posted Feb-12-2006 01:55 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ksabbo:
Thanks Cash and Leitnerj, The Macmillan chart seems to more in line with what I believe I could/should run. I'll take some of the guidelines from Team Oregon, such as keeping tempo runs no more than .25 the distance of goal race, and I'll use the paces of Macmillan.

As mentioned before, I have two more weeks of Maff base training. I'm not saying I have derived all the benefits that I can expect from Maff after the past 12 weeks. In fact, I'm sure there is still a reasonable amount of improvement possible if I were to continue base training. However; I would like to get the other training in for the upcoming marathon. I will probably resume Maff base building in July if not earlier. This schedule will line up similarly for a fall marathon.

In a couple of weeks, do you think it would be wise to try to get a max HR by running one of the various tests? Do you think I would be better off just sticking with the Macmillan paces rather than using up my supply of Maff . I envision a guage on a fuel tank and don't want it to read "empty" before resuming Maff again :
Karen

---

Honestly, I think you should experiment to find paces and not rely
on one calculator or another. Just use them to give you a general
guideline. You can go calculate your max heart rate, but it's really
not good for much. You're much better off running some races
between 10k and half marathon and try to identify where your lactate
threshold is. That will give you the more useful information.

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

MyStuff

Low Heart Rate Training FAQ
 

posted Feb-12-2006 02:06 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by GForce1:
How did I get slower?

> snip <

I would guess my 5k time today would be a good 3 or more minutes slower than what I would be running it had I just added intervals and a weekly long run to my training 8-10 weeks ago.

By the way, before I started this training I ran an average of 7:30-7:40 per mile on my daily runs. I have been running for three years and had leveled off after the first 12 or 18 months. With all the hills around here, I realize now that I probably never ran much of anything aerobically and so thought I would respond well to aerobic training and the higher mileage.

I am wondering, could all my initial approximate 1:30 per mile loss in time be strictly attributed to anaerobic/fast twitch muscle atrophy? As I write this I realize that nearly all my losses came the first month and have leveled off since.

And one more thing, I have noticed that those who do improve seem to not only be running more, but have often added biking and swimming to their agendas. If you go from exercising 2 hours a week up to over 10, you're going to improve aerobically. Is that what it's going to take? Is that the most efficient use of time?

I have put a lot of time into this MAF training and really don’t want to abandon it, but I’m having a tougher and tougher time justifying continuing.

Any ideas would be appreciated.

[This message has been edited by GForce1 (edited Feb-12-2006).]

---

In short, I would indeed say virtually all of your fitness was
in your anaerobic system. It's really hard for me to put the pieces
together for all of the tests you've done, but most of the evidence
you provide points in that direction, particularly since you were
a very low mileage runner before starting and you ran all of your
runs at, presumably, quite a high heart rate (did you ever wear
your HR monitor for your "old style" runs?) So, it wouldn't
surprise me at all if you are entirely seeing the atrophy in your
anaerobic system. One thing concerns me, though. Are you
actually saying that your pace at MAF heart rates has gotten
lower over 6 weeks? If that's the case, it is not atrophy of your
anaerobic system. Do you have a training log that shows
all of your training runs, including the pace and average heart
rate over each mile for each one? It would be very helpful to
look at that to see what's going on. Also, had you done any
races, such as 5k, 10k, or whatever?

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

MyStuff

Low Heart Rate Training FAQ
 

posted Feb-12-2006 06:11 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by GForce1:
How did I get slower?

So, I consciously slowed down a bit for the next two weeks and then set my watch to MAF –3 (that was all I could stand) and made a conscience effort to run even slower with chunks of my runs at MAF –8 or –10. I also added a longer Sunday run to my plate. With hills everywhere around here, I walked often and never cheated, but my HR did bounce around a lot between 124-133. Of course, my times have been even slower (@ 11:30-12:30 pace) with the lower HR.

The worst part is that I have increased my mileage from 15 to 27 miles a week and have increased my time running from 2 hours weekly up to over 5 hours weekly. It seems all I do is run or think about running these days.

