posted Aug-01-2005 08:44 PM         

I'm 44 until mid-October, so my base rate should be 180-44=136

Major illness check? No. 0 beats off.

Exercise/injury check. I've been exercising for a couple years, but last year was my first year of serious running. I suffered bad enough shin splints over the summer to require PT. On Halloween I sprained my knee in the MCM and had a bad reaction (respiratory) to some blood pressure medicine early in the year. 5 points off.

Adjusted MAF# 131.

Okay, so can I have four points back after Halloween? That would be the five for recent injury, minus one for the next birthday. And then in November 2007, another four (net) for two years of trouble-free exercise? (Assuming I stay trouble-free.)

I read the Allen article too. His adjustment factors are just different enough from Maffetone's own to make me leery of trying to combine them. But I dunno.

I haven't bought a heart rate monitor yet, but I'm shopping. On the stationary bike I use the sensors in the grips. Running outside I'm using the Pledge of Allegiance test.

Best,

Jim

------------------
Very First Steps - My training journal, broadly conceived
Unqualified Offerings - Trying to Be Amused Since October 2001
 

posted Aug-01-2005 09:41 PM            

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

MyStuff

[This message has been edited by leitnerj (edited Aug-01-2005).]
 

posted Aug-02-2005 11:37 PM         

I'm back at it again! Thank goodness. I found out that I had an insertion tear on my left hamstring. I missed it on my original scan because I did not scan posterior enough. I was off for four months. So, guess were that leaves me. Needless to say, it's pretty darn hard trying to keep my HR down anywhere near where it should be. Right now I'm working at running at a comfortable stride for my leg and walking when my HR shoots up to high. Unfortunately I seem to progressively run faster and faster. At least I can say that I'm running pain free and it feels great. I just need to reel myself in!
 

posted Aug-03-2005 05:22 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by StealthRunner:
Hi Jesse-

I'm back at it again! Thank goodness. I found out that I had an insertion tear on my left hamstring. I missed it on my original scan because I did not scan posterior enough. I was off for four months. So, guess were that leaves me. Needless to say, it's pretty darn hard trying to keep my HR down anywhere near where it should be. Right now I'm working at running at a comfortable stride for my leg and walking when my HR shoots up to high. Unfortunately I seem to progressively run faster and faster. At least I can say that I'm running pain free and it feels great. I just need to reel myself in!

---

Fantastic! I know the feeling! Start on the treadmill, maybe 10 beats
higher and see where it takes you. It was 3.7 mph for me. Just get
used to running for a few weeks first. Glad to have you back.

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

MyStuff
 

posted Aug-03-2005 10:02 PM            

------------------------------ Original Post -------------------
Howdy folks - I am new here and have been reading lots of the posts about training and it's great to see so many people with the same questions I have...
That said - I apologize for not just taking all of the advice aleady given, but my issues could be uniuqe(yeah right ) so here they are...

-- 38 year old - 6'0, 230 lbs
-- Historically I only run when being chased, but active in other stuff like ww kayaking and walking golf courses etc... basically I was pretty out of shape in Jan 05.
-- Been going to a gym at lunch since jan 05 - started with weights / carido mix, now I only do cardio (Treadmill / Elliptical).
-- Goals are weight loss and overall better shape
-- Medical history is 'High Blood Pressure" & "High Cholestorol", on meds for both, (tricor and diovan hct), bp is well under control with the diovan, averages around 130/80, was never "really bad" but stayed just over 90... diovan is a diuretic, sounds like it has no effect on hr?

-- Runing performance now... been running around 15 mpw on treadmill only at random heart rates up to 165 with a monitor for a few months. I don't do much weightlifting but do some core stuff and pullups, dips and crunches. I can't run over about 4.5 - 5 mph without going over 150 and never really tried until the last week... I did 5 days lst week trying to stay under 147 and it did feel better than running harder and having to walk more... I guess I am wondering if that is still too high?

