posted Feb-06-2006 08:23 PM            

Because of my age, I have considered adding 5-10 beats on my Maff, but I wanted to atleast give it a shot. Maybe it's time.

Also, I have somewhat dramatically increased my mileage because of this training. I was doing an average of 25 mpw, and since I started Maff I have been at or above 40 mpw. I didn't think about it all that much because it happened pretty naturally. I definitely don't want to back off on the mileage though.

posted Feb-06-2006 11:55 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by junkmiles:
Jimmy,

A few questions on your experiences to date:

In comparing your previous to training approaches to the current one do you have a sense where you are? That is, do you see progress at roughly the same rate as in the other two methods (i.e. ~250miles)? If not, do you have any thoughts on why? Not sure you mentioned it, but was your rate of progress with Pfitz the same as your first go around with Hadd?

Allowing for the fact that you have two years more base under your belt, do you expect to push your training paces lower than where they were before with the Maffetone approach?

Are you doing any extra hills (especially downhill) to prepare for Boston? If not yet, do you plan to spend any time focusing on hills (up or down)?

Where do you plan to peak in mileage? when will you hit it?

Are you doing any type of strength training (bodyweight or weights)?

Thanks,

--jm

---

I do yoga, yoga sit-ups, and push-ups a few times a week. I do about 50 curls with 10 pound weights a few times a week. I do wall-sits, leg lifts, and lift light weights with my toes (strengthens fron of lower leg). That's it for strenghth and core.

I want to peak at 70-75 miles per week by mid -March. Combined with fast walking workouts, I want to be covering 100+ miles.

Right now, I'm doing no hills while running. When walking, I'll throw in some hills. Once I'm fully healed, and after at least 10 weeks of base training, I will get back to my favorite rolling hills course and do 15 milers there twice a week.

I don't expect my training paces to go lower by the time my taper comes--I don't think there is enough time. The paces I ran using Pfitzinger and Hadd were at higher HR's then my MAF, and I'm now running MAF-5. Looking at Jesse's progress during his last bout of base training, the possibility is that I cna get lower than my Pfitzinger paces, but it might take until May or June.

I'm still up in the air about how I'm going to run Boston. I'm either going to kick back and make it a Maffetone training run, or I'm going to go for a good time. It all depends on how my leg is by March. If I can't do all my weekly miles pain-free without walk breaks by then, I will run Boston under my MAF. I could always try running it with walk breaks. My biggest concern with that is getting in the way and obstructing runners. If I use it for training, I might commit to this training through the summer to see how solid I can make my base, and run a fall marathon.

Using the current way I'm training (Under 141 BPM or 71% MHR or 65% HRR and below), which has included walk breaks on quite a few runs, I've managed to measure the following progress since January 3rd:

Here are two performances about a month apart. I took walk breaks in both runs. The HHR is for highest average HR by the end of the run.

pace HHR
1/6/06 7m 12:25 138 76%humidity 2min run/1 min walk ratio
2/3/06 10m 11:41 135 93%humidity 4 min run/1min walk ratio

That's an improvement of 44 seconds in 148 miles and 4 weeks. I took more walk breaks in the 7 miler, but had to to keep the HR down.

In 3 weeks and 100 miles, I've improved by 17 seconds in 5 milers that I run without walk breaks. 11:08 to 10:51

I plan to do an MAF test at about 250 miles to see what kind of improvement I've made. Then I can make a better comparison with the other types of training I did.

--Jimmy

My Running World

posted Feb-07-2006 12:12 AM         

It took about 6 weeks before things started to get better. Also since my hr went up at the end of runs, and I had to run slower my times went down. But I was doing far more miles like you from about 25 a week to around 45 a week now. If I only measured the early parts of the runs my times would look much faster.

Plus out here in California, its starting to get a bit warmer so the hr goes up faster with the heat. Glad I started this in the winter rather than June. I would look at my August times and think it was much worse.
 

posted Feb-07-2006 09:20 AM            

Shannon

------------------
MyProfile
 

posted Feb-07-2006 11:59 AM            

I went out this morning for my run, and my HR was above Maff almost instantly and I had a very hard time keeping it down. I was only going to do 5 miles because of a time constraint but the first 2 miles took up so much time from having to walk a lot that I had to cut my run even shorter. However, even than, if I continued at that pace, I still would be very late getting home. So my only option was to just run home, keeping my HR as low as possible while doing so. The good news is I got home just in time, the bad news is that my HR was steadily 10-15 beats over my Maff of 158 the whole way home. Have I just lost all the effects of the last 4 weeks?