I understand that it may take a few months before improvements come. I am usually pretty patient, but even if the times, which have remained pretty flat the past several weeks do start to get faster, it could be many, many months before I even get back to where I was when I was running just 2 hours a week. I am beginning to wonder if all this slow running is worth it.

Any ideas would be appreciated.

---

My $.02 thought is that this sounds about right. Jesse and others will surely be able to help you with the more technical aspect here, but keep in mind the following:

1) You have increased your mileage by 180% and time spent running by 250%. This alone will add fatigue and slow you down. I believe it will take awhile before your body adapts to this increase. I don't believe this is a permanent slow down.

The strength derived from such a significant increase in running should be quite apparent once you finish base training and are able to add tempos, intervals, etc.

2)The difference in pace when running MAF -3 vs. MAF -10 can easily account for a +/- 1 min/mile (or more) pace difference.

I too am at the 10 week point. I also have questioned along the way if this was the right thing to do. I too have been somewhat disappointed at times, hoping to see some more dramatic improvement; however.............

I don't make a habit of cheating with my Maf pace , but I have added a couple of striders onto some recent runs. I was very pleasantly surprised that it wasn't difficult in the least to reach a pretty fast pace, and more importantly that it was almost effortless to hold the pace in comparison to pre-Maf. I don't plan on doing much of this the next 2 weeks because I want to get as much from this base training period as possible, but it sure felt good to get even a tiny bit of faster running in :

Also, I always had trouble running much over 30 mpw without breaking down and getting injuries. I am now running 40-45 mpw and believe I could probably add another 5 miles, but I simply don't have the time available. This is a huge benefit.

I don't think you (me too for that matter) can really determine whether or not it is working until you feel you have built up enough base to begin additional speed training.

I would agree with Jesse that checking your running log and evaluating it would probably provide the insight you are looking for. When I felt I was slowing down, my log showed me a variety of things. Sometimes it was that my avg. HR for a particular run was lower/higher, etc. Sometimes the route would have been hilly, etc. You get the picture.
Karen
 

posted Feb-12-2006 06:40 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ksabbo:
I plan on completing the Maffetone base training for the next two weeks. That will bring me to 12 weeks. Then I want to mix in some tempo runs and a little bit of other faster running in preparation for my end of April marathon. I really have no basis of determining what HR to target for tempo runs as well as a race pace. I don't know what my max HR is, so I have to estimate it. I was hoping to use a comprehensive guide such as the "Team Oregon Pace Wizard" to guide me. Perhaps there is a better way?
Thanks, Karen

---

I found good success with 30-40 minute lactate threshold runs topping out
at 87-90% MHR. I lifted the idea from Advanced Marathoning (Pfitzinger).
Marathon tempo runs were run at my projected marathon pace. I was trying to qualify for Boston, and I needed to beat 3:30:59 (8:02). The Wizard gave me a 3:25. So I shot for a 3:28 (7:56) in training. I did three runs (12, 14, 7) at marathon tempo. I didn't use a HRM during these runs, nor in the race. I ended up running the marathon in 3:28:10 (7:57 pace).

Goood luck!
--Jimmy

My Running World
My Maffetone Low-HR Training Experiment

 

posted Feb-12-2006 10:03 PM         

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ksabbo:
Thanks Cash and Leitnerj, The Macmillan chart seems to more in line with what I believe I could/should run. I'll take some of the guidelines from Team Oregon, such as keeping tempo runs no more than .25 the distance of goal race, and I'll use the paces of Macmillan.

As mentioned before, I have two more weeks of Maff base training. I'm not saying I have derived all the benefits that I can expect from Maff after the past 12 weeks. In fact, I'm sure there is still a reasonable amount of improvement possible if I were to continue base training. However; I would like to get the other training in for the upcoming marathon. I will probably resume Maff base building in July if not earlier. This schedule will line up similarly for a fall marathon.

