posted May-21-2005 01:16 PM            

(first paragraph is irrelevant background.)
It looks like I'm back running again now after a few months hiatus.
For those of you that don't know the story, I was running about 75 mpw
and I had done 8 marathons including a 50 miler and 50k over about
a 3 month period (mostly run at easy pace). I slipped on the ice
while running in early Feb and landed square on my left knee. I should
have rested for a few days at that point, but I went right back on running
schedule right away and I ended up with a massive bone bruise, micro-
fracture, and osteonecrosis, confirmed by MRI. I have an agressive
orthopedist who happens to be one of the Olympic volunteer docs and
who responds to many injury questions to Runner's World (and he's
also a marathon runner). Shortly after the injury hit its prime, I found
that I couldn't really do anything that involved my leg (running, cycling,
elliptical, etc.), so I had to take up swimming, which I did horribly. I
did build up to swiming 1-2 miles at a time and it successfully kept
my weight off. I started attempting cycling again a couple of weeks ago,
which I was able to do without pain this time, so I then started adding
in some elliptical training. The pain would come back randomly,
not severe, so I asked the ortho and he said that I would still feel
twinges probably for the next year and that I should get out and run,
although carefully and safely.

(now a long background Hadd and Maffetone and what got me
into it).
Ok, enough background blathering. A year or so ago,
I was having the problem that I did short distance races fairly well,
but my times didn't project out to the longer distances and I would always
fizzle out in marathons at about mile 18-20 even if I followed
well-accepted approaches (Higdon and Pfitzinger) *almost* to the letter.
"Almost" meaning that I ignored Higdon's advice (run long runs 2 min/mi
slower than marathon race pace) and Pfitzinger's advice (run long runs
10%-20% slower than marathon race pace) and I ran my long runs
at or faster (as my body and heart permitted) than MRP. I ran at what
I perceived as a moderate level of effort (which frequently became an
extremely high level of effort towards the end of a 20 mile run). I also
ran 1-2 days per week of some combo of track speed work, Yasso
800s (which I usually did at a pace 15-20 seconds faster than my
desired marathon pace), and/or 30-40 minute tempo runs at between
10k and 15k race pace. I was running about 55-60 mpw. I was sore
all of the time, lots of intermittent pains, and was showing no
improvement, other than perhaps cutting a few seconds of of my
5k times. Then I came across jjwaverly's first HR training progress
and PRs post, which caught my eye and sounded appealing. I
followed some version of the Hadd training "program" (it's kind of a
stretch to call it an actual program), essentially making sure that
for a period of time I would run below 70% of my measured max
heart rate. The first days were torture - while my normal pace was
8:15-8:40 on long runs, now I was at about 11:30-11:40/mi, which
felt treacherously slow, especially for 20 miles! However, after
8 weeks my 70% pace was about 9:20/mi, and 75% about 8:45/mi,
at least for the first 15 miles or so. During this period, most of
my mileage was run at about 10:15-10:30/mi, and never faster
than about 9:15/mi. After the 8 weeks, I decided to
get right back to racing in the heart of the season, so I went
back to doing between 1 mile and 15k races, 1-2 times
per week. Over the next few weeks, I ran several races and I saw
the following improvements relative to my times before the low HR
running: 1 mile race improved from 5:56 - 5:36. 5k: 21:06 - 20:39,
10k: 47:46 - 45:21, marathon from 4:03 - 3:54. You can tell by my
times that I'm still fizzling out early, but not as badly, and I was
finishing races feeling fresh (perhaps over conservative). Since I
was now getting into frequent races, I started to add in a lot of
higher HR zones to my training, and my 70% HR training fell to only
about 25-35% of my weekly running. Big mistake as eventually my
pace at low HR went back up to around 10-10:15 min/mi (in fact, that
had happened before the marathon I did in 3:54, so by then I had lost
some of the aerobic base that I had built). In retrospect, I wish I had
cut back on the races and the higher zones and spent more time
base-building. I also came to find out that my max heart rate (really
my event-specific "peak" heart rate was actually different between
short ( < 10k) and long ( > 10k) running events. My track tests,
interval, and hill tests, and a professional VO2Max test (which is
probably most similar to a 5k race) all gave a max HR of 189 or 190.
However, I have sustained 205 or more for more than a mile and have
peaked as high as 210 at the end of a long race. Given the ambiguity
of max heart rate and when and how to add higher zones, I wanted
something with a bit more structure. Then I ran across the
Maffetone approach which, upon getting his book, seemed to deal with
a lot of these issues, with his claim that it is not necessarily a
percentage of max heart rate, but a collection of factors that identify
a heart rate below which you will maximize your aerobic benefit.
He states that you should, at the very least, set aside a basebuilding
period of at least 12-16 weeks, where you always run below that
heart rate. He also gives a straightforward test (the Hadd test was
comparably complex) that you can perform that should show
progress every three weeks, and if you don't, it's indicative that
you are either ill, overtrained, or interfering with the aerobic base-building
by either running higher than the heart rate for periods of time or
you have "cheated" in the questionnnaire and selected a higher
heart rate. He also suggests that once you start adding in the
higher heart rate races and/or workouts, you may plateau in progress,
and even reverse in direction (as I noticed with myself). Likewise,
he points out that you never have to actually add in higher heart rate
zones and you can still improve substantially even for races at distances
down to a mile. If need be you can get "speed work" in below the
target heart rate by downhill running (I though this was ridiculous, then
I read an article about some Olympic marathoner who propped up the
back of his treadmill to do just that and was very successful). There
is no doubt that many would consider the Maffetone approach as the
radical approach, the extreme of all - no high effort runs in training
whatsoever. There have been many successful triathletes who have
followed it and won races, but it's not clear how far people have gone
using it for marathons. And, even so, there are still many questions:
(1) how quickly can a new runner see progress? (2) is progress more
dependent on mileage or time? (3) do the good results assume that
a runner already has a pretty good level of core speed? Certainly
there are many others that people can come up with.

