posted Feb-20-2006 10:28 PM         

quote:

---

Originally posted by jjwaverly42:
How did you come up with 120? That's about 60% MHR for me. Even if it is my pure aerobic zone, I'm not going to train at that HR, and you can't make me! Please don't make me...
:> )

---

Rough estimate of your so-called "aerobic threshold" (not a true physiological term as far as I know), which is defined as the point at which anaerobic pathways start to contribute. Although, this definition is probably total BS given how the body actually works. 60%MHR is a rough estimate. Another ballpark figure is 1/2 distance between maxHR and resting HR, which for you (if I recall) is 195 and something in the 40s (i picked 45). AeT also supposedly corresponds to that point where blood lactate levels rise above resting to about 2mmol or so.

Perceived exertion, is another way to pinpoint it: it is the point at which you first feel a deepening of breath; not where you are breathing hard, but where your respiration changes from normal resting/walking rate. Below that point you are totally aerobic. Your 'aerobic zone' is defined as that point up to 10bpm over. In your case 60-65%mhr (117-127) is your aerobic zone. I have no evidendce that as you get fitter it will rise, but it may since Friel has an alternative estimate: AeT is, in general, about 20-40bpm below your anaerobic threshold. Friel puts AeT at 20bpm below your anaerobic threshold if you're a fit endurance athlete. In your case, this puts your unadjusted MAF comfortably below your AeT. Probably your adjusted as well. Obviously, anything below your anaerobic threshold is primarily aerobic, but AeT is the far end. MAF probably puts a lot of folks well into this range, particularly older runners. The problem with AeT is that it does not always correlate well with other physiological parameters and for the most part is a poor predictor of endurance performance.

As someone mentioned in another thread. The reason MAF may work is because it puts you in a training zone that roughly matches with your AeT, which at least allows you to train aerobically. It is probably below, what Lydiard would call a 'strong aerobic effort,' but for new runners is probably an intensity they can tolerate while building miles. Or for experienced runners, defines a meaningful recovery zone.

Been doing some reading on Maffetone from other sources (e.g. Noakes, etc.) and most say it is a practical guideline, but not scientifically proven. Seems to me, for many folks, it is a conservative estimate and a reasonable guideline for new runners trying to build an initial base get aerobically fit. It probably makes sense for endurance athletes (ultras, tris etc.) as a primary approach, but for someone trying to peak for a marathon (or shorter) if used should be part of an overall training plan that attacks all training zones appropriately within a periodization plan.

Far be it from me to tell you what HR to train at. I'm following your example!

--jm

[This message has been edited by junkmiles (edited Feb-20-2006).]
 

posted Feb-21-2006 09:28 AM         

Aerobically fit individuals will experience less cardiac drift than those who are aerobically unfit. For folks developing aerobic fitness one measure (as has been noted here previously) is little or no HR rise vs pace for runs of 1 hour or more.

Joe Friel (cyclist/triathlete coach) has a test he does with his cyclists, but can be used by runners. He places a lot of emphasis on training at or below the so-called Aerobic Threshold (AeT), which he defines as approx 20bpm below your Anaerobic Threshold AnT (or LT to continue the use of mix terminology). 20bpm is applicable to fit endurance athletes and this may extend to 40bpm in the lesser trained. For many at the low-end this will fall into MAF range. While the 20bpm offset is likely higher than MAF, especially for those over 35.

Anyway, his test is an evaluation for cardiac drift that seems to provide a decent indication of your current development of aerobic fitness. It should also provide an alternative measure of progress in between noticeable pace gains.

1. Use a run of least 1-2 hrs.

2. After the run compute the average HR for the first half and average pace for the first half. Divide these to get the ratio= avgHR/avgPace. If you include warmup in your total time, exclude the warmup and just split your time at steady pace and HR in two equal segments.

3. Do the same for the second half.

4. Subtract result of 2 from 3 or HR/pace(2) - HR/pace(1)

5. Divide result of 4 by result of 2 or
[HR/pace(2) - HR/pace(1)] / (HR/pace(1))

Convert 5 to a percentage (i.e. multiply by 100). The smaller (closer to 0) the answer in 5 the more aerobically fit your are, since fit runners will experience less cardiac drift. In fact, a fit runner, in reasonable environmental conditions, should have little drift for runs of an hour or so. When the result of 5 is less than 1% then you've probably maxed out fitness at that pace.