In a couple of weeks, do you think it would be wise to try to get a max HR by running one of the various tests? Do you think I would be better off just sticking with the Macmillan paces rather than using up my supply of Maff . I envision a guage on a fuel tank and don't want it to read "empty" before resuming Maff again :
Karen

---

Karen,

Just a thought, but at the end of your maf cycle you could run a 3K or 5K time trial and that would give you an up to date baseline for mcmillan or you could use the VDOT tables from Daniel's Running Formula or the Pace Index charts (from www.trainingpeaks.com/cuttingedge) which is analogous to DRF. The more accurate an assessment of your current fitness, the more you will be able to get out of any training regimen you put into practice. You train too slow and it takes too long to improve (if at all). You train too fast and you end up injured or overtrained. In the case of the former, you're out of the game, and for the latter, you'll perform worse than if undertrained.

It is useful to know your maxHR, especially if you are using an HR training regimen, even with a formula based approach like Maffetone. You have something to compare against and it gives you a sense of your pace at various levels of effort.

Running one HRmax test in the middle or at the end of MAF won't kill you, just make sure you cooldown with a light jog for a good long time (15-20mins). And make the next day a short easy run. If you can, take the day before easy as well.

--jm
 

posted Feb-13-2006 08:02 PM            

I am sure my HR will fluctuate and may go over 10 again. This is a typical pattern with me. I do think for those that have discounted this work that it is kep to slowly build longer runs in. I have been running at least 1 run each week over 10 miles for the last 3 week. My body has gradually adapted and my pace gets better. I imagine I will see this trend as I run 12 miles next week.

I am now very optimistic that I will get under 1:45 (my goal) for my half in May.

------------------
Me ~~~ My Log ~~~~~~Find a Race
 

posted Feb-13-2006 08:22 PM            

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

MyStuff

Low Heart Rate Training FAQ
 

posted Feb-13-2006 08:43 PM         

quote:

---

Originally posted by hurryinhoosier:
I wanted to hop in here and say how stoked I am about two things I never thought I would see -
1) I ran 40 miles last week. And I feel great.
2) Running at my MAF pace, I was able to break 10 min/mile on my long run yesterday of 10.4 miles. I kept a pace of 9:33 min / mile and avg HR of 144. This is nuts compared to where I was in October. I couldn't keep this pace on a 6 mile run.

I am sure my HR will fluctuate and may go over 10 again. This is a typical pattern with me. I do think for those that have discounted this work that it is kep to slowly build longer runs in. I have been running at least 1 run each week over 10 miles for the last 3 week. My body has gradually adapted and my pace gets better. I imagine I will see this trend as I run 12 miles next week.

I am now very optimistic that I will get under 1:45 (my goal) for my half in May.

---

Nice job. It is a nice comfortable way to build miles, even if it is a bit slow. Are you sticking at 40mpw or so, or do you plan on taking it higher? Remember, to hold at a new peak for a couple of weeks before building up again. Easy miles or not, it's easy to out run yourself.

Jesse's right, you are probably right on track for your half. If you take your MAF pace as an easy or even recovery run pace then, with your new found aerobic fitness, your half-marathon pace should be about 2:30 faster than a recovery run or 1:30 faster than an easy run. With a MAF of 144 you're probably in easy run range so I'd use 1:30.

Don't sweat the fluctations if your pace falls off on a couple of runs next week. You hit this pace and you'll stabilize there soon. Every time my pace drops it takes a few days to settle on the new pace.

Again, good job.

--jm

posted Feb-14-2006 05:38 PM            

I've been running at MAFF and under since late Nov. MAFF time fell from 9:55 to 8:36 from Dec 12th to Jan 2nd. Since then it has slowed to 8:52 on Feb 13th. (These are the AV pace over the 5 miles, my data suggests actual MAFF pace went from 10:30 to 9:12 and then remaining at or about 9:12-9:15).
I am using PC Coach with the Pigg Triathlon plug-in. It uses the Maffetone formual and analyses your MAF test telling you whether to stay in the Aerobic period or enter Anaerobic periods. I have been itching for faster running and finally the program switche dme over to anaerobic. I did my first speed session in about 5 months with my club tonight. It was meant to be 4 x 1 mile repeats with an incline in one direction. My times were as follows - downhill 6:18, 6:10, 6:09, Uphill 7:31, 7:30, 7:11, each with a 2 minute recovery.