-- New goals
1. Get HR down so I can run at a reasonable pace without higher heart rates (build base?)
2. Lose the weight (15 lbs would be great, I eat "ok", but not great)
3. Overall tone and improve cardio

So, reading all the posts it sounds to me like I need to do my 3 months of base at <70% or according to the 180 thing under 132 if I read it right with the fact that I take meds. damn, I can barely walk at 4 mph to keep that pace. I think I need to cheat this up to around 145 at least....

So the question is... does that sound reasonable, how can I really nail my max hr so I can get the most accurate target? Should I get a doc to help find it?

Thanks and I look forward to some advice...

- Rob
 

posted Aug-03-2005 10:09 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by StealthRunner:
Thanks Jesse. I've been banned from any treadmill running. I have discovered that I can run on the road, but when I've tried running on the TM my hamstring starts to hurt. I've decided to let my legs do what is comfortable pace wise, then just walk when the HR starts to shoot up. I've also decided not to time my runs so I'm not worrying about trying to do a certain pace. For anybody that is interested, I found that doing weights one leg at a time doing the injured one first then matching what you did with the other side is best. Otherwise it is very easy to make the strong side even stronger. I have also been faithfully stretching (yoga) and doing massage. I will keep you posted. Now off to run!

---

sounds great - #1 thing is being back running. rebuilding conditioning
is #2, and not until ready.

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

MyStuff
 

posted Aug-03-2005 10:21 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by gr8fulDead:

-- Runing performance now... been running around 15 mpw on treadmill only at random heart rates up to 165 with a monitor for a few months. I don't do much weightlifting but do some core stuff and pullups, dips and crunches. I can't run over about 4.5 - 5 mph without going over 150 and never really tried until the last week... I did 5 days lst week trying to stay under 147 and it did feel better than running harder and having to walk more... I guess I am wondering if that is still too high?

-- New goals
1. Get HR down so I can run at a reasonable pace without higher heart rates (build base?)
2. Lose the weight (15 lbs would be great, I eat "ok", but not great)
3. Overall tone and improve cardio

So, reading all the posts it sounds to me like I need to do my 3 months of base at <70% or according to the 180 thing under 132 if I read it right with the fact that I take meds. damn, I can barely walk at 4 mph to keep that pace. I think I need to cheat this up to around 145 at least....

So the question is... does that sound reasonable, how can I really nail my max hr so I can get the most accurate target? Should I get a doc to help find it?

---

Hi Rob- I hate to think that I'm telling people what to do, especially
since I'm certainly not qualified. However, I try to do my best guess
at reasonable guidance for someone that wants to follow the
Maffetone/Mark Allen approach (or a similar one, in some cases).
So, the first thing is - it's all based on what your goals are. If you
want to use the Maffetone approach and see the results thereof,
you have to decide that you've got plenty of time and patience over
the next few months and you have to be ready to throw your pride
out the door, entirely. Assuming you have got plenty of time and
you're in a "building" mode, if you want to try Maffetone, then try
about 2 or 3 runs (at first maybe run-walks) where you try to stay
strictly under. If it just ain't doin', then give yourself 3 weeks or
so at 10 beats higher and then try to work your way down. If you
find that your heart rate is climbing by more than 4 or 5 beats
over a few miles of running, then the heart rate target you're using
is too high. After these few weeks, then stay strictly under the
MAF heart rate for at least 10-12 weeks, all runs, all conditions,
all part of all runs. If you don't, you won't see the results (although
you're likely still building up your conditioning with a reduced likelihood
of injury compared to a lot of high heart rate running), i.e., you won't
see significant improvement in speed at very low heart rates.
I'm not sure anyone can tell you whether this is the best thing for
you now - I'd be inclined to say just run at a low level of effort for
a few months without tracking anything other than time, being
careful for how you increase your time. Then after a few months
you can evaluate what kind of goals you have. I'll always be happy
to be around to bounce ideas around.

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

MyStuff
 

posted Aug-03-2005 10:25 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by gr8fulDead:
I posted on in the root of this board but it got no takers - sorry for cross posting, but it seems others have gone directly to this thread(if there is moderation here, can you nuke the other one please

---

Incidentally, where did you come up with 132? Did you have two
areas where you had to subtract 5?