------------------
MyProfile
 

posted Feb-07-2006 12:08 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by sclark2:
After thinking about the recommendations given, I decided to finish out the week continuing the Maff training I have been doing. My Maff is 158 (I'm 22 years old), so as soon as I hear that monitor beeping, I stop and walk.

I went out this morning for my run, and my HR was above Maff almost instantly and I had a very hard time keeping it down. I was only going to do 5 miles because of a time constraint but the first 2 miles took up so much time from having to walk a lot that I had to cut my run even shorter. However, even than, if I continued at that pace, I still would be very late getting home. So my only option was to just run home, keeping my HR as low as possible while doing so. The good news is I got home just in time, the bad news is that my HR was steadily 10-15 beats over my Maff of 158 the whole way home. Have I just lost all the effects of the last 4 weeks?

---

No, you haven't. Just keep doing the best you can to keep under your MAF. Give it time and you'll be able to stay under it running the whole time before you know it. Think about building up a weekly longish run, that'll help.

--Jimmy

My Running World

posted Feb-07-2006 12:14 PM            

I went out this morning for my run, and my HR was above Maff almost instantly and I had a very hard time keeping it down. I was only going to do 5 miles because of a time constraint but the first 2 miles took up so much time from having to walk a lot that I had to cut my run even shorter. However, even than, if I continued at that pace, I still would be very late getting home. So my only option was to just run home, keeping my HR as low as possible while doing so. The good news is I got home just in time, the bad news is that my HR was steadily 10-15 beats over my Maff of 158 the whole way home. Have I just lost all the effects of the last 4 weeks?

------------------
MyProfile
 

posted Feb-07-2006 12:43 PM            

Maffetone is about endurance training. To me, endurance means being able to hold a certain pace for longer and longer distances.

If you are running just 15-20 miles per week or 60-80 per month, I don't think you'll see any improvement for at least 3-4 months, if any. 15 miles per week won't challenge your fibers too much. You have to build miles up a bit in order for it to work faster. Give your body something to endure.

My first bout with lower HR training a few years ago (wasn't Maffetone, but all miles were below 75% MHR--my MAF was 73% MHR then--most miles were below that), it took me 250 miles in 6 weeks to see a minute of improvement in training pace. Five of the weeks were between 40-54 miles. This 250 miles included four 18 mile long runs and ten runs of 8-12 miles. I gave my body a challenge in those 250 miles. I made it endure something. I can't say 250 miles is the magic number for everyone, but it illustrates that running a lower HR doesn't mean you'll improve fast. It takes work. 15-20 miles per week won't show you much for a long time. A friend of mine is doing Maffetone 16 miles per week on the treadmill. She is seeing no improvement after 2 months. She is just maintaining the same speed.

In 5 weeks I'm already seeing improvement--but I'm building mileage. I've gone from 26 to 47 mpw. I just finished a week with two ten milers and a 17. I'm challenging my legs.

So, basically, I think if you are not seeing improvement after 6 weeks, 2-3 months, etc., and you haven't tried building up your weekly mileage by at least 5-10%, and also building and doing at least one longish run, you might just be maintaining aerobic fitness. If there is improvement, it'll be slow. At least 3-4 months.

To maximize low HR training, give your body something to endure.

--Jimmy

My Running World
 

posted Feb-07-2006 01:17 PM            

Your last post made me wonder how to approach rest days while maff training. January 11th was day one of my training. Since than, I have taken a total of 4 rest days with a weekly mileage of 40+. I haven't done any other type of training since I started and I'm not very active during the rest of my day. Am I resting too much, not enough? My boyfriend thinks the recent back-tracking in my training is from over-doing it and not resting enough. To be honest, I don't know what to think.

------------------
MyProfile
 

posted Feb-07-2006 02:35 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by sclark2:
Jimmy, thanks for the insight. It makes me confident to continue with my training.