(now, onto the "kickoff" of measuring progress)
Back in January, when I saw that my progress was deteriorating,
I decided that I was going to rigorously follow the Maffetone approach
for a while as soon as I completed my races for the season (the last
was supposed to be the Shamrock Marathon on 3/20). Since my
injury cut that short, my plan became to start it with my cycling, then
running, once able. Cycling is a good test because I've never really
been a cyclist other than some leisurely riding on relatively flat roads
about 10 years ago, and currently way out of running condition, so
it will be as close to "newbie progress" as I can get, and my mileage
will be low, at least to start. Also, my neighborhood is all torturous
hills, so the test is extreme. Lastly, I have a crappy, old, and
heavy bike, without even pedal clips.
It took me a few rides to learn how to
keep my HR from storming when going up the hills. The results I
present will be only as scientific as convenient for me to present
(one aspect is that before doing the testing, you should have warmed
up for 20-30 minutes - I'm not doing that for my cycling because it
is not convenient, and for running, I haven't built my mileage high
enough yet to get into the actual Maffetone test - I will at a later
point). Hence they will be a little bit skewed, at least for a while.
Additionally there are factors such as shifting efficiency and how
close I came to being hit by a car, but we'll ignore those for now
and just look at the trends. For the cycling, I'll present the pace
for the mile and the average heart rate during that mile for the
first few miles, then I'll provide overall mileage, pace, and average
heart rate. I do the same course for the first few miles each time
for comparison purposes (you can't compare them to each other
because some are mostly up and some are mostly down). My MAF
heart rate is 145.

cycling:
5/14: haven't learned yet how to keep HR down:
10.80 miles 50:51 (4:42/mile) Avg. HR: 157 Max HR: 175
miles 1-6: 5:06/153, 4:28/155, 4:37/165, 4:31/158, 4:50/164, 4:12/158

5/15:
18.40 miles 1:35:22 (5:10/mile) Avg. HR: 146 Max HR: 166
miles 1-6: 5:29/147, 4:17/150, 5:01/156, 4:40/146, 5:15/153, 4:40/147

5/17:
13.30 miles 1:05:45 (4:56/mile) Avg. HR: 142 Max HR:160
miles 1-6: 5:22/140, 4:24/146, 5:27/144, 4:33/142, 5:27/142, 4:40/140

5/18:
15.30 miles 1:15:02 (4:54/mile) Avg. HR: 141 Max HR: 156
miles 1-6: 5:10/141, 4:12/142, 5:06/144, 4:21/143, 5:20/142, 4:21/142

5/20 (high winds and rain):
13 miles 1:03:46 (4:54/mile) Avg. HR: 142 Max HR: 152
miles 1-6: 5:21/137, 4:17/140, 5:04/142, 4:26/142, 5:23/144, 4:42/140

Some improvement after a week, mainly in the ability to control heart
rate.

