posted Aug-17-2005 01:57 PM            

As I stated, I did mostly Speed/Anaerobic training for my 5/10/half's and it did me well, how ever I don;t believe that you can "survive" a Marathon distance with only this as training. To really race a Marathon, you first need the aerobic base to get you through the 42k, and that's what this is all designed for.

Once you have developed a strong aerobic base you can then switch to anaerobic combine with aerobic training to get you there faster. But you have to get there first.

Again, all just my assumption theory at this point

------------------
topdown
 

posted Aug-17-2005 02:17 PM         

Good luck with your training
 

posted Aug-17-2005 05:58 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by JillMarie:
Hi
I have been quietly following this thread and find it very interesting. I have just resumed running after about a 6 month lay off due to an achilles injury from running too fast and training for a walk I just finished. I have been using my HRM and am too embarressed to post my speed thats how slow I am. I would like to give Maffetone's method a try, which book do you recommed I read.

Thanks

---

I have the name of the book in an earlier post. Just page up and back a few...it's in there somewhere.

Good Luck.

 

posted Aug-17-2005 11:05 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by dg12:
You could theoretically do a 3:20 when you do the rest of Yasso's recommendation which is to fully train for a fast marathon. I read the article in Runners World.

---

Yeah, at the time, I was following Pfitzinger's program, doing all of
the speed work, tempo runs and more. Unfortunately, I ignored
his 10-20% slower on long runs part and his book doesn't get into
the information he provides in this article:
Pfitzinger on Aerobic Base. IMHO these are the critical pieces that I
was missing. When I found out (after getting a HR monitor) that
I was *starting* my long runs at a heart rate of around 170, it
became clear that something was wrong!

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

MyStuff
 

posted Aug-17-2005 11:14 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by bluecru:
Jesse,
I'm running 3 miles now. Four occasionally. I've only run 1 10K in my life. I'm more of a "fitness" runner I guess. My goal (longterm) would be a half marathon. At 51 I'm definitely a "BOOMER" .

So, where would I start? Alternating 2 and 3 mile runs until I speed up on the MAF formula? Or extending runs regardless of the pace @ MAF rate. I'm obviously clueless about this.

[This message has been edited by bluecru (edited Aug-17-2005).]

---

Well, the first question would be whether you are interested in
building up your mileage now, or stick to 10-15 miles per week
for a while. If you're able to start adding some time to your running,
and ramp your mileage up to, say, 30-35 mpw, then my suggestion
would be to build a schedule that has you adding around 10% to
your weekly mileage about every other week (you may be able
to tolerate more, especially at an easy pace, but I have no way
to judge). If you can also pick a "long run" day that you build
up mileage on (where it makes up no more than about 30% of
your weekly mileage), that can be a great piece of the program.
But all of this is "apple pie" kind of stuff and based on what your
specific objectives are in terms of mileage. As far as committing
to the Maffetone stuff, it is quite simple (and possibly very painful,
at least initially) - just keep all of your runs below MAF, give or
take a few bleeps and blips here and there. Track your progress
every 3-4 weeks and see if things are improving - if not, you want
to take a close look at what you've been doing.

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

MyStuff
 

posted Aug-17-2005 11:43 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by portlander:
leitnerj,

Very impressive results! I checked out your log, and you put in over 15 hours of training in 6 days last week, and 21 hours the week before that. I think it's a bit disingenuous to claim that others can expect similar results without putting in similar work. My own experience has shown me that low-HR training at about 30 mpw is less beneficial than multi-pace training at that level. Granted, I was training for 5Ks and 10Ks, not marathons, ultras or tris.

I'm not trying to start an argument or discourage anyone from MAF training...just wanted to add another experience for a low mileage runner to the discussion.