Your last post made me wonder how to approach rest days while maff training. January 11th was day one of my training. Since than, I have taken a total of 4 rest days with a weekly mileage of 40+. I haven't done any other type of training since I started and I'm not very active during the rest of my day. Am I resting too much, not enough? My boyfriend thinks the recent back-tracking in my training is from over-doing it and not resting enough. To be honest, I don't know what to think.

---

When I'm up over 50 miles per week and getting higher, I'll just take one days rest, and three recovery runs, with three hard days. Since January 11th, I've been taking 2 days rest per week, though walking 3-5 miles at MAF -24 on one of those days.

If you find your HR is getting higher all of a sudden, and it's not a one or two day blippy thing, then you might need a few days rest. It could also be not getting enough rest, or even slight dehydration. I'm not a menstruation expert (though I do play one in my independent movies), but I have read that women can get low on iron due to the monthly period. Put running on top of that, and you might be low on iron. That can effect HR as well.

Make sure you are going hard day/recovery day. EG 10 miles one day, 5 the next or rest.

Good luck!

--Jimmy

My Running World

posted Feb-07-2006 04:44 PM         

That said, you should know that I'm much like you; I'm very detail-oriented and number driven, and I like to muck around w. theory. I also struggled with bonking at around 20 in the marathon.

Let me tell you a little bit about my experience. I have been involved with health and fitness all my life and have been a runner for 25 years, but I've only been a serious runner and marathoner for about 7 years. I'm pretty fast and usually finish top 10-20 in local races and in or just below 1-3 in my age group. (I'm 41). My first marathon was about 3:50, and my second was 3:09, so I quickly set my sights on a sub 3:00, but I kept falling apart.

A few years in, I hooked up with a coach from a running club--paid him on the side to help me out personally. He is a wonderful guy, an engineer, who also loves numbers and theory but is the same time very practical, hands on, and does a great job of keeping people injury free.

His basic plan for controlling the marathon which, as he explains, is really more about managing fuel than anything else is as follows. For Sub 3: Run seven days a week, 4 days are maintenance at about M+1 pace. Two days a week are speed workouts with about 3-5 miles of fast running (5K-15K pace), two to three long runs a month at M+2 pace with 2-5 miles of M pace running in the middle, a couple hill workouts a month, and about an hour of racing a month to see where you're at (10-15K distances are ideal). Finish with a three week taper, and no hard racing within 4-5 weeks of marathon day. Volume should be about 1,100-1,300 miles over 20 weeks. Also, hydration during the race is essential; dehydrate more than 2% of your body weight and you're done. This demands, for most, about 5 liters of intake during the race, which is alot.

The first time I ran this plan, I cut 5-10 minutes of my marathon time and missed a sub 3 by 25 seconds, but I didn't bonk! The miss came because of a bathroom break; GI trouble from all the water, I think.

In the months that followed though, things didn't hold up; I fell apart again and again for several years.

Finally, this last Spring, I did it. And you know what the biggest factor was, I think. Actually, it was two. First, I lost 10 lbs. that I didn't think I had to lose. It turbocharged my running. I've probably run 15 races in the last year and had a PR in almost every one and at every distance. The rule is, you get 3 secs/mile for every pound you lose. And I'm still losing; though it takes careful attention to diet.

The other is that I just grew as a runner. The guy who coaches me advised that people probably grow as runners for at least 5 to ten years, and I can just tell this has had a huge impact. By slowly ramping up, I've been able to handle more and more volume. (I run about 2,400 miles per year now whereas when I started, I barely tolerated 1,500). My legs are much more vascular. My recovery time for my heart rate is better. I'm just plain more efficient.

I use a HR monitor, and I like what it tells me, but I've learned that the numbers just don't tell the whole story. Sometimes, if I fade at the end of a race for instance, I can't elevate my heart rate even if I'm want to. I'm working like a dog, but my HR is dropping. There are some who say that HR training is far to fallible for the average person to use.

I'm convinced that a diet of running that's 90% slow (70% MHR) and 10% fast (80-95% MHR) combined with some weight loss and just plain old time spent on the streets, gets the job done!

The other stuff ultimately becomes a distraction.

