melbourne, Australia).

My questions is: Is an elevated resting HR an indication that you are likely to have trouble staying under MAFF and therefore should have a rest day?

Background: 40yo male. 9 days ago commenced a 12 week program calling of runs 6 days a week. This frequency is a step-up (averaged 4.5 days/week over last 12 moths). The mpw will also be increasing, from about 30 to 45, but within the 10% rule. I’ll be aiming to keep the HR below 145 throughout the program.

 

posted Jan-18-2006 12:22 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by leitnerj:
Thanks, I take that as a compliment, and I do have many reservations
about Maffetone's methods across the board, although the strict heart
rate/fat burning thing seems to have some real substance. Note
that in my FAQ, the Maffetone article is not even the first one I
mention - Mark Allen is the one who has been there and done that
with 6 championship trophies to show for it. However, he's not a
regular guy. Humility -
there is one thing that I am "excited about" which comes across as
probably overly proud - and that's my improvement. Nothing special
about my absolute times but I was overly thrilled on how much one
can improve, assuming he/she has the right problems that need
correcting. But the big reason I cite my results over and over again
is really for the fact that there are dozens of people here that give
advice, many of whom have not been particularly successful with
what they are suggesting (and I'm sure I was guilty of that in the
past - simply passing on what I've read that seems to make sense)
so I like to make a point that at least one example of a "regular guy"
has done this. And you've certainly caught my attempt to convey
a need for flexibility, but still stay strict with what you're doing (seems
like an oxymoron, I guess).

---

Hi Guru--excuse me- I mean "regular guy" Jesse,

Now that I know you're a regular guy, do I still have to wear this damn orange robe, and this stupid locket with the picture of Dr. Maffetone inside? And about all the money I've given you to get what you coined "good aerobikarma", can I get it back, and if so, will it negate the aerobikarma I have in the "bank"? And the heart rate monitor watch you make me wear that mocks with a loud "sugar-burner, sugar -burner" instead of beeps when I go over MAF, can I take it off? And does the JFK 50-miler really stand for the Jesse's Fibrously Kinetic 50-miler? I know my Mark Allen tattoo is permanent, but can I stop using that bottle
of Maffetoner Hair Gel For Men? It doesn't work. I've concluded there is no such thing as "Maffetone", as my hair is lifeless and flat.

I have to add that I do appreciate you making me run that 100-mile trail run in my birthday suit. You were right, I didn't chaff.

Thanks. See you in Regularland.

--Jimmy

My Running World

[This message has been edited by jjwaverly42 (edited Jan-18-2006).]
 

posted Jan-18-2006 05:25 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Earthshiner:
Hello Maffers.

I’ve been keeping my HR below 145 pretty consciously for last 5 mths. Have had an aching knee for a couple of days & my resting HR prior to today’s run was 72 (with caffeine from 1 coffee in system). Normally my resting HR in the morning is high 40s.

Went ahead with the 5 mile run. The knee was fine but the HR got up to 160 even though the effort was nothing different. Note: Weather was warm & windy (I’m in Melbourne, Australia).

My questions is: Is an elevated resting HR an indication that you are likely to have trouble staying under MAFF and therefore should have a rest day?

Background: 40yo male. 9 days ago commenced a 12 week program calling of runs 6 days a week. This frequency is a step-up (averaged 4.5 days/week over last 12 moths). The mpw will also be increasing, from about 30 to 45, but within the 10% rule. I’ll be aiming to keep the HR below 145 throughout the program.

---

Absolutely! An elevated resting HR is a sign of an oncoming
problem and that some sort of adjustment should be made, possibly
rest. When my RHR is elevated, I can expect a much slower pace
accordingly. Sometimes it means you have a cold or virus coming
on even if you haven't yet seen the other symptoms.

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

MyStuff

Low Heart Rate Training FAQ
 

posted Jan-18-2006 05:28 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by jjwaverly42:

I have to add that I do appreciate you making me run that 100-mile trail run in my birthday suit. You were right, I didn't chaff.

Thanks. See you in Regularland.

--Jimmy

My Running World

Couldn't you have put a bit more of a rhyme to it? And you haven't
given the hair gel a chance to set in.

[This message has been edited by jjwaverly42 (edited Jan-18-2006).]