---

Hi portlander! First of all - I think it is critical to any such discussion
to have dissenting opinions, particularly with well-thought-out concerns.
The real problem here is that it is difficult for anyone, particularly
someone who just jumps into this discussion late in the game,
to read all of the posts in what's become an intractable encyclopedia
as this has. The fact is that there have been dozens of questions
that have been posted to this forum and dozens more that have been
emailed to me directly that are of the nature "can I see any progress
on low mileage?" Of course, I'm not qualified to make any realistic
judgment on that, but I can only really post what I've experienced.
My answer to that question is generally little more than "I don't know -
you won't know until you try."
A relevant fact is that I've only been really building up the big mileage
over the last month (I'm preparing for the Tahoe Triple Marathon
in October, for which I'm building up to 2 instances of 3
back-to-back-to-back 20 milers) and back in May I was running 0 miles
per week, 9 miles per week, and went up and down a bit, still seeing
progress. There is no doubt that multi-zone training has been shown
to be very successful, and I would not recommend against it to anyone.
For me, I didn't start making progress at any distance (including the
1 mile race) until I started putting in the mileage well into my aerobic
regime. The first time I did this, I was running about 45-55 mpw.
Keep in mind that the primary thing that I'm suggesting here is that
you can use the most of your capacity at any distance (even the
1 mile as that has a significant aerobic component) if you spend
some time building a strong aerobic base. It's just as Pfitzinger
mentions in this article Pfitzinger on Aerobic Base (although he is non-specific - it is my opinion
that the methods presented by Maffetone and Mark Allen provide
a specific means to build the base that Pfitzinger is talking about
with the most success). Once you have
spent a good number of weeks (probably 8 for the experienced runner
or 12-16 for someone that has not done much aerobic running), then
you can decide for yourself whether you want to keep running all
training runs at low heart rates, start adding in some additional zones,
or simply move into a traditional training program, such as Pfitzinger,
McMillan or other. How do you tell when it's time to start working
on the other zones? Well, in my opinion, there are two criteria:
1. you are able to run at a "reasonable pace" at low heart rates
(i.e., you are no longer saying "why can't I run at less than HR of
170?" )
2. your times in races such as 1M, 2M, 5k, 10k, HM, marathon,
etc., project nicely using a pace predictor, such as McMillan's.
Given those two, you have a strong aerobic base and your only
improvement will likely come from improved lactate threshold and
improved core speed (perhaps most closely related to VO2Max).
Incidentally, there are many highly successful high school
cross-country teams that do nothing in the off-season but run
a lot of long slow miles. Then when the season begins they
have built the infrastructure to support some very challenging
speed work. This is no different.

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

MyStuff
 

posted Aug-17-2005 11:50 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by JillMarie:
Hi
I have been quietly following this thread and find it very interesting. I have just resumed running after about a 6 month lay off due to an achilles injury from running too fast and training for a walk I just finished. I have been using my HRM and am too embarressed to post my speed thats how slow I am. I would like to give Maffetone's method a try, which book do you recommed I read.

Thanks

---

Most are about the same, I believe. I think his "Training for
Endurance" book is the most recent version. You can find a link
on where to find it in one of the recent posts.

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

MyStuff
 

posted Aug-18-2005 12:04 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by portlander:
Yep, I agree. I think this is an appropriate method for building base for a marathon or a half (but there are also other ways to skin that particular cat). I just wanted to point out that if you are running low mileage and your goal is to race shorter distances, this is probably not optimal. I really think that the improvements are linked to the time you spend at the MAF heart rate, which is why I didn't see any improvements at 30 mpw (~5 hours). leitnerj has seen big improvements, but 20 hours a week isn't something most people can commit to...