My point? 1) Obviously I have not lost my speed!
2) Stamina is MUCH improved. The session was actually 4 miles, but I did an extra two and got faster!!
3) I felt SO good...
4) Colleagues I usually 'compete' with were left in my wake...
The whole session was below my AT

So for anyone struggling with MAFF, stick in there, enjoy your running, build that mileage which WILL build endurance and don't overly worry about your speed. If I do a 6:18 pace for 10k ever again I'll be thrilled and if it was for a HM, well I'd be over the moon!!

uk boy
 

posted Feb-14-2006 06:42 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by uk boy:
Just wanted to comment on MAFF and speed.

I've been running at MAFF and under since late Nov. MAFF time fell from 9:55 to 8:36 from Dec 12th to Jan 2nd. Since then it has slowed to 8:52 on Feb 13th. (These are the AV pace over the 5 miles, my data suggests actual MAFF pace went from 10:30 to 9:12 and then remaining at or about 9:12-9:15).
I am using PC Coach with the Pigg Triathlon plug-in. It uses the Maffetone formual and analyses your MAF test telling you whether to stay in the Aerobic period or enter Anaerobic periods. I have been itching for faster running and finally the program switche dme over to anaerobic. I did my first speed session in about 5 months with my club tonight. It was meant to be 4 x 1 mile repeats with an incline in one direction. My times were as follows - downhill 6:18, 6:10, 6:09, Uphill 7:31, 7:30, 7:11, each with a 2 minute recovery.

My point? 1) Obviously I have not lost my speed!
2) Stamina is MUCH improved. The session was actually 4 miles, but I did an extra two and got faster!!
3) I felt SO good...
4) Colleagues I usually 'compete' with were left in my wake...
The whole session was below my AT

So for anyone struggling with MAFF, stick in there, enjoy your running, build that mileage which WILL build endurance and don't overly worry about your speed. If I do a 6:18 pace for 10k ever again I'll be thrilled and if it was for a HM, well I'd be over the moon!!

uk boy

---

Thanks very much for the data point! It's great because you show
the whole "life cycle" of training - (1) MAF improvement, (2) plateau,
(3) speed, which goes beyond what I've presented. It's also nice to
see some feedback on the Mike Pigg plug-in to illustrate what the
right time is to start adding speed (assuming you ever reach it before
a target race!) Keep posting results!

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

MyStuff

Low Heart Rate Training FAQ
 

posted Feb-14-2006 08:18 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by leitnerj:

Thanks very much for the data point! It's great because you show
the whole "life cycle" of training - (1) MAF improvement, (2) plateau,
(3) speed, which goes beyond what I've presented. It's also nice to
see some feedback on the Mike Pigg plug-in to illustrate what the
right time is to start adding speed (assuming you ever reach it before
a target race!) Keep posting results!

---

uk boy (Chris)

 

posted Feb-14-2006 08:27 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by uk boy:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by leitnerj:
[b]
Thanks very much for the data point! It's great because you show
the whole "life cycle" of training - (1) MAF improvement, (2) plateau,
(3) speed, which goes beyond what I've presented. It's also nice to
see some feedback on the Mike Pigg plug-in to illustrate what the
right time is to start adding speed (assuming you ever reach it before
a target race!) Keep posting results!

---

uk boy (Chris)[/B][/QUOTE]

interesting, and makes sense to me!