---

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

MyStuff

Low Heart Rate Training FAQ
 

posted Jan-18-2006 09:24 AM            

22. Is there any way to use this approach with a more personalized formula for me?

Yes, but it may be costly and burdensome and you may not get a better bottom line training zone. You can have a vo2max test done, find the heart rate where your RQ (or RER) value is 0.78, which corresponds to 25% carb burn/75% fat burn and use that as your max training zone. Or you can use 80% of your anaerobic threshold heart rate. These should be close to the MAF values.

I am 39, and have been exercising (mostly cycling) for years. I assume that my MAF would be 180-39+5 = 146. My LTHR is probably around 186 or even slightly higher (AHR for a HM was 184, AHR for a 3 hour MTB race was 183, I do 10 mile cycling time trials @ 190-193 for 23-25 minutes). 80% of 186 gives a HR target of 149, which is, as you say, pretty close. However, my MHR is at least 200, and probably about 202 for cycling and 208+ for running (I think I've may have even seen an accurate 214 at the end of a 5k race). I have a couple of questions/comments:

1. Because he uses age as such an integral component of his formula, I would take 180-Age to be similar to MHR-40. IOW, why would my MAF HR be the same another 39 year old with a MHR of say 175? In my case 146 is approx 71-72% MHR, but for the latter, his MAF would be 83% MHR. I would think we should be able to make at least some adjustment based on a known MHR. Or put another way, his MAF is 29 bpm below MHR, while my MAF is almost 60 bpm below MHR.

2. FWIW, my pace at 146 would be about 8:15-8:30, so it's not as though I am campaigning to be allowed to run at a higher HR. In fact, my next question is if I have already accomplished a lot of this method through years of cycling.

18. Is this the same as running at x% of heart rate reserve or of max heart rate?

Since max heart rate doesn’t account for fitness, it is not the same. It is somewhat the opposite from using heart rate reserve (HRR) because an HRR approach will have someone running at a higher heart rate if he/she were ill or less well-conditioned (with higher resting heart rate), while this approach does the opposite. Also, for many people the HRR lower limit will be at a heart rate high enough to where more of the anaerobic than the aerobic system is used.

Thank you for agreeing with a major pet peeve of mine regarding HRR. I always thought this was a bizzare idea ever since I was taught it in university (I have a PE degree). The idea that a less fit or sick person would have a higher Target HR than a fit or healthy person is truly backwards.

 

posted Jan-18-2006 08:51 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by canadamike:
From your FAQ:

22. ...

>-snip-<

I am 39, and have been exercising (mostly cycling) for years. I assume that my MAF would be 180-39+5 = 146. My LTHR is probably around 186 or even slightly higher (AHR for a HM was 184, AHR for a 3 hour MTB race was 183, I do 10 mile cycling time trials @ 190-193 for 23-25 minutes). 80% of 186 gives a HR target of 149, which is, as you say, pretty close. However, my MHR is at least 200, and probably about 202 for cycling and 208+ for running (I think I've may have even seen an accurate 214 at the end of a 5k race). I have a couple of questions/comments:

1. Because he uses age as such an integral component of his formula, I would take 180-Age to be similar to MHR-40. IOW, why would my MAF HR be the same another 39 year old with a MHR of say 175? In my case 146 is approx 71-72% MHR, but for the latter, his MAF would be 83% MHR. I would think we should be able to make at least some adjustment based on a known MHR. Or put another way, his MAF is 29 bpm below MHR, while my MAF is almost 60 bpm below MHR.

2. FWIW, my pace at 146 would be about 8:15-8:30, so it's not as though I am campaigning to be allowed to run at a higher HR. In fact, my next question is if I have already accomplished a lot of this method through years of cycling.

---

Since I haven't mentioned it lately, I'll have to give my usual
disclaimer, which someone will quote me on later - my responses
are based on my personal results combined with reading other
postings, results from my 2 vo2max tests, and the articles I
mention in the FAQ (plus a few books) - and you should always
question whether I know what I'm talking about!

Ok, now I'll do my best. w.r.t. your top paragraph, keep in mind that
your LTHR may be a lot different between cycling and running,
especially if you have been doing substantial cycling training for
years, and not much running. I can't say that's going to be the
case for sure, but just like peak heart rate is exercise specific,
so are heart rates at which various "phenomena" occur, so I'm
not sure that I would trust using figures you've obtained from
cycling-related tests.