I did my first run on treadmill, for 3.2 miles without a heart rate monitor,
based on running a moderate level of effort. I ran the first mile at
10 min/mi, the second at 9:15/mi, the first half of the third at 8:30/mi,
and the second have of the third plus the next .2 at 5:55/mi. It felt
great and not too high of a level of effort (in my perception).

Next, as a baseline, I decided to hop on the treadmill and
set it to 6 miles per hour and see what my heart rate profile would look
like for four miles. Since I was able to tolerate a sub-6 mile for
over half a mile without breaking down, I thought that I'd be almost
back to where I was before. Just before my accident, 6 mph would have
been about 145 to start and up to about 149 after 4 miles. This is where
it got interesting. Remember, all miles were at 10 min/mi pace.

mile 1: avg HR 165, mile 2: avg HR 172, mile 3: avg HR 175,
mile 4: avg HR 178, final and maximum heart rate: 183

Remember, my max HR in short distances (and measure in a VO2Max
test) is 190. What's interesting here is that not only was my heart
rate running high from the beginning at this pace, but it climbed by
18 points, to over 90% of my max heart rate after a mere 4 miles and
I didn't even think I was running that hard. In my opinion, this tells
an interesting story, particularly for relatively new runners without
aerobic base. The perceived level of effort may be somewhat low,
but if your actual heart rate is starting high, you can be sure to fizzle
out quickly, and it may sneak up on you. Also, you may have pretty
good core speed (e.g., able to run sub-6 mile for a while), but your
HR may be running too high even at a relatively low speed. Note that
this 10 min/mi speed is 30 seconds/mi slower than my average pace
in a 50k trail race that I ran in January!

Ok, I promise, my next post in this area will be short and sweet!
Next and subsequent times, I will do my runs maintaining HR less
than 145. We'll see how that goes! If it weren't unwise to jump my
mileage by too much, I would try some interesting experiments.

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

MyStuff
 

posted May-22-2005 10:57 AM            

Was all of your initial basebuilding completed on a TM? I am contemplating doing all of mine on a TM since speed and incline can be easily controlled. I live in an extremely hilly area and cannot keep my HR below 145 when running/walking hills.
 

posted May-22-2005 12:14 PM            

[This message has been edited by tomrunsalot (edited May-22-2005).]
 

posted May-22-2005 12:48 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by tomrunsalot:
Jeeesh!
You need to get out and run more.

[This message has been edited by tomrunsalot (edited May-22-2005).]

---

I'd sure love to.

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

MyStuff
 

posted May-22-2005 12:52 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by kellyinNY:
I find this very interesting. I can't wait to see how you progress. Which Maffetone book are you using? Amazon no longer has Training for Endurance.

Was all of your initial basebuilding completed on a TM? I am contemplating doing all of mine on a TM since speed and incline can be easily controlled. I live in an extremely hilly area and cannot keep my HR below 145 when running/walking hills.

---

I am using Training for Endurance. Here's where I got it:
PCCoach.
There are others there as well. When I first started it, I did it outside,
and it was extremely difficult to keep it down on the hills. This time I'm
doing it on the treadmill, but mainly because my leg can't quite take the
pounding on harder surfaces.

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

MyStuff
 

posted May-23-2005 09:33 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by kellyinNY:
Do you have difficulty staying below your anaerobic threshold when you are on the bike. I am asking because I am a cyclist too and I seem to be always in my anaerobic zone. Also, did you use the same 180 formula when you calculated your max aerobic HR on the bike?

---

It is funny that you asked that as I just came back from a ride and
I was noticing how much things have paid off since I've been absolutely
focused on keeping the heart rate down going up the steep hills. By the
way, I have a very heavy clunky bike with a one piece crank (no option
for good pedals!) and not even pedal clips. My neighborhood is all huge
hills, kind of like a roller coaster, so there's no avoiding them. The
first few rides I was not only going way over the MAF heart rate, but
I was going fully anaerobic by the top of the hills, over 90% HRmax.
(Yes, I do use the same MAF heart rate for cycling and swimming as
well.) When I first started really working on controlling the heart rate,
I zigzagged up the hills very slowly. After enough repetitions, I was
able putter up just fast enough to not fall over. Now I'm at the point
where I'm taking them somewhat smoothly (still slowly, but not about
to tip over). It's been almost 100% improvement over the last 100 miles
or so. Just one week ago I would return from a 30-45 minute ride
exhausted and now I come back from an hour and half on the same
course, feeling like I just did an easy jog, even though my average
pace was about 1 mph faster. Today, I was able to do the whole
course in high gear in my L/M/H gear the whole time, just shifiting
the other.