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

MyStuff

Low Heart Rate Training FAQ
 

posted Feb-14-2006 08:32 PM            

51. What kind of pace can I expect to run in races for a given pace
I'm capable of below MAF?

Combining Maffetone's pace table and McMillan's pace calculator and
making the following assumptions: (1) MAF pace is calculated for
a relatively flat area at least several miles into a run, (2) conditions and
running environment (hills, wind, temperature, humidity, etc.) are
comparable between MAF test and the race, (3) you are well-conditioned
aerobically (otherwise, the 5k prediction may be good, but the others
won't):

MAF 5K 5K HM marathon
min/mile race pace time time time
10:00 7:30 23:18 1:48 3:47
9:00 7:00 21:45 1:41 3:32
8:30 6:45 20:58 1:37 3:24
8:00 6:30 20:12 1:33 3:17
7:30 6:00 18:38 1:26 3:02
7:00 5:30 17:05 1:19 2:47
6:30 5:15 16:19 1:16 2:39
6:00 5:00 15:32 1:12 2:31
5:45 4:45 14:45 1:08 2:24
5:30 4:30 13:59 1:05 2:16
5:15 4:20 13:28 1:02 2:11
5:00 4:15 13:12 1:01 2:09

The ambiguous parts are (clearly) how comparable the
MAF test course and race course are, as well as
where you take your MAF pace during your run
(i.e., average, fastest, slowest, middle, etc.) But it
should still be a good guideline if you use a bad
guess.

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

MyStuff

Low Heart Rate Training FAQ
 

posted Feb-14-2006 11:37 PM         

quote:

---

Originally posted by leitnerj:
MAF 5K 5K HM marathon
min/mile race pace time time time
10:00 7:30 23:18 1:48 3:47
9:00 7:00 21:45 1:41 3:32
8:30 6:45 20:58 1:37 3:24
8:00 6:30 20:12 1:33 3:17
7:30 6:00 18:38 1:26 3:02
7:00 5:30 17:05 1:19 2:47
6:30 5:15 16:19 1:16 2:39
6:00 5:00 15:32 1:12 2:31
5:45 4:45 14:45 1:08 2:24
5:30 4:30 13:59 1:05 2:16
5:15 4:20 13:28 1:02 2:11
5:00 4:15 13:12 1:01 2:09

---

Jesse,

These MAF paces may be a bit aggressive for some folks. For most folks the pace at MAF should fall into one of two Mcmillan categories: Recovery Run or Easy Run. In general, Mcmillan's calculator puts 5K pace about 1:30 faster than the fast-end of 'Easy Pace' and 2:30 faster than 'Recovery Pace.'

For example, MAF is a recovery pace for me. So with a 7:30 pace at MAF I'd be capable of a 16:10 5K and 2:38 marathon.

--jm

 

posted Feb-15-2006 12:52 AM         

I am noticing I have to run about half a mile an hour slower than the first run. My second runs are normally 3 to 4 hours after the first and are more a result of a friend coming by in the evening and saying lets go for a run rather than a planned event for me. First run is the plan.

Thanks

Cash.
 

posted Feb-15-2006 10:18 AM         

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cashmason:
If I do second run several hours after the first one, I presume it's normal for the heart rate to be slightly elevated and have to run slower the second time?

---

Don't sweat it, it is totally normal and to be expected. For me, runs in the late afternoon or evening often have slightly higher HR, relative to pace, whether I've run in the morning or not.

On double days part of the training stress is due to incomplete recovery from the first run of the day, so this would also account for elevated HR. For most people, especially those new to doubles, one run should strictly be a recovery run (e.g. target at least HR5-10bpm lower or your normal recovery pace, whichever is lower).

Also, your runs seem a little close together. Recommendations on doubles say the runs should be spaced more than 4h and I've seen 10h recommended in places. More experienced runners maybe able to get away with more intensity on their doubles and closer spacing, but I think it is better to take the non-workout run very easy and, where possible, maximize the time between runs.

--jm

 

posted Feb-15-2006 03:04 PM         

Right now all my runs are at Maf -5. And the timing can't be helped right now. I run early afternoon. And the second run comes not from planning but from girlfriend or best friend wanting to run when they get home.

They won't run later because then their heart rates are elevated and they can't fall asleep at their normal bedtimes.

They don't /wont plan their runs ahead of time as at the end of the work day they may feel to tired to run or have late meetings or whatever. So running with them is spontaneous.