The two sayings that come to mind here are "Patience is a virtue," and "You can read all the Freud you want, but sooner or later you have to go out w. girls."

If you're having a good time playing with all the number, hey, no one understands that better than me. That's one of the things I like about the marathon distance and running in general. But if you just plain want to get past that bonk, the most important thing is volume and patience.

Someone told me that once you break three, you never go back. I've only raced on marathon since, and I did even better, so I can't confirm that, but short of a bad day, I find it hard to believe that I would . . . probably becasue of the way in which I've grown.

Again, I didn't read your entire post, but the other thing is that it sounds as if you are racing way too much. My coach suggested that one probably only has about 2 really good races in them a year (though my string of PRs has refuted that a bit). You certainly need a day of rest for every mile you race and more if you're trying to overlay that rest on a training schedule leading up to a bigger target race. I'm doing two marathons a year with 20 weeks on 6 weeks off, and I race, again, about an hour a month getting ready for those, though nothing in the first four weeks of each cycle. Any more than that and my performance would definitely drop off. I know there are people out there who can handle more, but I wonder if they're not really limiting their own performance.

Just some food for thought; hope it helps.

Good luck.
 

posted Feb-07-2006 05:11 PM            

I did my test this AM in VERY cold conditions with wind gusts that definitely had an effect. However, I had the track and I had the time so I went ahead anyway. Here are my results.

Mile 1 9:39 130
Mile 2 9:53 131
Mile 3 10:06 133
Mile 4 10:10 134
Mile 5 10:29 133

I am disappointed with the 50 second difference in pace from mile 1 to mile 5, but again, I don't know what is reasonable.
With only one track test, can I make any conclusions? Obviously it would make sense to be able to compare results, but in the absense of that ability, is this data meaningful?

Karen

Edited to add: I don't know if it makes a difference, but I did a hilly 12 mile run yesterday.

[This message has been edited by Ksabbo (edited Feb-07-2006).]
 

posted Feb-07-2006 06:04 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by portlander:
Thanks Jesse - I hope you're right. This might sound crazy, but I have a concern that I'm one of those really low max-HR people. I haven't seen my monitor go above 175 (I'm 32) for any sustained time - even in the 2 5ks that I wore it. I never bothered to do a max test when I first got it, because I wasn't basing training on HR.

Anyway, I am going to keep working at 143 for now and see how it goes. One run is certainly too early to tell!

---

Portlander, I'm 43 and my Max HR is 181. MAF is 143. It took me 6 weeks to be able to get it below that, Now I run at 137-140 and do 9:00 - 9:20 mpm.

My highest HR at the end of races is usually 171. Keep it up and you'll see the times come down.

My MAF trial (1.5 mile warmup, 5 x 1 miles, cooldown) have gone from 12:00 to 8:40-9:05.

Mileage has also increased from 70 a month to 120 a month...
 

posted Feb-07-2006 06:38 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tchuck:

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!

[/B]

---

Tbone, Tchuck

MAF training isn't ALWAYS running with NO speed work. Once your times plateau, then the program I use (Mike Allen's Triathlon plan say to introduce some speed work until you see a further plateau, then return to AEROBIC, so it's challenging differnt parts of the body's systems alternately.
 

posted Feb-07-2006 07:32 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by uk boy:
Tbone, Tchuck

MAF training isn't ALWAYS running with NO speed work. Once your times plateau, then the program I use (Mike Allen's Triathlon plan say to introduce some speed work until you see a further plateau, then return to AEROBIC, so it's challenging differnt parts of the body's systems alternately.

---

UK Boy,

I realize there are phases to MAF training but I personally feel with my low amount of miles, I don't need to go away from some faster running. Some so called expert who worked with Maffetone and was a friend, told me that the Maffetone system is just fine but you should see results within a couple weeks if it's going to work for you. He claims this is what Maffetone preaches. I know others have said to hang in there for many weeks and some have gotten results after many weeks (would they have improved with traditional running with about 10% faster work?????), but I don't see the point if I am not improving and actually feel like I am losing speed which was evident when I started doing tempo runs and then retested (MAF test) and then showed improvement. I am not against Maffetone training but it isn't the best training for me.
I also think that one should never lose touch with their in season pace/speed (my opinion) which may only mean some short intervals once a week and a short tempo run every other week even in base training. I feel much invigorated by adding this small amount of higher paced work each week. My legs were dead and have now come alive. Many experts say you should not stray to far away from race pace (even 30 - 60 sec. intervals which won't erode base) even in the off season. One needs to keep the nervous system fired and keep that memory in place. Oh, soooo many theories.........