In short, I'm convinced that the heart rate control on the hills has
given me a world of improvement because I didn't even bother on
my first few rides a couple of weeks ago and there really wasn't
much difference in anything.

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

MyStuff
 

posted May-24-2005 12:33 AM            

------------------
"If you see a man running up a mountain trail in Montana with a fly pole attached to his back, you are probably lost. LDD
 

posted May-24-2005 05:24 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by RunsTheBitterroot:
Hi Liet! That is an interesting post and I feel more confident that this ultra slow running is going to work in the end. When I have added miles, I have noticed alot of HR drift in the last 1 or 2 miles added but go ahead and run about the same pace with a higher HR. Wonder if I need to cut that back or stay at the distance until there is no drift. Larry D.

---

You know, it's really hard to say. If you were to follow Maffetone or
Hadd, they would say slow down if you're in basebuilding mode at
the very least. Certainly, if you have already established a strong
aerobic base, then there's some benefit from pushing yourself when
the going is getting tough, similar to McMillan'sapproach in,
for example, the "fast finish" long run.
However, that point where the heart rate is starting to climb somewhat
quickly (more quickly than earlier) is the point where you're starting to
use much more in the way of anaerobic properties and if you don't
wan to do that, slowing down will give you the proper effect. So, in
my opinion it really depends on your objective and where you stand.

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

MyStuff
 

posted May-24-2005 12:28 PM            

With that said, I will be running some local 5k & 10k races here and there with my ultimate goal an olympic distance triathlon. Again, these will not be to try to win, but merely an extra means of motivation to ensure that I don't slack off or quit.

I started jogging in mid March of this year. Previously, I have not done any excersise in about 12 years (my college days). I am 33 now. I was about 15 - 20 lbs over my college weight when I started jogging, but I was a rail at 6' 1" @ 165 lbs in college. Despite this extra weight, neither my goal nor my focus is on weight loss; it will be an extra benifet from the increase in my health and fitness.

After reading some threads here, I decided to look more in to the Maffetone approach. I tracked down one of his books "The Maffetone Method: The Holistic, Low-Stress, No-Pain Way to Exceptional Fitness" at the local library. While "Training for Endurance" is his boo kmostly referenced in these forums, I believe the basics are the same in both. I read quite a bit of it on the first day and was ready to drop it off in the night return bin that very night. I was very dissapointed in the book and was glad I hadn't bought it.

For example, here is a quote from the above link:

quote:

---

But the question remains: what heart rate do you use for aerobic training? Perhaps the most important feature of training with a heart monitor is knowing which heart rate to use. We're familiar with the old formula: 220 minus your age, multipied by 65-85%. But this method has no basis. Your maximum heart rate is supposed to be represented by 220 minus your age. However, if you've ever pushed yourself on the track or in a race to find your highest heart rate, you may have found, as more than half of the population does, that it is not the same as the formula. Then there's the percentage: which do you use - 65%, 75%, 80%? Rather than guess, you can use a newer formula which is scientifically based. See the insert on the 180 Formula, which establishes the best heart rate for building an aerobic base.

---

So, the 220 - age formula has "no basis", but the 180 - age formula is "scientifically based". I don't remember the exact content in the book for this, but I was insulted that here is a book that is 180+ pages and he spends 1 paragraph on the formula that the entire theory of his method is based on. He does no more than says that it is based on lab studies involving gas analyser tests. From this, I believe he is using the heart rate at which the body is most effeciently burning fat and using this as the MAF heart rate. I've also seen this referred to as the "fat bump". If this is the case, fine. I don't have a problem with it, but at least spend some time explaining what his magic "180 - age" formula is giving and show some of the "science" and lab studies that show this formula is accurate.

I just don't see how a 33 yr person with an actual measured max HR of 185 will have the same max fat burning efficient heart rate as a person, such as myself, with an actual measured max HR of 202.

Perhaps I'm wrong about the MAF being the HR at the max fat burning effeciency. Perhaps it is just a HR low enough to not reach into any anaerobic functions. But if so, what is the science??

I will go into more detail as to what I'm doing now and my experience of trying HR training with no exercise background later.