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

MyStuff
 

posted Aug-03-2005 10:50 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by leitnerj:

Incidentally, where did you come up with 132? Did you have two
areas where you had to subtract 5?

---

Thanks for the feedback man, I think I will do just that, stick to a reasonable low rate training program for a few months and then re-evaluate the long term goals...

I got a little confused with the formulas, but here is the way I got to 132

---
Subtract your age from 180 (180 - age).
180 - 38 = 142
then...
If you have or are recovering from a major illness (heart disease, any operation, any hospital stay) or on any regular medication, subtract 10...

I took 10 off jsut for taking regular meds, although the other issues do not apply...so I guess we could call it 137 by splitting the difference -- there must be some play in this thing...

Now, I have been excercising in some form a many years and not had any ijuries, but had been hibernating in winters so I figured not to count the "add 5" for that item...

I guess I am just not sure how to find the mark, I guess some time will tell if it's too high. Today I did eliiptical for 40 minutes and hr was all over but I held it under 145...
---

 

posted Aug-04-2005 11:38 AM         

quote:

---

Originally posted by leitnerj:
... ( a puttery-slow wog at best) ...

---

This is the best description of what I do sometimes - a new term - wogging!

Sometimes its hard to decide to walk or jog. It seems silly, but there are times when I feel I can walk at the pace I'm running.

But - what is better? To walk and bring down the HR (and then ramp upa again) or keep the HR at the same level, but do the wog?

Thanks.
Ed

posted Aug-04-2005 06:05 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by keeneye:
This is the best description of what I do sometimes - a new term - wogging!

Sometimes its hard to decide to walk or jog. It seems silly, but there are times when I feel I can walk at the pace I'm running.

But - what is better? To walk and bring down the HR (and then ramp upa again) or keep the HR at the same level, but do the wog?

Thanks.
Ed

---

haha, that's a good question. I've been going with the wog thing,
but who knows. If you read Mark Allen's article, he says when
he starts base-building each season, he walks even the easy
hills. Maybe it depends on whether you're right on the border
line. It probably doesn't make the least bit of difference.

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

MyStuff
 

posted Aug-07-2005 10:15 PM            

It does take time. There' s no question about that. However, I was strong, lost tons of weight, and when I finished runs I felt real good, like I could run them again. Even long runs of up to 20.

I ran my first marathon at the low HR, 142-145 and did fine, felt fine, and the next day was fine!

Lot of people have different approaches, and lots of arguements to share about HR training. Bottom line is to chose one that you can stick with. Maffeton worked for me, and I'm now doing it again.

Good luck to all of you........
 

posted Aug-07-2005 10:20 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boston124:
I followed Maffetone for all of my base building....it wasn't easy to run so slowly at first. It requires time and patience. When I first started it was 14 minutes miles....so that was frustrating, but I figured, I had nothing to lose. So, after 4 months, I dropped that pace to 10:15, running at the same low HR I started with.

It does take time. There' s no question about that. However, I was strong, lost tons of weight, and when I finished runs I felt real good, like I could run them again. Even long runs of up to 20.

I ran my first marathon at the low HR, 142-145 and did fine, felt fine, and the next day was fine!

Lot of people have different approaches, and lots of arguements to share about HR training. Bottom line is to chose one that you can stick with. Maffeton worked for me, and I'm now doing it again.

Good luck to all of you........

---

That's interesting that you actually did your marathon at the
low HR! I'm not sure whether you've noticed the same, but
one thing that has been clear each time I've stuck with the
low HR running - there really are no such things as good days
and bad days, at least not arbitrarily. Once you take into
account heat, humidity, hills, and resting heart rate (i.e.,
have I been working a bit too hard or not sleeping enough?),
everything is consistent and one run is not really harder than
the next, pretty much no matter how long.

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

MyStuff
 

posted Aug-08-2005 11:53 PM            

Well, the reason I did the marathon at that low heart rate was because I had done all my runs that way and didn't want to play with trouble. The difference with the marathon, Chicago, that is, is that is very flat....I felt like was faster than my runs at home.