For most folks on this thread, AnT- (20-40) is probably close to MAF and this test should be applicable as a measure of progress. Reduced cardiac drift may precede any noticeable improvement in pace at MAF or lower.

When a well trained runner can hold maximum aerobic pace for 1-2hrs with little or no HR drift then he is probably as aerobically fit as he can get. For folks still building, your pace will continue to improve and cardiac drift will stablize at each new pace. This process of HR stabilization may characterize the local plateaus that folks doing MAF see from time to time. Of course, eventually, you'll hit a global peak and it's time to throw in some faster training.

Just some thoughts and drop a note if this analysis was useful.

--jm

[This message has been edited by junkmiles (edited Feb-21-2006).]
 

posted Feb-22-2006 03:15 PM         

quote:

---

Originally posted by fuzz:
Can crosstraining on an elliptical be incorporated in a Maffetone base building plan? Would you acheive the same aerobic benefits in terms of mitochondria & capillary development in the legs?

---

In general, the answer to both your questions is yes.

Any aerobic exercise can be incorporated into a Maffetone basebuilding plan, as long as you adhere to the HR guidelines in each activity/sport. The elliptical would probably give you more of a full body benefit as it is more like cross-country skiing where the arms play a much more active role.

However, (and this is informed speculation on my part) you probably won't get the exact same adaptation of mitochonrida and capillary development as running. Adaptation is specific to the muscle group being stressed. Since the muscles stressed on an elliptical are not identical to running you won't necessarily get same adaptation response. In practice, it won't matter as the overall aerobic adaptations will be helpful in any case. It's all beneficial and many people incorporate an elliptical program, as well as other cross training modalities into their running plans.

--jm
 

posted Feb-22-2006 04:43 PM         

quote:

---

Originally posted by junkmiles:

However, (and this is informed speculation on my part) you probably won't get the exact same adaptation of mitochonrida and capillary development as running. Adaptation is specific to the muscle group being stressed. Since the muscles stressed on an elliptical are not identical to running you won't necessarily get same adaptation response.

--jm

---

That's exactly what I was wondering. (BTW, thank you, your response framed my question better than I did my original post.) Elliptical training stresses the muscles slightly differently than running, so the response & adaptation are slightly different.

But not greatly different, right? A weekly plan consisting of (for example) 3 days running / 4 days elliptical wouldn't be a good idea, but 5 days running / 2 days elliptical would be?

posted Feb-22-2006 04:58 PM         

quote:

---

Originally posted by fuzz:
That's exactly what I was wondering. (BTW, thank you, your response framed my question better than I did my original post.) Elliptical training stresses the muscles slightly differently than running, so the response & adaptation are slightly different.

But not greatly different, right? A weekly plan consisting of (for example) 3 days running / 4 days elliptical wouldn't be a good idea, but 5 days running / 2 days elliptical would be?

---

The answer to this will totally depend on what your goals and priorities are. If you're training for a marathon, the second option is what I would choose. However, there are workable 3-day/week marathon training plans that call for hard xtraining on the other days. So it depends on what you want to do and why.

--jm

 

posted Feb-22-2006 05:35 PM         

quote:

---

Originally posted by junkmiles:
The answer to this will totally depend on what your goals and priorities are. If you're training for a marathon, the second option is what I would choose. However, there are workable 3-day/week marathon training plans that call for hard xtraining on the other days. So it depends on what you want to do and why.

--jm

---

I failed to specify -- base building for the marathon is what I have in mind.

Coming off my 4th marathon I'm convinced I need to build a better base before the next one. I'm thinking one or two workouts per week on the elliptical will allow me to ramp up the miles (or rather, hours on my feet in the proper HR zone) while minimizing the chance of injury.

posted Feb-22-2006 06:10 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by fuzz:
I failed to specify -- base building for the marathon is what I have in mind.

Coming off my 4th marathon I'm convinced I need to build a better base before the next one. I'm thinking one or two workouts per week on the elliptical will allow me to ramp up the miles (or rather, hours on my feet in the proper HR zone) while minimizing the chance of injury.