 

posted May-24-2005 02:29 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by leitnerj:

It is funny that you asked that as I just came back from a ride and
I was noticing how much things have paid off since I've been absolutely
focused on keeping the heart rate down going up the steep hills. By the
way, I have a very heavy clunky bike with a one piece crank (no option
for good pedals!) and not even pedal clips. My neighborhood is all huge
hills, kind of like a roller coaster, so there's no avoiding them. The
first few rides I was not only going way over the MAF heart rate, but
I was going fully anaerobic by the top of the hills, over 90% HRmax.
(Yes, I do use the same MAF heart rate for cycling and swimming as
well.) When I first started really working on controlling the heart rate,
I zigzagged up the hills very slowly. After enough repetitions, I was
able putter up just fast enough to not fall over. Now I'm at the point
where I'm taking them somewhat smoothly (still slowly, but not about
to tip over). It's been almost 100% improvement over the last 100 miles
or so. Just one week ago I would return from a 30-45 minute ride
exhausted and now I come back from an hour and half on the same
course, feeling like I just did an easy jog, even though my average
pace was about 1 mph faster. Today, I was able to do the whole
course in high gear in my L/M/H gear the whole time, just shifiting
the other.

In short, I'm convinced that the heart rate control on the hills has
given me a world of improvement because I didn't even bother on
my first few rides a couple of weeks ago and there really wasn't
much difference in anything.

---

posted May-24-2005 02:37 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by leitnerj:
In short, I'm convinced that the heart rate control on the hills has
given me a world of improvement because I didn't even bother on
my first few rides a couple of weeks ago and there really wasn't
much difference in anything.

---

I rode early this morning and really worked on "spinning" in a smaller gear. I have a mtn bike background so I tend to be a masher when pedaling. I often end up pushing big gears on hills. I am now comitted to spending more time on my road bike in attempt to increase my cadence through spinning. Hopefully this will decrease the amount of effort used to climb hills. This morning I was spinning around 70rpm. I still ended up in the anaerobic zone just not as quickly as a pervious rides. It also took me a little longer to climb since I wasn't pushing a big gear (big ring).

Anyway, thanks for your input. Please keep us posted on your progress.
 

posted May-24-2005 04:42 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by camy:
I do want to add that while I am frustrated in satisfying my need to uderstand the basis of Maffetone's method, I continue to research and consider it as he has proven results from many following his training.

---

Proven results? I haven't seen any. I see beginners building bases...something they could do running backwards or skipping.
 

posted May-24-2005 06:00 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by tomrunsalot:
Proven results? I haven't seen any. I see beginners building bases...something they could do running backwards or skipping.

---

There's definitely some basis to what Tom says, at least in the
running community. There are some real proven results, however,
in the triathlon community, including Mike Pigg and Mark Allen,
each of whom have won several ironman tris. I am still a new runner
(I haven't hit two years yet) although I have run 8 marathons and
two ultras (50k and 50 miles), nothing with astounding performance,
but pretty good, at least for someone who carries 25-30 lbs of excess
muscle mass.
I followed the Hadd method somewhat rigorously for 8 weeks and
saw dramatic improvement in everything and it's what enabled me
to glide through a lot of marathons (albeit at easy and gentle pace),
including a marathon I did in 3:57 6 days after running a 50 mile
race. I started this thread mainly to put my results out there as
I start from scratch after recovering from my ice-slipping accident
from a few months ago.

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

MyStuff
 

posted May-24-2005 06:15 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by camy:

For example, here is a quote from the above link:
So, the 220 - age formula has "no basis", but the 180 - age formula is "scientifically based". I don't remember the exact content in the book for this, but I was insulted that here is a book that is 180+ pages and he spends 1 paragraph on the formula that the entire theory of his method is based on. He does no more than says that it is based on lab studies involving gas analyser tests. From this, I believe he is using the heart rate at which the body is most effeciently burning fat and using this as the MAF heart rate. I've also seen this referred to as the "fat bump". If this is the case, fine. I don't have a problem with it, but at least spend some time explaining what his magic "180 - age" formula is giving and show some of the "science" and lab studies that show this formula is accurate.

I just don't see how a 33 yr person with an actual measured max HR of 185 will have the same max fat burning efficient heart rate as a person, such as myself, with an actual measured max HR of 202.

Perhaps I'm wrong about the MAF being the HR at the max fat burning effeciency. Perhaps it is just a HR low enough to not reach into any anaerobic functions. But if so, what is the science??