Now for Q#1 - I wish I had an intelligent way to explain, but I
don't. I just know that %HRmax, while potentially useful in
the absence of everything else, will not generally give you a
value that is "deep enough" into your aerobic system if you
have a relatively high max heart rate. I'm
an example. My max heart rate is 210. My MAF is 144 (I work
out far more than "add 5" recommendation, but I don't add 5,
and in fact, I target 139, 71 beats below max heart rate). I
would say that if I
were comparing myself to someone whose max is 190, same
age and fitness as myself, we would still have the same MAF
heart rate. I do mention in the FAQ that people who have
"unusually low" max heart rates probably have to use a lower
value than 180-age and I point them to the Hadd article, part 6,
where it has some recommendations for the "low heart rate"
limit. So, just as an example, for me, HRMax-40 = 170, 7
beats under my anaerobic threshold, and about the heart rate
that I would target for a half marathon, if running all out.
Also, at HR of 170 for me, RQ is .95, which corresponds to
83% carb burn/17% fat burn. Not what I would call fat burning
zone. In terms of reading, one place to put these elements
together is to look all Hadd's zones, in particular, where he says
that if your HRMax is above a certain value, no matter how high
it is, your low HR value is 145, I believe. Pretty close to what
you're doing, assuming 146 is your "easy zone" limit, but a
good bit higher than what I target.

Q#2. Well, you don't have to campaign to me! You probably
have far better fitness and speed than I do, so who am I
to say? In either case, it sounds like you're asking whether
it seems like you either are already doing this, or you already
have a strong aerobic base. Well, if your answer is no to
everything in FAQ#1, then you've clearly got strong aerobic
fitness - that's the point to cut out and not bother with 2-50
(other than perhaps out of curiosity!) The least ambiguous
test, of course, is by comparing your race times of various
distances to what McMillan predicts.

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

MyStuff

Low Heart Rate Training FAQ
 

posted Jan-19-2006 01:59 AM         

Do you put it under a swim cap? Or do you use another HR monitor?

Thanks
 

posted Jan-19-2006 05:23 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cashmason:
Jesse how do you measure your heart rate while swimming? I would not trust my Garmin 301 on my wrist while swimming.

Do you put it under a swim cap? Or do you use another HR monitor?

Thanks

---

I do indeed measure it by swimming - no doubt - you absolutely
should not put a Garmin of any kind underwater! My heart rate monitor
is specifically designed to allow underwater use. (I use a forerunner 201
and a Nike Triax CV8 for the heart rate monitor). You can also get a
cheapo polar at target for about $35 that works underwater. The HR
stuff has been great for my swimming as well, as I've gone from 50+
minute miles at high heart rates to 35-36 minute miles at low heart rates.

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

MyStuff

Low Heart Rate Training FAQ
 

posted Jan-19-2006 12:27 PM            

Last night I was jumping for joy. My first 1hr jog ( still too slow for me to call it running ) without walking at all and my HR peaked at 2 beats under my MAF. Progress !!!!!

Ernie
 

posted Jan-19-2006 05:55 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by B50:
First I want to say thanks to all who post here. I have only been at this MAF thing for 4 weeks now but I have been tempted to quit a couple of times because I don't like the "wogging" thing. Everytime I doubt it, I just re-read a few success posts and decide to give it another week.

Last night I was jumping for joy. My first 1hr jog ( still too slow for me to call it running ) without walking at all and my HR peaked at 2 beats under my MAF. Progress !!!!!

Ernie

---

good for you - the "little" accomplishments eventually become big
ones, with time and patience.

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

MyStuff

Low Heart Rate Training FAQ
 

posted Jan-19-2006 08:16 PM            

I am just about at the end of week 7 of Maff training. I have had my share of successes though I still wish I was further along

The first 1-2 weeks was truly an adjustment in getting my HR down to the correct Maff zone. I unintentionally did the gradual slow down to get my speed and HR synchronized to a proper Maf zone. So I guess I really am at week 5-6 of the more accurate training.

I realize there will be changes in HR from day to day, not withstanding changes that may be due to illnes, etc.; however, I am wondering if a wide variance from one day to the next is to be expected. I am not sick or anything, and had the following experience this week.....

Sat and Sun VERY EASY short runs - 5 and 3 miles
( ran with a friend trying HR monitor for the first time, I felt like a speedster comparatively)!

Monday ran 9.5 miles - 1st 2 miles were at 9:15 Min/miles then the remaining 8.5 miles were mostly in the 10's, but much closer to 10:30-10:45. I was thrilled with the 9:10's and thought this may be the beginning of a break thru.