---

I think you'll achieve similar "auxiliary" effects to overall aerobic base
just as you would by incorporating cycling and/or swimming.
A great supplement, but not a replacement.

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

MyStuff

Low Heart Rate Training FAQ

[This message has been edited by leitnerj (edited Feb-22-2006).]
 

posted Feb-22-2006 06:59 PM         

quote:

---

Originally posted by fuzz:
I failed to specify -- base building for the marathon is what I have in mind.

Coming off my 4th marathon I'm convinced I need to build a better base before the next one. I'm thinking one or two workouts per week on the elliptical will allow me to ramp up the miles (or rather, hours on my feet in the proper HR zone) while minimizing the chance of injury.

---

I'd still go with the second option. As Jesse said, you can't replace actual running. I suppose it is also a function of how many miles you are trying to do during base building and what you can comfortably handle in 5 days per week. You can always use the elliptical as a second aerobic exercise (a pseudo-double) on days you run, as long as you keep the intensity light.

--jm

posted Feb-24-2006 09:37 AM         

Since my intensity is super low and as consistent as I can maintain (depends on temp, wind, diet), it seems distance variety really doesn't matter. I'm never sore training at the this speed, and could run much more, but can't really afford the time on weekdays. Shouldn't I focus on time/volume rather than distance variety? I don't see any benefit to run 4 miles on Tuesday, then 6 on Wednesday, then 8, then back to 4 etc.. Just aim for 75 - 90 minutes on weekdays. Speed and distance variety would follow June through October for Marathon.
 

posted Feb-24-2006 11:18 AM         

quote:

---

Originally posted by leitnerj:

For some new runners,
just crossing the threshold between walking and running already gets
them into near-anaerobic heart rates. In this case, I don't know the
best advice to give. I can only say this - when I started running again
in May after recovering from my bone bruise injury, my pace was
17 min/mi on the treadmill for my first run to keep right at MAF. If
your conscience and/or pride does not allow you to run slower than,
say, a 10, 12, 14, or whatever min/mi, then this approach is probably
not for you. I can only say that it doesn't last long - how long is
dependent on the individual and the training.

[/B]

---

I have been working out fairly consistently for years. I have done several olympic-distance triathlons, and am now training for a half-ironman. I did some reading and decided to start building an aerobic base. I had never used any "fancy equipment" until now: I started using my HR monitor for biking, and it worked well. I had no problem keeping within the aerobic zone. Then I tried it out on the treadmill- and wow! I can run a 9:15-9:30 minute mile for 5-8 miles normally, but when I tried to stay within my aerobic training zone (155 bpm and below), I practically had to walk! It was very strange. As soon as I started to run even a 12-minute mile, my HR climbed up over 159 and I had to walk again. It makes me feel out of shape- but I’m not! What to do??

(p.s. I'm 29, so have calculated my MHR to be 191.)
 

posted Feb-24-2006 02:06 PM         

The max heart rate you calculated is from the formula 220- your age. Thats good for the general population, not for you.

The normal disclaimer is see a doc to get your max heart rate or get clearance to try getting it on your own. You seem to be in great shape so with the disclaimer in mind you could warm up for a couple of miles then find a hill. First time go up the hill at 90 percent of what you think your max speed is.

Jog down then do it again at full speed 2 more times. Look at your monitor the last 2 times. You should see your max heart rate on one of those 2 hill sprints. You may also feel like puking afterwards. Its a tough test.

Or you can use the Maffetone method of 180 minus your age and use that number as the target to keep under. Your case keep the heart rate under 151.

Note: there is a difference between being in great aerobic shape and being in running aerobic shape. Sounds like you are great in the first, not so great in second.... yet.

Yes its frustrating as heck to have to walk to get your heart rate down. We have all done it. It takes about 250 miles of running under your target rate to see progress. Most people can't handle waiting that long.

Also your max heart rate will be different for running than for bicycling and for swimming. 3 different max heart rates one for each sport. I suspect thats true for all sports.

Good Luck and welcome to the thread.

Cash
 

posted Feb-24-2006 02:20 PM            

------------------
crb81
 

posted Feb-24-2006 02:35 PM         

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cashmason:

Yes its frustrating as heck to have to walk to get your heart rate down. We have all done it. It takes about 250 miles of running under your target rate to see progress. Most people can't handle waiting that long.