---

I've got a hypothesis that I had conjured up the other day that
there's nothing magic about (1) 70% of max
heart rate or (2) the MAF heart rate from Maffetone other than
they have some statistical and empirical basis for being
conservatively low such that you will be well into the aerobic
regime, which will guarantee that you will use mostly slow twitch
fibers and that you will use mostly fat for fuel (you always use
some glycogen for fuel and you cannot burn fat without glycogen).
Ok, that's no revelation, but the point is if you feel that either of
these approaches is far below what you need to run at an easy
level of effort, then you can determine your own max aerobic
function heart rate as long as you have a heart rate monitor
and a distance measurement device or a treadmill or track, where
you can maintain a pace. Here's my proposed algorithm for
determining yours:

1. warm up lightly for 20-30 minutes
2. run at a pace that you think is an easy level of effort and note
your initial heart rate.
3. maintain that pace as closely as possible for at least 5 miles
(if you don't run 5 miles yet, then we would adjust based on shorter
distances, but the results may be much more nebulous).
4. if your heart rate climbs more than about 8 beats by the
end of 5 miles, then you started a bit on the high side and next
time try a few beats lower.

(if you run 3 miles total, then probably you should allow no more
than 5 beats of climb).

Keep in mind that if it is warm/hot out and/or humid, things are
going to climb faster and you'll have to use a slower pace but
that pace won't be your pace for cooler weather. 5 miles is short
enough to where you won't likely see any significant effects of
dehydration and so forth. The point is that as your run starts
to move into the early stages of anaerobic properties, your
heart rate begins to climb at a more rapid pace, so keeping your
run outside of the regime will maximize the aerobic benefit. With
this method, you may not have to fight to go as slowly as the
70% or MAF heart rate dictate.

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

MyStuff
 

posted May-25-2005 10:03 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by tomrunsalot:
Proven results? I haven't seen any. I see beginners building bases...something they could do running backwards or skipping.

---

I'm in no way a proven result, but I'm going to share my experience so far. Warning, this might get a bit long.

I've been running for about two and a half years so far. I did the beginner runner mistake and jumped straight in to the marathon the first year of running (beginners - listen to the advice on this board). I struggled through averaging about 40 mpw. I ran three marathons 5:20, 4:45, 4:10.

The next spring I increased my miles and ran a half in 1:37 (10k time was 42:00) and I ran a 3:57 at Grandma's, but I crashed hard. Obviously those times don't really match up according to McMillian.

I enlisted the help of a local coach, who trains the best master runner in Minnesota. I was running with a heart rate monitor, but didn't really know how to use it. So I just recorded my splits and hr at each split. I'm so glad I did.

My coach looked through my running log and came to the conclusion that I was running way too fast. He pointed me to the Hadd article and I began my new training plan. I worked for a good amount of weeks on just running a certain time in two different heart rate zones. I had one for easy recovery runs set up at 135, normal longer runs between 140-145 and once a week. It really sucked at first, it was slower than I was running before. I went from 7:30's to over 9:00's. But over the fall and harsh Minnesota winter, I built a good base and ran Disney in 3:39 in hot and humid conditions.

This spring I've been using a modified version of Pfitzinger's more than 70 mpw schedule. I've ran almost 100 days in a row averaging about 11 miles a day. I ran a 40:45 10k earlier in the year, followed it up with a 19:25 5k. According to McMillian I should have been around 1:30 for the half. I ran a half two weeks ago on a tough course in 1:29:00 with no taper. The good thing about the race is that I had tons of energy left.

I don't sit and stare at my watch my whole run anymore to make sure I stick in my hr zones. I use it more as a feedback tool afterwards. I know the feeling of the pace I should run now. The biggest difference between this year and last year is that I'm able to hold a pace at the same heart rate for a longer distance. Last fall it was about 15 miles before it started to creep up and now it's more like 20.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that the heart rate monitor is a good way to build a larger aerobic base without as much chance for injury. But, there comes a point when you need to stop relying on it all the time.

By the way, I'm running Grandma's in June and hoping for a 3:10. For the first time, I'm confident I can do it.

------------------

• My User Profile
• Running Log

posted May-25-2005 11:26 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by tomrunsalot:
Proven results? I haven't seen any. I see beginners building bases...something they could do running backwards or skipping.