Tuesday ran 6 miles - The 1st 4 miles averaged 9:45 and the last two miles were almost exactly 10:00 min/miles. My heart rate was nice and low , etc. I was rather pleased that I was so close to keeping all my miles on this run under 10:00 min/miles.

Here is the quirky run... Wednesday ran 7 miles and all the miles were between 10:19 and 11:03, most of the miles closest to 10:45. What's with this? I was really thinking I was getting somewhere and suddenly I am dropped to 11:00 minute miles?

Today was a rest day and I will probably do my long run of 14 miles tomorrow instead of Saturday because I happen to have the day free

Any explanation for the sudden increase in pace?

Karen
 

posted Jan-19-2006 09:40 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ksabbo:

Any explanation for the sudden increase in pace?

Karen

---

Probably not. I had days like that many times. In fact,
I'm rebuilding my base now and I'm having days like that again!
I think it's part of the regular cycle. I'm assuming you weren't
on a hillier course, in warmer conditions, etc. etc.

Don't bother analyzing what happened on a single day, even
a couple days. I guess this is the one problem with passing
your first big progress milestones - the letdowns become all
the more disconcerting!

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

MyStuff

Low Heart Rate Training FAQ
 

posted Jan-20-2006 02:36 AM         

I used to not pay attention to these things because they seemed so minor, but as I look back at my log I can see even small things affect my Maf pace.
 

posted Jan-20-2006 11:02 AM         

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ksabbo:
I hope my question isn't redundant, but I really don't think I saw it in the FAQ or elsewhere.

.......

Any explanation for the sudden increase in pace?

Karen

---

You might not be recovering from the mon-tue runs. Doing 9.5 and 6 miles for two days and then 7mi aren't necessarily 'easy' even though you run them at an easy pace and probably don't feel stressed.

If I'm doing most runs in the same pace range I get better and more consistent training results if I have a more substantial gap between my daily runs. For example, by time 90min 45min 90min, rather than 90 70 75. I can usually attribute a string of bad days to incomplete recovery or some other problem. One day is harder to judge.

So, you can't really make a judgement off of one bad day. However, if you see this consistently maybe adjust your schedule to allow for more variation day to day to allow for improved recovery.

--jm

 

posted Jan-20-2006 12:06 PM            

I am just about at the end of week 7 of Maff training. I have had my share of successes though I still wish I was further along

The first 1-2 weeks was truly an adjustment in getting my HR down to the correct Maff zone. I unintentionally did the gradual slow down to get my speed and HR synchronized to a proper Maf zone. So I guess I really am at week 5-6 of the more accurate training.

Below is a thread that talks about MAF training with some responses from coaches and heavy duty runners

http://www.websitetoolbox.com/tool/post/thee/vpost?id=798051

Tbone is me. Some coaches respond to some of my questions. Their consensus is that one should see noticable changes in MAF HR within a week or two. If not, MAF may not work for you. This was the case with me. I did it for about 5 weeks with no noticable change. What is really weird though is that I have done tempo work the last month and more striders (no hard interval work). I did the MAF test this week and it improved doing the tempo work - kind of weird. I guess I respond better to mixing in a little faster training and now I also feel much better and not so slow even though I could run a solid pace at MAF. I feel like I can just run how I feel and not be stuck to a certain heart rate. It just feels good to stride out. I still do most of my work easier but the tempo work and striders are refreshing and have livened up my legs and my body still feels good.

I guess this is just me. I have no issues with MAF training, it just didn't work for me which is what I anticipated at only 20 miles per week and having a decent base. Now someone who runs more or is a beginner or is coming off an injury, it would be great I think. Just my thoughts!

posted Jan-20-2006 02:08 PM            

In a month my MAF pace has gone from 12:00 to 11:06, and that's with a lower average HR! There were days last week where I had to run 11:45 so maintain MAF, but two days later I was running :30/mile faster at a lower HR. Again, I'm learning to focus on the positive trend, as opposed to individual days, and it has really helped me embrace the MAF training method.

Just my very inexperienced 2 cents.

------------------
Aaron
 

posted Jan-20-2006 04:13 PM         

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tchuck:
I guess this is just me. I have no issues with MAF training, it just didn't work for me which is what I anticipated at only 20 miles per week and having a decent base. Now someone who runs more or is a beginner or is coming off an injury, it would be great I think. Just my thoughts!
[/B]

---

I had a similar experience. I was running 20-30 mpw and stayed below MAF HR on all my runs. Over a period of six weeks, my pace at MAF slowed by 15 sec/mi -- very frustrating! At that point I decided to train at a slightly higher HR (up to MAF+5), and include some strides/accelerations. Now, two weeks later, my pace at MAF has quickened by 20-30 sec/mi (vs eight weeks ago when I was first starting).