My runs at home are different routes; hilly to flat, flat to hilly, flatter, and somes more flatter. Everyday something different. The long runs were as flat as possible with measured trail so I knew not to go passed 20/22 miles. When the weather is cool, I go much faster, and like-wise, hotter a bit slower. However, I do count up a few more beats when the weather is hotter.

This time I dropped my heart rate down as I approach the lovely age of 46...hence, Maffetone gives me a # of 134, and I let go to 139/141. I spent the winter recovering from ITB and now building base back up. I will attempt a marathon in the late winter.

I have already seen a difference in the running in the last 6 weeks. I'll stay this course for several more months and see how it happens. My goal, someday, is to drop to a 9 min., mile for a 20 miler. I think I can do it. That's all the ambition I have in my running. I'm counting on Maffetone to see me through. Time and patience.

You are right, there are no *bad* runs. They all feel good right now. In the beginning, it is awful, though, isn't it. Walking up hills, trudging along, and somehow finding a shuffeling that you can call running. Eeekkkk.....I never thought it would work.

I will be interested to check-in and learn about your progress. I haven't hit a plateau yet, and dread that happening. Have you?

Kris
 

posted Aug-09-2005 05:26 AM            

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

MyStuff
 

posted Aug-09-2005 09:38 PM         

I've been sticking to the Pledge test on outdoor runs. Depending on the weather that's meant average paces of 11:26-12:08, with the occasional walk break on hills. On the indoor cycle I've been keeping it to 131 or below, but lately I've read that one's aerobic bike pulse is probably 10 or more beats below one's aerobic run number.

Thanks,

Jim

------------------
Very First Steps - My training journal, broadly conceived
Unqualified Offerings - Trying to Be Amused Since October 2001
 

posted Aug-09-2005 10:07 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Supplanter:
Jesse, you've been doing a lot of biking too, I recall. Do you set your biking MAF pulse lower than your running pulse? If so, by how much?

I've been sticking to the Pledge test on outdoor runs. Depending on the weather that's meant average paces of 11:26-12:08, with the occasional walk break on hills. On the indoor cycle I've been keeping it to 131 or below, but lately I've read that one's aerobic bike pulse is probably 10 or more beats below one's aerobic run number.

Thanks,

Jim

---

No, I've been following the Maffetone and Mark Allen guidance
and using the same heart rate for running, biking, and swimming.
However, it has me at 145 and I generally try keep everything
below 140, with 135 as a target. I let it go up to 145 on really
steep hills or after about 15 miles when it's hot out. While your
peak heart rate will be different for running, biking, and swimming,
neither Maffetone or Allen say that you should use a lower MAF
heart rate for any of them. In fact, my biking progress probably
has been the most significant. Given that I have only been
riding for about 10 weeks now, at exclusively low heart rates,
averaging about 16 mph, it was interesting that I was able to
average 20.7 mph for 31k, right after doing a 5k (and then doing
another 5k right afterwards). In fact, I was quite amazed.

As a side note, I'm not sure which references talk about the
aerobic pulse being 10 beats lower, but in most cases, I
would surmise that Maffetone's MAF heart rate is probably
already lower than the HR that they define as aerobic, as
there are many possible interpretations.

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

MyStuff
 

posted Aug-12-2005 08:28 PM         

I've been running off and on for the past 2 years or so. Age 31. Typically running 3 miles 3 or 4 times a week at about 10 min/mile pace. Sometimes outside, but usually on the treadmill. I haven't followed any focused program and consequently I haven't really improved over the years.

Anyway, my MAF HR is 144. To stay at that rate, I have to run at 3.6 on the treadmill. As others have mentioned, it is hard to do; my warm up walk before running was usually at 4.0 on the treadmill!.

My question is for how long should a beginner like me run? At 3.6, I can run an hour without any trouble. However, I imagine my legs aren't up to the sudden doubling in time even if at a much slower pace. Any thoughts? I wouldn't want to wind up injured.

Thanks!

 

posted Aug-13-2005 04:19 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bishop97:
I've a question regarding the Maffetone program. I've been following the thread and decided to give the program a try for 12 weeks and see how things develop. I've nothing pressing planned race wise until next year, so I've lots of time.