------------------
My Profile
 

posted Feb-07-2006 09:57 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by jjwaverly42:
If you are running just 15-20 miles per week or 60-80 per month, I don't think you'll see any improvement for at least 3-4 months, if any. 1

My Running World

---

I disagree. I had been running about 15 miles per week and have only increased to 23-24 and I've seen significant improvements as outlined in my recent posts.

------------------
Me

My Log
 

posted Feb-08-2006 12:03 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by plumbot:
I disagree. I had been running about 15 miles per week and have only increased to 23-24 and I've seen significant improvements as outlined in my recent posts.

---

That's a 53-60% increase--not small potatoes. That will speed your progress. That's what I'm talking about, you have to build a little, challenge your aerobic system's status quo. If you would have remained at 15 mpw, it would have taken a lot longer. There's so many people writing that it's not working, that they're not improving. I'm offering a solution that I didn't make up, nor discover, it's nothing new: build your miles up. My friend has been complaining: "When will I get back to 10 minute miles, I'm still stuck at 12:30--where I started--after two months." Well my friend hasn't built one mile. She started at 16 miles and still is. If she turned one of her four 4 milers into a 10 miler over time, she would see faster improvement at just 22 miles per week (a 37% increase). She will have built her endurance to be able to handle 10 miles, and then some.

Keep going! Congrats on your progress.

--Jimmy

My Running World

posted Feb-08-2006 07:23 AM            

MAF 5K 5K
min/mile race pace time
10:00 7:30 23:18
9:00 7:00 21:45
8:30 6:45 20:58
8:00 6:30 20:12
7:30 6:00 18:38
7:00 5:30 17:05
6:30 5:15 16:19
6:00 5:00 15:32
5:45 4:45 14:45
5:30 4:30 13:59
5:15 4:20 13:28
5:00 4:15 13:12

This quote is from Dr. Phil Maffetone. Does anybody have an understanding how the MAF min/mile pace was determined? Is this an average based on 3-5 mile track test? Is this the starting pace of a run at ones MAF?

Also, would appreciate feedback on my previous post if anybody can help. Following is a copy.....

I haven't had access to a track until very recently, so I was only able to do my 1st track test this AM. I am approx. 9 weeks into maff. I am unsure how to judge the drift. How much drift is a lot? How much is acceptable.
I did my test this AM in VERY cold conditions with wind gusts that definitely had an effect. However, I had the track and I had the time so I went ahead anyway. Here are my results.

Mile 1 9:39 130
Mile 2 9:53 131
Mile 3 10:06 133
Mile 4 10:10 134
Mile 5 10:29 133

I am disappointed with the 50 second difference in pace from mile 1 to mile 5, but again, I don't know what is reasonable.
With only one track test, can I make any conclusions? Obviously it would make sense to be able to compare results, but in the absense of that ability, is this data meaningful?

Karen

Edited to add: I don't know if it makes a difference, but I did a hilly 12 mile run yesterday.

posted Feb-08-2006 07:33 AM            

Points of progress can be measured in hours as well as miles, and the more time you work the aerobic system using the legs, the faster you progress. Again, you would be given your body a little something extra to endure. It ain't aerospace engineering.

What do rocket scientists say to each other when they want to convey that something isn't really that hard to understand?

"It ain't like using the VCR remote" ?

--Jimmy

My Running World
 

posted Feb-08-2006 08:02 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ksabbo:
[b]Data gathered on hundreds of runners over several years made it evident that the pace a runner could perform at aerobic maximum pace was positively correlated with race pace. The chart below, based on actual data, illustrates the relationship between MAF and 5K race performance.