I may have seen these improvements (or better) if I had continued to stay strictly below MAF, but I just couldn't stand it any longer. Anyway, I plan to stick with MAF+5 for as long as I continue to see improvements. If/when I reach a plateau, I will re-evaluate, and may once again try training at MAF, or even MAF-5.
 

posted Jan-20-2006 05:22 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by msteed:
I had a similar experience. I was running 20-30 mpw and stayed below MAF HR on all my runs. Over a period of six weeks, my pace at MAF slowed by 15 sec/mi -- very frustrating! At that point I decided to train at a slightly higher HR (up to MAF+5), and include some strides/accelerations. Now, two weeks later, my pace at MAF has quickened by 20-30 sec/mi (vs eight weeks ago when I was first starting).

I may have seen these improvements (or better) if I had continued to stay strictly below MAF, but I just couldn't stand it any longer. Anyway, I plan to stick with MAF+5 for as long as I continue to see improvements. If/when I reach a plateau, I will re-evaluate, and may once again try training at MAF, or even MAF-5.

---

Depending on your max HR, your MAF HR +5 may put you in a tempo run pace (aerobic threshold run-85% of max) if done for 40 min. or more. This pace which is marathon or a little slower is an excellent pace for running improvement.

 

posted Jan-20-2006 06:10 PM         

At MAF-10, my breath rate was 4 steps out, 4 steps in. At MAF-5, it's 4-3. At MAF it's 3-3.

After a long time at 4-4, moving to 3-3 made the run seem pretty tough. Harder than I would expect MAF pace to be (~9:30/mile).

The reason I ask is that it seems too hard at MAF pace, which is contrary to virtually everyone else's experience. Maybe it's a result of starting at a really low HR.

posted Jan-20-2006 07:04 PM            

I ran 15 miles and it was VERY VERY slow. I started out having trouble with the HR sensor. It kept giving me wierd readings (very high HR, like 185-205). I stopped several times and tried to clean it and start it again. This continued for the 1st two miles. It was frustrating starting and stopping so much. I finally got it to run consistantly for the balance of the run, though it seemed to still be reading a bit high for the amount of effort I was putting out. I'm relatively certain the monitor was accurate though because at least it was consistantly high for the balance of the run, and taking into account the terrain and weather (temps were at 38degrees at the start and 53 degrees at end).

I surely ran most of the miles at 11:00 min/mile. I met another runner who was running similar mileage and she wanted to hang with me. I welcomed the company but explained I was running by HR and the pace would likely be too slow for her. She was glad to slow down and run with me so we had a great run together. Regardless, I did find myself being pulled along at a faster pace and let my HR drift more than I normally would, especially on the last 3 miles. I know I was still well within my aerobic zone, but I was probably 5-6 beats over MAF at the end. I am hopeful this won't have a big effect overall.

As was mentioned in one of the responding posts, I have been wondering if the mileage on my runs was varied enough. I have been running lots of medium length runs because I currently happen to have more time available right now than usual. It would be common to have weeks like this..10-6-8-off-5-12-off , 11-7-8-off-4-10-off , 7-10-6-off-5-14-off. I would like to keep the 40 mile weeks going while I have the time, but should I somehow vary the mileage more?

Even though I am MAF training, I am starting to increase my long run with an April 30 marathon in mind. I am more focused on MAF than the marathon, but I thought I could sort of combine the two. The April marathon would not be a goal race. My goal marathon won't be until the fall. Is it possible the number of miles may be affecting me, or should I just stop over analyzing the whole thing and see how it goes over the next couple of weeks. I could pretty easily drop the April marathon if this isn't a wise plan.

Thanks for everbody's input.
Karen
 

posted Jan-20-2006 09:08 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ksabbo:
or should I just stop over analyzing the whole thing and see how it goes over the next couple of weeks. I could pretty easily drop the April marathon if this isn't a wise plan.