Good luck with your training

---

Actually, 30 mpw is definitely enough mileage to see good progress,
but as with anything "your progress may vary." Seasonally Mark
Allen would run just that in the off-season, starting out with paces
in the 9s or 10s, "walking even the small hills," and after 8-12 weeks,
his pace below MAF was around 5:30/mile. That's the point where
he would start adding his speed training. Most of the posters that
I have seen that had limited success at 25 mpw or more either did
not choose the right MAF heart (they chose it on the high side)
or were not exclusively running below MAF for all mileage, even
hills, heat, and humidity. Below 25 mpw, there have been several
here who have presented successful results, but I do believe it is still
a bit inconclusive. For myself, I did improve on my low mileage
weeks. One positive thing about this is that you can take the
MAF test, try running below MAF exclusively
for 3 weeks, perform the test again in *identical* conditions, and
see what your results are. At that point you can decide whether
you want to bail from it, or continue on. You're really not going
to lose any conditioning in 3 weeks. (Incidentally, I'm just saying
*you* generically, I'm not suggesting that you personally should
try it. One thing is for certain - if you don't either believe in it or
believe that it's your only real option, I don't suggest you try it).
Furthermore, the only time to start such a program is in the off-season,
when you don't have any near-term races or targets your are trying
to hit.

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

MyStuff
 

posted Aug-18-2005 12:14 AM            

Monday:
10:34/132, 9:37/136, 9:42/135, 10:26/136, 9:51/136,
9:56/138, 8:53/138, 9:20/138, 9:22/138, 9:37/139,
9:32/140, (partial mile)
average pace: 9:43/mi, total distance: 11.67 miles, avg HR: 137

Tuesday:
9:01/129, 8:56/136, 9:33/137, 8:53/137, 9:33/137,
8:55/138, 8:55/141, 9:00/140, 9:02/140, 9:32/141,
9:03/141, (partial mile)
average pace: 9:08/mi, total distance: 11.69 miles, avg HR: 136

Wednesday:
(immediately following 18 mile exercise bike ride at level 20)
8:50/135, 8:54/138, 9:18/138, 8:32/138, 8:51/140,
8:55/140, (partial mile)
average pace: 8:54/mi, total distance: 6.23 miles, avg HR: 138

I'll be going for a 20 miler tomorrow and Friday. Those will be
a big test. I'll be going long when I get home on Saturday, too,
and I'm sure I'll get a rude awakening when I get back into the
heat and humidity!

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

MyStuff
 

posted Aug-18-2005 12:45 AM            

Would someone like myself at 10-15 miles a week see better progress using a HR monitor and keeping the runs under 80% max rate (the Kevoren (sp?) formula? Use that system till one gets up to 25 miles a week? Just curious as to waht direction to pursue. Not a knock on the MAF system. Just considering what would work best.
 

posted Aug-18-2005 12:52 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by bluecru:
Considering the following
[b] [QUOTE]Most of the posters that
I have seen that had limited success at 25 mpw or more either did
not choose the right MAF heart (they chose it on the high side)
or were not exclusively running below MAF for all mileage, even
hills, heat, and humidity. Below 25 mpw, there have been several
here who have presented successful results, but I do believe it is still
a bit inconclusive.

---

Would someone like myself at 10-15 miles a week see better progress using a HR monitor and keeping the runs under 80% max rate (the Kevoren (sp?) formula? Use that system till one gets up to 25 miles a week? Just curious as to waht direction to pursue. Not a knock on the MAF system. Just considering what would work best. [/B][/QUOTE]

I'm sorry to say but I'm not sure anyone can give you a clear
answer to this - I sure can't. It does depend a lot on what your
objectives are. If you want to train your aerobic system such that
you can run a reasonable pace at low heart rates, keeping your runs
at less than 80% max heart rate will definitely not do it. 80% HRR
based on Karvonen's formula,
in fact, will likely be over lactate threshold for most relatively new,
and some experience runners, which means it will be almost entirely
anaerobic. Nonetheless, if your body can take it and you don't have
an endurance running goal, you may well do just fine, develop good
anaerobic fitness, and get faster by just running. If your intention is
to keep under 80% HRR, my opinion is that you really wouldn't need
a HR monitor to do that.