Also your max heart rate will be different for running than for bicycling and for swimming. 3 different max heart rates one for each sport. I suspect thats true for all sports.

Good Luck and welcome to the thread.

Cash

---

Thanks, Cash! I appreciate your helpful and friendly reply.

Dumb question: after I have been walk/jogging under my target heart rate for 250 miles and see some progress, then what? When do I start pushing and doing intervals and such to get faster?
 

posted Feb-24-2006 03:09 PM         

quote:

---

Originally posted by kellyalittlebit:
Thanks, Cash! I appreciate your helpful and friendly reply.

Dumb question: after I have been walk/jogging under my target heart rate for 250 miles and see some progress, then what? When do I start pushing and doing intervals and such to get faster?

---

250 miles is a guideline that some other folks on this board have found to be a reasonable guideline for when they saw progress. Some will see progress right away, others it will take longer. It is not a universal number. 6 weeks is generally consider the minimum amount of time to see real progress with almost any training regimen. Again, some folks will see faster progress than others.

For folks doing 40-50 miles per week 6 weeks will work out to 240-300 miles. Since progress is generally slower for folks doing less mileage, 250 is not an unreasonable guideline. However, I would say if after 6 weeks (250miles or not) you haven't noticed any progress you'd want to reevaluate your current approach.

To really follow the lowHR regimen promoted on this thread you have to commit at least 12weeks to the program. You can check progress every 4-6weeks. More often and it is very frustrating for most folks. Just do all your runs at less than 151 (hills, long runs, everything). When you reach a plateau, your pace is no longer improving, then you can add in more traditional training elements (intervals, reps, tempos, etc.) How you add those elements will depend on what you are training for. You'd probably do well to jump into a structured plan aimed at one of the popular distances (5K, 10K, 1/2Mar, Marathon). If you haven't plateaued and don't have any pending races you can continue doing the lowHR approach for as long as you see progress.

An alternative to the test cash gave you (if you live in an area with few hills): run all-out for 3 min, take a 2 min break and do another 3min all-out. Your maxHR will probably occur during the second 3min run. Best to do this on a track and with someone else there. Make sure you warm up for at least 15-20 min. Personally, I found it is easier, slightly less stressful and more accurate to max out on an hill/incline. It is much harder to run all-out on a track, especially if you have no experience with this type of running

good luck.

--jm

 

posted Feb-24-2006 03:37 PM         

quote:

---

Originally posted by junkmiles:
250 miles is a guideline that some other folks on this board have found to be a reasonable guideline for when they saw progress. Some will see progress right away, others it will take longer. It is not a universal number. 6 weeks is generally consider the minimum amount of time to see real progress with almost any training regimen. Again, some folks will see faster progress than others.

For folks doing 40-50 miles per week 6 weeks will work out to 240-300 miles. Since progress is generally slower for folks doing less mileage, 250 is not an unreasonable guideline. However, I would say if after 6 weeks (250miles or not) you haven't noticed any progress you'd want to reevaluate your current approach.

--jm

---

You guys are great! I'm so glad I found this thread.

One more question: since I'm crosstraining (biking and swimming) and keeping everything in my aerobic HR zone, will I see faster progress? More specifically, will my time logged on the bike and in the pool "count" toward my goals? I ask this because, at 151 bpm right now 50 miles a week would take me nearly 12 hours and there's no way I can run 12 hours a week and preserve my sanity. However, I do train 12 hours a week across all 3 sports...
 

posted Feb-24-2006 03:52 PM            

------------------
My Profile
 

posted Feb-24-2006 04:14 PM         

quote:

---

Originally posted by kellyalittlebit:
You guys are great! I'm so glad I found this thread.

One more question: since I'm crosstraining (biking and swimming) and keeping everything in my aerobic HR zone, will I see faster progress? More specifically, will my time logged on the bike and in the pool "count" toward my goals? I ask this because, at 151 bpm right now 50 miles a week would take me nearly 12 hours and there's no way I can run 12 hours a week and preserve my sanity. However, I do train 12 hours a week across all 3 sports...

---

All your training time in below 151 counts. you're likely to see more progress than folks who just run low mileage.