So my only choice is do a second run with them or not. Spend time with them or not. If they do run I can not plan on a time or distance as they run by feel and have no schedule for their runs.

Your info helped, so I know its nothing unusual and is to be expected.
 

posted Feb-15-2006 08:21 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by junkmiles:
Jesse,

These MAF paces may be a bit aggressive for some folks. For most folks the pace at MAF should fall into one of two Mcmillan categories: Recovery Run or Easy Run. In general, Mcmillan's calculator puts 5K pace about 1:30 faster than the fast-end of 'Easy Pace' and 2:30 faster than 'Recovery Pace.'

For example, MAF is a recovery pace for me. So with a 7:30 pace at MAF I'd be capable of a 16:10 5K and 2:38 marathon.

--jm

---

Only the paces at the left are the MAF paces. The paces to the
right are race pace capabilities that people would have given the
MAF pace to the left. The paces to the right are not MAF, they
could be 20, 30, 40 beats over MAF heart rate.

The way I calculated them was to take the 5k race pace associated
with a given MAF pace capability. Then I entered that 5k race pace
as a "best 5k race time" into McMillan's calculator and computed the
associated HM and marathon times. It shouldn't be aggressive except
for someone who is not yet aerobically conditioned. It was pretty close
for all of the examples I tried.

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

MyStuff

Low Heart Rate Training FAQ
 

posted Feb-15-2006 08:24 PM            

No problem. Just make them run yout MAF-5or10.. It will be a second workout for you.

------------------
crb81
 

posted Feb-15-2006 08:43 PM            

------------------
crb81
 

posted Feb-15-2006 08:54 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by crb81:
I ran my first MAF run today after 3 weeks in the program. Just looking for feedback. I'm 47 and ran first two weeks at HR of 128 due to PF in November. Was too exasperated and reset at 133 last week. Was training for Houston marathon last fall before the PF in November. It has been resolved for a month. Ran a 7:12 15k in November. My results today were mile1-11:02, 2-11:13, 3-11:24, 4-11:11, 5-11:19. I walked one mile and ran one mile before my test. My avg HR was 132. My polar A5 only gives an avg. I am currently running about 20 miles/week but planning on increasing as time allows. I would appreciate any comments on direction I should take besides increasing miles. If nothing else, I am very pleased by lack of pain.

---

Hi there - looks fine, a good approach, and I have no suggestions for
adjustments you should make at this time. If you have a mileage goal,
this should help you work up to it. It's always good to change things
around a bit, but just see where your current plan takes you. Good luck.

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

MyStuff

Low Heart Rate Training FAQ
 

posted Feb-15-2006 11:10 PM         

quote:

---

Originally posted by leitnerj:
The way I calculated them was to take the 5k race pace associated with a given MAF pace capability. Then I entered that 5k race pace as a "best 5k race time" into McMillan's calculator and computed the associated HM and marathon times.

---

Sorry, I wasn't clear. I understand the left column is the only pace run at MAF. And the correlation with 5K pace is right on the money with Mcmillan, if you assume MAF pace corresponds to his easy run pace. McMillan's easy runs are defined at 75%MHR. If, on the other hand, MAF pace corresponds to recovery pace (65-70%), then the numbers are dramatically different.

You are, in a sense, comparing apples and oranges, since MAF is defined independent of maxHR, whereas Mcmillan's pace zones are defined based on maxHR. So it would seem that mapping MAF pace to Mcmillan's calculated paces has to be done with an additional constraint. That is, an individual would need to place MAF in relation to 65-70% (recovery) or 75% (easy run) and choose which type of run corresponded to their MAF pace.

In any case, it's a nice predictor and should give people something to shoot for. Folks might start to think they have a better marathon in them than they thought possible.

--jm
 

posted Feb-16-2006 05:05 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by junkmiles:
Sorry, I wasn't clear. I understand the left column is the only pace run at MAF. And the correlation with 5K pace is right on the money with Mcmillan, if you assume MAF pace corresponds to his easy run pace. McMillan's easy runs are defined at 75%MHR. If, on the other hand, MAF pace corresponds to recovery pace (65-70%), then the numbers are dramatically different.