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

MyStuff
 

posted Aug-18-2005 12:18 PM            

I do have some questions where I'm a low mileage person (10-12 miles a week). Most people that have posted have already run significantly higher weekly mileage and have completed marathons. I know I must take a "generic" approach and ask some questions. Were people able to keep their mileage roughly the same but just slow the pace down to their MAF rate? i.e. the mileage base is the same but only one's pace slows and then eventually gets faster.

My goal is to build a base of say 20 miles a week and run in 5 or 10k races. If I were to average a 9 or even 9:30 m/m pace that would be great!! A half marathon somwhere in the future (maybe next year). I'm not looking to break any age related records but just improve my own pace and distance. Staiyng healthy and injury free is pretty important. Galloway and Hal Higdon seem to recommend running 3 days a week at an "easy" pace. However, they don't define "easy" very well.

Ok, so there's the questions! Any feedback would be most appreciative. I hope my questions make sense and I realize that any response must be at least somewhat "generic" at best. Or can anyone point me in the direction of someone that was essentially in the same position as I am and has had success? Please don't misunderstand. I'm not criticizing this method. Just looking for feedback and direction. sorry I've been so long winded and thatnks for your patience!!!
 

posted Aug-18-2005 01:36 PM            

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

MyStuff
 

posted Aug-18-2005 06:16 PM            

When I first started Maffetone, 1 1/2 years ago, I started out at a 14 min. mile. Very grueling, and I found to keep a running type pace/look, I made myself kinda hope/jump/run. Very strange, but I didn't want to give up. So, that was Feb., and when June came I was a about a flat 10min. mile. Sometimes, even better. So, it took quite awhile for me, but I had no injuries, and lost weight and really built some nice tone. I was thrilled!

Like I mentioned before, I ran the Chicago Marathon that way, and did what I wanted....finished! I had no pressure, and knew I could do it. Wasn't even scared. I felt fine that night, even went out to dinner, and the next day, went for walk and was fine.

Everyone's body, the way your unique heart works, your physical aerobic base and starting point, all determine how you will develop in the Maffetone Method. My friend who had been running 20+ years started at a 9:30 pace per mile, and ended up at 7:30 when she wanted to incorporate some speed sessions. So, she did real well, but she entered the Maffetone way at a different level than me.

You have to decide what's best for you. Like Leitner said, you might not notice a difference for three weeks. But, I think once it starts, you get stronger and stronger.

Good Luck~
 

posted Aug-18-2005 11:37 PM         

IHistory--running regularly for the past 9 months at about 20-25 miles per week (3-4 days), with one day of cross training (usually elliptical) and one day of weights. Previous running experience was about 2 years of continuous running about 30 mpw, 4 years ago (I took a little break :-)

I sat down and read this thread with interest last night, since I had plans for HRM. Well, I purchased one today (Polar RS200sd) and went to the treadmill in the gym with it.

I am what I would consider a slow runner, but have never really made much of an effort to improve on this. Based on my best guesses, I run about 11-12 mm on average. I have only run in two races and I didn't really consider myself "racing", but the first was a 5K which I did in 34 something and the second was a beach run of 5 miles with a time of 54 something--so about 11mm, but I probably could have gone a bit faster.

If I estimate my max hr at 190 (I am 30 yr old female), my 80% zone and my Maffetone zone would be essentially the same--150-152. When I ran tonight, I had to run 12.5 mm at 1.5% incline on the TM to stay right at this level. This was slower than I usually run and I ran about 5 miles and was not tired at all. My question is this--if I continue to run my regular runs based on not exceeding this HR, what will happen? Do I just get faster and stay at the same rate? Do I do any runs above or below this rate ever? As you can see, I am a bit confused about this HRM training. A book I have says run most runs at 60-80% and long runs at 60-70%--I think I would be walking at 70%.

Although I am not aiming to be a competitive racer, I wouldn't mind being a little faster and am not sure of the best way to go about it. I am also considering training for a marathon down the road and this particular marathon says they terminate all course services based on a 14 mm pace. While I would like to run the marathon, I would want to make reasonably sure I could do it under this time before I entered.