MAF 5K 5K
min/mile race pace time
10:00 7:30 23:18
9:00 7:00 21:45
8:30 6:45 20:58
8:00 6:30 20:12
7:30 6:00 18:38
7:00 5:30 17:05
6:30 5:15 16:19
6:00 5:00 15:32
5:45 4:45 14:45
5:30 4:30 13:59
5:15 4:20 13:28
5:00 4:15 13:12

This quote is from Dr. Phil Maffetone. Does anybody have an understanding how the MAF min/mile pace was determined? Is this an average based on 3-5 mile track test? Is this the starting pace of a run at ones MAF?

Also, would appreciate feedback on my previous post if anybody can help. Following is a copy.....

I haven't had access to a track until very recently, so I was only able to do my 1st track test this AM. I am approx. 9 weeks into maff. I am unsure how to judge the drift. How much drift is a lot? How much is acceptable.
I did my test this AM in VERY cold conditions with wind gusts that definitely had an effect. However, I had the track and I had the time so I went ahead anyway. Here are my results.

Mile 1 9:39 130
Mile 2 9:53 131
Mile 3 10:06 133
Mile 4 10:10 134
Mile 5 10:29 133

I am disappointed with the 50 second difference in pace from mile 1 to mile 5, but again, I don't know what is reasonable.
With only one track test, can I make any conclusions? Obviously it would make sense to be able to compare results, but in the absense of that ability, is this data meaningful?

Karen

Edited to add: I don't know if it makes a difference, but I did a hilly 12 mile run yesterday.

[/B]

---

50 seconds ain't bad decay in pace in an MAF test. My first one, I had about 80-90 seconds decay. I think the purpose of the MAF is to measure your progress in terms of overall pace. You compare one ave. pace from onne test to the other. I think Jesse could probably tell you more about whether or not the decay from mile 1 to 5 lessens over time.

--Jimmy

My Running World

 

posted Feb-08-2006 08:13 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by jjwaverly42:
50 seconds ain't bad decay in pace in an MAF test. My first one, I had about 80-90 seconds decay. I think the purpose of the MAF is to measure your progress in terms of overall pace. You compare one ave. pace from onne test to the other. I think Jesse could probably tell you more about whether or not the decay from mile 1 to 5 lessens over time.

--Jimmy

My Running World

---

Thanks Jimmy-I appreciate the reply. I realize the purpose is to measure progress of overall pace. I have somewhat of a measure of progress simply from other training runs. Of cousre it isn't as "controlled" as the track test, I just didn't have access to a track until now. My main concern is the degradation in pace. I'm not sure how this translates in determining whether it would be a good idea to start including easy/hard training in about 3 weeks. I'd like to know if the degradation of pace is an indicator that further aerobic development is in order.

[This message has been edited by Ksabbo (edited Feb-08-2006).]
 

posted Feb-08-2006 09:17 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by jjwaverly42:
That's a 53-60% increase--not small potatoes. That will speed your progress. That's what I'm talking about, you have to build a little, challenge your aerobic system's status quo. If you would have remained at 15 mpw, it would have taken a lot longer. There's so many people writing that it's not working, that they're not improving. I'm offering a solution that I didn't make up, nor discover, it's nothing new: build your miles up.

---

posted Feb-08-2006 10:02 AM         

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ksabbo:
[b]

I am disappointed with the 50 second difference in pace from mile 1 to mile 5, but again, I don't know what is reasonable.
With only one track test, can I make any conclusions? Obviously it would make sense to be able to compare results, but in the absense of that ability, is this data meaningful?

Karen

Edited to add: I don't know if it makes a difference, but I did a hilly 12 mile run yesterday.

---

Karen,

On the MAF vs. Race data:

The idea that race pace and aerobic pace is a given, since aerobic energy production contributes the bulk of energy for all races over 400m. I can't really comment on the validity of the specific results in your quote.

However, it is probably safe to assume MAF pace is an average over at least 3-5miles. I don't think it matters whether it is a 3 or 5 mile test; although a 5 mile test would be more meaningful. In any case I doubt that it matters, since one indication of aerobic fitness would be the ability to maintain a given pace without HR rise over a 1hr run. This will be greater than 5miles at any pace under 12min/mile. So for someone who is fit (for a given pace), I wouldn't expect the pace to drop or HR to rise at all in a 3-5 mile MAF test, as long as it was shorter than 1hr in length. Both those conditions assume you have warmed up throughly and you hold a steady pace throughout the test.