---

Ok, perhaps I got a little carried away. Without looking for athletes trained by Maffetone, I could name off the top of my head (Mike?) Pigg and Mark Allen. I do understand that these are triathletes, but I've been reading up more on triathlon stuff as that is my goal. I'm taking my time getting into events and for now am concentrating on running and cycling until I feel I'm "in shape" to introduce the swimming. I tried the swimming first and quickly realized it would be the most work for me to do efficiently. So, I'm going to start with it once I'm already commited with running and cycling.
 

posted May-25-2005 12:42 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by baggio16:

The next spring I increased my miles and ran a half in 1:37 (10k time was 42:00) and I ran a 3:57 at Grandma's, but I crashed hard.....But over the fall and harsh Minnesota winter, I built a good base and ran Disney in 3:39 in hot and humid conditions.

---

Thanks for sharing. Your results are like lienerj's. Both of you slowed down with the HRM and achieved marathon times you were already capable of (based on your 10K, half times)before the change in your training. Now, you're dropping slow Hadd-like training to really improve. Like lietnerj, the base building may have just helped you heal, strengthen, and give a bounce back to your step. While your marathon times improved, its hard to say your fitness did when you simply achieved results that were predicted for you nearly a year earlier. If you reach your 3:10 under Pftizinger training, it might be hard to tie it back to your base building. Good luck.
 

posted May-25-2005 03:29 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by tomrunsalot:
Thanks for sharing. Your results are like lienerj's. Both of you slowed down with the HRM and achieved marathon times you were already capable of (based on your 10K, half times)before the change in your training. Now, you're dropping slow Hadd-like training to really improve. Like lietnerj, the base building may have just helped you heal, strengthen, and give a bounce back to your step. While your marathon times improved, its hard to say your fitness did when you simply achieved results that were predicted for you nearly a year earlier. If you reach your 3:10 under Pftizinger training, it might be hard to tie it back to your base building. Good luck.

---

One thing I noticed is that when I plug my 1:29 into McMillian, the paces I'm supposed to run at match up almost identical to the heart rate paces I would run.

For example, I should be running about a 8:45 recovery pace. My heart rate for those runs is about 135. My easy run pace is about 8:15-8:20, which is about a 140 or so heart rate.

What I'm trying to say, is that most of these training programs are almost the same. Whether you run by time or heart rate.

I really think the heart rate training is what helped me build the base that I'm working off of now. The training program is helping to improve it. I don't think it's possible to be your best with just heartrate training alone.

Oh my, I think I'm confusuing everything.
 

posted May-25-2005 09:30 PM            

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

MyStuff
 

posted May-25-2005 09:33 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by baggio16:
One thing I noticed is that when I plug my 1:29 into McMillian, the paces I'm supposed to run at match up almost identical to the heart rate paces I would run.

For example, I should be running about a 8:45 recovery pace. My heart rate for those runs is about 135. My easy run pace is about 8:15-8:20, which is about a 140 or so heart rate.

What I'm trying to say, is that most of these training programs are almost the same. Whether you run by time or heart rate.

I really think the heart rate training is what helped me build the base that I'm working off of now. The training program is helping to improve it. I don't think it's possible to be your best with just heartrate training alone.

Oh my, I think I'm confusuing everything.

---

I don't think you're confusing anything. I think that's pretty cool and it implies that you have firmly built your aerobic base. The question
is whether you will continue to improve solely based on the low heart
rate running (at least significantly) or if you need to add some more
intense workouts (but perhaps you already are). Your story is quite
motivating.

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

MyStuff
 

posted May-26-2005 11:07 AM         

quote:

---

Originally posted by tomrunsalot:
Proven results? I haven't seen any. I see beginners building bases...something they could do running backwards or skipping.

---

Mark Allen failed to win Hawaiian Ironman year after year, always finishing behind Steve Scott or another major pro. After he began using Phil Maffetone's system, he won HI six times. "When the bird and the book disagree, believe the bird."

------------------
George Beinhorn
http://www.fitnessintuition.com
Essays and stories for runners
and other athletes in search of "inner quality"
 

posted May-26-2005 11:37 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by runbei:
Mark Allen failed to win Hawaiian Ironman year after year, always finishing behind Steve Scott or another major pro. After he began using Phil Maffetone's system, he won HI six times. "When the bird and the book disagree, believe the bird."

---

So, what would it mean to you if virtually every major middle and long distance runner in the world does not follow Maffetone? Bird? Cuckoo perhaps.