You are, in a sense, comparing apples and oranges, since MAF is defined independent of maxHR, whereas Mcmillan's pace zones are defined based on maxHR. So it would seem that mapping MAF pace to Mcmillan's calculated paces has to be done with an additional constraint. That is, an individual would need to place MAF in relation to 65-70% (recovery) or 75% (easy run) and choose which type of run corresponded to their MAF pace.

In any case, it's a nice predictor and should give people something to shoot for. Folks might start to think they have a better marathon in them than they thought possible.

--jm

---

I don't think it's apples and oranges at all, nor am I suggesting any
correlation between MAF pace and McMillan's easy run pace. (Why
would I make that connection?) According to Maffetone, a particular
MAF pace corresponds to a particular 5k race capability. Given ones
MAF pace, find the best 5k he/she is likely to do. The only assumption
is that the person can actually do it. Then assume that's the best 5k
race that individual can do. Then going to McMillan, entering that
best 5k, you can find the best HM and marathon pace that individual
can do. It really doesn't matter for this what %HR, what training pace,
or what anything that McMillan provides for this table. Nowhere am I
referring to any training paces or heart rate percentages at all, or basing
any assumptions on them. Before my last marathon last year, my
MAF pace after about 10 miles into a run was about 8:30/mile. That
predicted a 20:58 5k. Entering a 20:58 5k into McMillan's calculator
predicts a 3:24 marathon, which is what I did. It was definitely nothing
aggressive, nor were there any assumptions about max heart rate. If
anything, it was conservative, because for some miles outside on
relatively flat ground I was faster than 8:30 at MAF (and my 5k capability
has long been faster than 20:58). Why are you comparing easy runs
below MAF to McMillan's easy runs?

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

MyStuff

Low Heart Rate Training FAQ
 

posted Feb-16-2006 02:12 PM            

Due to circumstances on the weekend, I ended up resting completely for 3 days. When I returned to run on Wednesday, it seemed like my HR readings were way too low. I thought maybe there was something wrong with my monitor. So, I tried stepping off the treadmill and taking a quick 15 second reading. My pulse seemed a bit high, and when I looked at my HRM, it matched the pulse, and was 5-10 beats higher than when I was running. I thought there was smoething wrong with the HRM. So today I went through an experiment and figured it out.

My running readings were actually correct. I'm just getting in better shape, a 3 day rest will sometimes get the HR down. What was happening was I was lifting my arms high which raises the heart rate by 8-10 beats per minute. Here was my scientific method:

--I wore your my girl's watch and mine (we have the same thing). They both read the same thing, so that ruled out that my watch was deficient. It didn't rule out that the strap (sender) was off, but what's the likely-hood of all three (I tried all three that we have over two days) being wrong.

--When I stopped and took my pulse, it usually took me 25 seconds (10 to find the pulse and 15 to measure). When I looked down, the HRM always matched my pulse, and seemed too high. Then it occurred to me that maybe by holding my arms up, it somehow raised my heart rate.

--I put her watch ON the strap--can't get any closer, and it gave the low reading as I ran. As soon as I raised my arms up and held them there, the pulse began to rise. I tested it again just sitting here. Same thing.

Solved!

This also shows why you should run with your arms low and relaxed. It takes effort to keep your arms high.

--Jimmy

My Running World
My Maffetone Low-HR Training Experiment

posted Feb-16-2006 03:03 PM         

quote:

---

Originally posted by jjwaverly42:
[

Solved!

This also shows why you should run with your arms low and relaxed. It takes effort to keep your arms high.

--Jimmy]

[/B]

---

I figgured this one out when I first started MAF training. By keeping my arms very low I could keep the HR down. But, I started having problems with my fingers swelling up and didn't know why. I even stopped in at the local fire station to have my blood pressure checked. They told me I was in great shape. Anyway, I finally realized that I was holding my arms too low and the blood was pooling down into my fingers and making them swell. So, if your hands start to look like sausages, get your hands back up! Cathy