On your specific results: You have nothing to be disappointed about, this is your first becnhmark. Test yourself again in 4-6 weeks and see where you're at then. As Jimmy said, 50s isn't that big a deal and may be more related to other factors, test conditions, your level of fatigue from previous day, etc.. You can't say what it is, since you don't have anything to compare with this test.

Virtually no drift (<2-3 beats) over an hour will signfy a decent level of aerobic fitness (at least for a given pace). When you find that your pace and HR are stable over runs of an hour or longer you can take that as one measure of progress.

Your best bet in the future would be to do the test after 1-2 recovery or rest days. Or at the very least, be sure that you don't do it after a hard run.

Also, another recommendation on conducting the test. Warmup completely (at least 20min), then use 1-2 laps to bring your HR up to near your target and then hold for at least 600m; it can easily take 600-800 meters (sometimes a little more) for your HR to stabilize at a given level of effort. Without stopping, that's when you start the test, since pace and HR should be stable. From that point you want to pay attention to the decay in pace or increase in HR. If you don't do this than you will probably find that the first lap HR is skewed lower and pace is skewed faster since you are bringing up both pace and HR to hit your target. You will tend to run faster as you bring your HR up, everyone does it. In my opinion, this reduces the fairness and effectiveness of the test. It both raises expectations, provides negative feedback, and masks potentially positive feedback. You wonder why you can't run the faster pace (of the first lap) all the time; you stress about how much you have to slow down; and you can't tell if you HR is really stable.

9 weeks is a solid effort. It would have been nice to have a baseline from when you started. I suspect you've made more progress than it may seem.

--jm
 

posted Feb-08-2006 10:50 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ksabbo:
[b]Data gathered on hundreds of runners over several years made it evident that the pace a runner could perform at aerobic maximum pace was positively correlated with race pace. The chart below, based on actual data, illustrates the relationship between MAF and 5K race performance.

MAF 5K 5K
min/mile race pace time
10:00 7:30 23:18
9:00 7:00 21:45
8:30 6:45 20:58
8:00 6:30 20:12
7:30 6:00 18:38
7:00 5:30 17:05
6:30 5:15 16:19
6:00 5:00 15:32
5:45 4:45 14:45
5:30 4:30 13:59
5:15 4:20 13:28
5:00 4:15 13:12

[/B]

---

When I was doing MAF training, my MAF test was around 7:50 pace on a treadmill and 8:05 outside. My PR in a 5K last fall was 19:55 which is a 6:25 pace. Pretty darn close to chart above for me!

------------------
My Profile
 

posted Feb-08-2006 11:25 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by junkmiles:

Virtually no drift (<2-3 beats) over an hour will signfy a decent level of aerobic fitness (at least for a given pace). When you find that your pace and HR are stable over runs of an hour or longer you can take that as one measure of progress.

Your best bet in the future would be to do the test after 1-2 recovery or rest days. Or at the very least, be sure that you don't do it after a hard run.

--jm

---

Thanks JM- I am curious how realistic it is for the average runner (simply defined as not elite) to have no drift. Even the results from Dr. Maff's subject over a 4 month period show degradation in pace.

quoted from a Maff article
During any one MAF test, it's normal for your times to get slower; the first mile should always be the fastest, and the last the slowest. If that's not the case, it usually means you have not warmed up enough.

In addition, the test should show faster times as the weeks pass. For example, over four months, we can see the endurance progress in this actual case:

April May June July
Mile 1 8:21 8:11 7:57 7:44
Mile 2 8:27 8:18 8:05 7:52
Mile 3 8:38 8:26 8:10 7:59
Mile 4 8:44 8:33 8:17 8:09
Mile 5 8:49 8:39 8:24 8:15

And Yes, next test will be under better circumstances. After thinking about it a bit I realize there were several reasons the test probably should have waited. 18 mile run on Saturday, hilly 12 miles on Monday ( I took a wrong turn and ended up adding 3 miles to my planned run), VERY COLD wind chill with noticable gusts, all factors probably made this a more difficult run than average.
Karen