Any advice or comments you can give would be appreciated.
 

posted Aug-19-2005 12:02 AM            

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

MyStuff
 

posted Aug-19-2005 10:12 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by StealthRunner:
Hi Jesse! OK, you have won me over. Count me in on this. I swallowed my pride today and started the Maffetone training. I ended up walking as fast as I could up the hills and jogging down the hills to keep my HR under 130BPM. I covered five miles at an average 13:50 pace. YUCK!!! I will keep you posted on my progress.

---

You're doing better than I did when I started back up when I was
recovering (3.7 mph for 2-3 miles at first). You're quite the speed
demon!

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

MyStuff
 

posted Aug-19-2005 10:24 PM            

So, what does this mean? Well, now I know I can get some good
pace miles in, even after having run 15 miles, and still be well under
max heart rate, with gas left in the tank. Remember, I've done no
speed work or fast running at all, other than the two 5ks in the duathlon
a few weeks ago. Tomorrow I'll be doing another 20, back in the hot
and humid weather. We'll see how it feels - I'm sure it will be miserable
and slow. I'll see if I've got anything left for a fast finish again,
particularly after 2 days straight of 20 milers.

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

MyStuff
 

posted Aug-20-2005 06:22 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by StealthRunner:
Jesse, three 20 milers in a row? Are you training for another ultra? Someday I would just love to be able to do one. I really do miss my long runs. You have made great progress in just three months. Are you back to where you were before your injury?

---

Next major race is the Lake Tahoe Triple Marathon in October. I plan to do 2-3 sets of
back-to-back-to-back 20s. I don't quite have my speed back from before
the injury, but I believe my endurance is mostly back.

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

MyStuff
 

posted Aug-20-2005 09:10 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by leitnerj:
Next major race is the Lake Tahoe Triple Marathon in October. I plan to do 2-3 sets of
back-to-back-to-back 20s. I don't quite have my speed back from before
the injury, but I believe my endurance is mostly back.

---

I looked at the website for Lake Tahoe, and it looks just beautiful!! I hope the weather holds out for all the participants!! I will certainly be checking in to see how you did, and how you feel afterwards! You are really something to run this! Do you think you'll take a camera?

posted Aug-20-2005 05:45 PM            

Today another TM run ( 3 miles) and set the speed @ 4.0mph as opposed to the other day @ 3.7. This speed seemed to allow me to keep my natural form and what I think is a more natural stride. My HR was at or under the MAF rate for 1 1/2 miles. It gradually creeped up. It peaked a couple of times @ 144 ( my 70% rate using the Kavored method) but was mostly around 138-140 for the last mile of the run.

Given the knee problems the 3.7 speed created, will running at 4.0 for a bit bring my HR down to the MAF rate and then I can kind of go from there? Not sure how that will work. thaks for the feedback.
 

posted Aug-20-2005 06:50 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by bluecru:
I ran the other day on the TM and kept my HR at or just above my MAF of 129. It felt good. However later that night and the next day my knees were killing me! Some lower back pain also (which went away pretty quick). Took Friday off from any exercise.

Today another TM run ( 3 miles) and set the speed @ 4.0mph as opposed to the other day @ 3.7. This speed seemed to allow me to keep my natural form and what I think is a more natural stride. My HR was at or under the MAF rate for 1 1/2 miles. It gradually creeped up. It peaked a couple of times @ 144 ( my 70% rate using the Kavored method) but was mostly around 138-140 for the last mile of the run.

Given the knee problems the 3.7 speed created, will running at 4.0 for a bit bring my HR down to the MAF rate and then I can kind of go from there? Not sure how that will work. thaks for the feedback.

---

Give it a try - see what happens. I don't think you have anything to
lose. Build your own program and adjust as needed. It's interesting
that your heart rate was creeping up after just 1.5 miles. Try drinking
fluids while you are running.

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

MyStuff