I've been running off and on for the past 2 years or so. Age 31. Typically running 3 miles 3 or 4 times a week at about 10 min/mile pace. Sometimes outside, but usually on the treadmill. I haven't followed any focused program and consequently I haven't really improved over the years.

Anyway, my MAF HR is 144. To stay at that rate, I have to run at 3.6 on the treadmill. As others have mentioned, it is hard to do; my warm up walk before running was usually at 4.0 on the treadmill!.

My question is for how long should a beginner like me run? At 3.6, I can run an hour without any trouble. However, I imagine my legs aren't up to the sudden doubling in time even if at a much slower pace. Any thoughts? I wouldn't want to wind up injured.

Thanks!

---

I think you've hit it right - even with the slower running, you still
have to pay attention to your mileage build-up. If you haven't
been experiencing pains, crackling sounds, and so forth, you'll
likely be safe adding about 10% of mileage on a weekly basis
(to be conservative, many would say every 2 weeks, but it's
very much an individual thing). So, it's not an absolute time thing,
but relative to what you've been doing over the past several weeks.
Good luck. Before you hit about 25 or 30 miles per week, you may
be able to tolerate a bit more build-up than that.

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

MyStuff
 

posted Aug-13-2005 02:05 PM         

What I haven't been doing is taking as long as Maffetone recommends to ramp up to that range. I set the target heart rate to about 127-128, because the machine will allow you to sustain a few beats over target, and start pedaling. The cycle enforces a three-minute warmup, after which it tries to bring you to target fairly rapidly. That means that in the five minutes after "warmup" power output peaks at about 50 watts over my sustained rate for the session.

This last time I decided to take the "ramp up gradually" injunction seriously. So I set my starting target rate at 114, and once I hit that, I added about two beats every 30 seconds. I also wanted to try an easier session, with an average pulse in the 126 range instead of keeping as close as possible to 131. In the event, it steadied out closer to a 127 average than 126, but that was the theory.

Call the first method Semi-Gonzo. Call the second method Prim and Proper. Now here's the gross calorie output for the last two sessions:

Semi-Gonzo - 393.
Prim and Proper - 384.

I confess to some amazement. Giving away 4-5 bpm and all of that early higher-intensity pedaling (above steadied-out power production) cost only 10 units of work across the whole session. And presumably I recruited fewer fast-twitch fibers in the early minutes and generated less lactic acid. (Heart rate was below target but intensity well above steadied-out rate.) At least in theory the second workout was more efficient than the first, since recovery should be easier for about the same training effect. (Subjectively, I felt better hopping off the bike after P&P than SG, though one has to beware expectation effects.)

Conclusion: Maybe there's something to this.

It certainly gives me the courage to keep knocking out 12-minute running miles in the heat in faith that times will improve as Autumn kicks in.

Best,

Jim

------------------
Very First Steps - My training journal, broadly conceived
Unqualified Offerings - Trying to Be Amused Since October 2001
 

posted Aug-13-2005 03:52 PM            

To anyone doing Maffetone, it does take patience....and you really have to prudent about staying at the low heart rate. Humind, hot days will make that HR higher, and you can allow for a extra beats. Cooler days, you'll find yourself faster. The first time I ever did Maffetone, and the first time I noticed success was running dowhhills........I had to really pick up the pace to keep my heart rate up!!

I think anyone doing this should get the book and read it a few times!! I always go back and check things, and then feel better about my progress.
 

posted Aug-13-2005 06:08 PM         

Thanks,

Jim

------------------
Very First Steps - My training journal, broadly conceived
Unqualified Offerings - Trying to Be Amused Since October 2001
 

posted Aug-13-2005 07:17 PM            

The MAFFETONE METHOD: The Holistic, Low-Stress, No-Pain Way to Exceptional Fitness

By, Dr. Philip Maffetone

(I ordered it from Amazon)

I think there is another one, but I can't find it. Maybe someone else can chime in here if you want more stuff. However, this book has it all!)

posted Aug-13-2005 08:23 PM            

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

MyStuff