This type of training is supposedly very effective for triathletes who have to maximize performance in the low-end of the aerobic zone.

good luck.
 

posted Feb-24-2006 05:43 PM            

I did both when I got to that stage. I run longer runs at MAFF and shorter runs the next day at MAFF-5. Sort of like recovery runs.

------------------
crb81
 

posted Feb-24-2006 06:28 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by kellyalittlebit:
You guys are great! I'm so glad I found this thread.

One more question: since I'm crosstraining (biking and swimming) and keeping everything in my aerobic HR zone, will I see faster progress? More specifically, will my time logged on the bike and in the pool "count" toward my goals? I ask this because, at 151 bpm right now 50 miles a week would take me nearly 12 hours and there's no way I can run 12 hours a week and preserve my sanity. However, I do train 12 hours a week across all 3 sports...

---

I know the feeling! Indeed, you do need to keep all activities under
the MAF heart rate. But, the good news is that when you add the
volume from swim and bike, they will speed up the aerobic development
process (which is basically what you had asked)! You can flip through
my running log from, say, last May through November, and see what
happened with paces for each activity. Good luck, all of the others
have provided good advice.

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

MyStuff

Low Heart Rate Training FAQ
 

posted Feb-24-2006 06:39 PM         

The usual quote is 6 weeks to see improvement, but a few people running 10 miles a week haven't seen improvement in that time frame and get frustrated. Most but not all folks getting close to 250 miles see improvement. And some see it right away as Junkmiles said.

Yes any crosstraining you do below your Maf heart rate will speed up your progress. On a personal note, If I train twice in the same day, my second workout is usually done much slower because my heart rate has not totally recovered from the earlier work out. Therefore I have to run much slower, usually a couple minutes a mile slower in the evening than I did in the afternoon. I think the general rule of thumb is about 10 hours before your heart rate totally recovers from a work out but I could be wrong.

You are finished with this training, either when your Maf test times ( usually done 3 weeks apart on similar course and weather conditions) are not improving, or when you have a race you are planning for and want to incorporate speed training, or when you become fed up with running under Maf.

Its not unusual for daily or even weekly times to not improve or even get slightly worse at first. Give it at least 3 weeks before you compare paces.

Best wishes

Cash.

 

posted Feb-25-2006 06:57 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cashmason:
Kelly, You are finished with this training, either when your Maf test times ( usually done 3 weeks apart on similar course and weather conditions) are not improving, or when you have a race you are planning for and want to incorporate speed training, or when you become fed up with running under Maf.

Its not unusual for daily or even weekly times to not improve or even get slightly worse at first. Give it at least 3 weeks before you compare paces.

Best wishes

Cash.

---

Cash,

I would like to 'disagree' with your assessment of when to 'end' MAFF training. Maffetone does allow indeed encourage speed work and cycles between what he terms 'aerobic' - just about all of this thread and 'anaerobic' which he understands as below AT (Anaerobic Threshold.) I re-read some of his book "The Maffetone Method' and he does discourage speed work taking the HR above 90% max.

I am presently in an 'anaerobic' phase having done 12 weeks under MAFF. I still need to do the majority of my runs under MAFF, but am allowed some speed-work ie 6 x 1 mile with 2 min rest - kept HR near or bnelow 161 (my max is 182 and AT about 161-167).

Obviuosly Jesse has seen great improvements with ONLY sub MAFF, my NAFF tests failed to improve from early Jan to early Feb. I use PC Coach and the Traiathlon plug-in. It recommended a switch over to anaerobic.

One last caveat. The program will NOT switch you to anaerobic if you do less than 10 hours running a week!! I cheat and tell it I do 12, but actually do about 6-7.

UK Boy

posted Feb-25-2006 06:24 PM            

This could mean that your pace gets slower at a heart rate that you previously experienced improvement or a plateau.

I found that after 10 weeks,...... the following two weeks my performance went on a downward trend. I switched training programs to focus more on marathon specific training (this happens to be my personal goal, everybody will have their own goals).

I am now running the hard/easy method and have included some race pace runs, tempo runs, striders, etc. I am thrilled with how quickly I have picked up speed. I am surpassing my expectations and will share my results in a few weeks when I have more data to back up my results.
Karen