---

Yeah, you're doing a bit too much analysis and it will drive you crazy.
You can do MAF training all the way up until the marathon and it might
lead to a very "happy" marathon, possibly much faster than you've done
before, and probably not as fast as your "ultimate" capability. It will
be interesting to see (it was for me) how you feel running an entire
marathon "deep" in your aerobic regime. I know that the thought that
doing your marathon before you've "completed" base training may
be daunting if you never get to doing more intense runs. However,
it need not be. You'll likely surprise yourself. I know that I learned
a lot in the marathons I did after going through "exclusively sub-MAF"
training.

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

MyStuff

Low Heart Rate Training FAQ
 

posted Jan-20-2006 09:26 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tchuck:

Below is a thread that talks about MAF training with some responses from coaches and heavy duty runners

http://www.websitetoolbox.com/tool/post/thee/vpost?id=798051

> - snip - <

I guess this is just me. I have no issues with MAF training, it just didn't work for me which is what I anticipated at only 20 miles per week and having a decent base. Now someone who runs more or is a beginner or is coming off an injury, it would be great I think. Just my thoughts!

---

Thanks for posting that excellent discussion. Perhaps I didn't
convey it well in my previous responses to you, but I fully agree
with most everything (if not everything) that people said in response.
It was nice to see some very well-thought-out responses rather than
the typical "run slow - be slow" response.
If you recall, I think I had mentioned to you that your performance
numbers that you had mentioned indicated that you already seemed
to have a very solid aerobic fitness and, if that were actually the case,
what would some exclusive base training for a while do for you? If
your base were already built to "it's fullest extent" (whatever that
means) then you probably would see no improvement at lower heart
rates. However, it would still be interesting to see what would happen
to your race performance if you just ran below MAF for 8, 10, 12
weeks or whatever. Would you slow down? Would you stay the
same? Now, with that said, the last time I tried low HR training, I
don't think I saw an inch of results until at least 5 or 6 weeks. This
time around, I started in a much poorer condition (right after an injury)
so it wasn't long before I chiseled off my miserably slow, up to just
very slow. The last element then is volume. Well, if we look at
the analogies here to Lydiard's methods, he would say you put in
tons of mileage to build your base, 100 mpw. Although I had a couple
of 100 mile weeks, most were around 70, but I did a tremendous amount
of cycling and swimming as well (I think the cycling was an important
factor, but I'm not so sure about the swimming). In short, I wouldn't
say this "didn't work" for you, but it may really be that you simply
didn't need it! The people who have the most to benefit from this
are those that have the worst aerobic fitness (and have difficulty
even running the least bit at low heart rates). Looking at the FAQ,
do you think any of the #1 categories even loosely ties to yourself?

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

MyStuff

Low Heart Rate Training FAQ
 

posted Jan-21-2006 02:55 AM         

Here goes. I'll just copy and past my 2 MAF tests that I have put in my journal. Please note the first 2 weeks I was running all my miles at maf-5 than after reading one of Jesse's post I decided that maf-10 would be better. It's listed in mile/pace/avg hr. Plus I included some notes. Both tests done on a flat measured rubber track.

After 3 weeks low heart training. 2 weeks with zone set at 142-150 bpm and 1 week set at 138-145 bpm . Test done at 138-145.

Saturday 12/25/05 27 degrees(light wind)
5.5 miles, 1:02:41 total time
1.- 11:59 136
2.- 11:18 142
3.- 11:23 142
4.- 11:26 141
5.- 11:31 142
6.- 5:41 141/142 (half mile)
Avg hr for workout- 140, Max- 150. Stayed in zone- 54:53, above- 1:59, below- 6:29

After 5 weeks low heart rate training with zone set at 138-145 bpm

Friday 01/20/06 50 degrees (light wind)
5 miles, 53:06 total time. On mile 3 took of a layer of clothing which may have favored my pace.
1.- 10:52 136
2.- 10:44 141
3.- 10:49 142
4.- 10:25 140
5.- 10:14 141

Avg hr for workout- 140, max- 150, Stayed in zone- 47:14, above- 00:40, below- 5:12

I would like to think that I made some pretty good progress but maybe it's to soon to tell. In general my pace seems to be improving on all my runs(different routes,hilly courses etc..) but I still get days when I can barley maintain an 11:00 m/m. I also have increased my mileage from 25 to 34 mpw over the last 5 weeks. I feel so good running at this effort. Not tired at all. Before, I used to get so soar after my runs. Now, I just want to keep running. In fact, I have to force myself to stop and not increase miles to quickly. My legs are feeling stronger. This could be from the strength training I just recently adopted too. I plan to do one of these test every couple weeks to see how things go. I will post again.

Thanks