posted Sep-18-2005 03:43 PM               

Friday, I started in the late morning, after 9 am. Dewpoint 72 deg,
temp varying from 77-85 during the run. First mile in 8:06 at avg
HR of 136 (my MAF is 144 as of Thurs), not downhill. Started to
feel miserable outside very quickly. Somewhere between mile
8 and 10, I could not get my HR below about 150, by even walking.
Running (slowly) only brought it up a beat or two, so that was more
efficient. Overall, avg HR was 149, avg pace 10:47 per mile. This
was my worst long run in months.
Saturday, I started at 5:30 am. Dewpoint 68 deg. Temps from 72
to about 78. First mile 11:34 at 134. Very steep uphill and not
unusual. Was able to control things much better today, still tough,
but not completely miserable and I was able to keep HR below
144 when I wanted to. Avg HR 142, avg pace 10:21. Ok, a little
bit better now.
Now today, Sunday, 5:30 am again. Dewpoint 60 deg. Temps
from about 65 to 73. First mile 9:28/135. No trouble controlling
heart rates today, even on the steepest of hills (yes, I did have
to slow down!) The whole run felt great. Best in a while.
Miles 16-20 I decided to run in the 150s, and all were in the
high 8s, taking the big hills hard. Avg HR 142. Avg pace 9:25/mi.,
over 1:20/mi faster than 2 days ago, when the dew point was
12 degrees higher and temps were about 10-20 deg hotter.
I felt like I could go another 10 miles, easily, even after having
run over 60 miles in the past three days. I came in and took
out little sheltie out for a 2 mile run around my neighborhood.
All feels great. Dewpoint/temperature combo is it! Fatigue
doesn't even come close.

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

MyStuff

IP: Logged

posted Sep-18-2005 06:24 PM            

IP: Logged

posted Sep-18-2005 07:53 PM            

IP: Logged

posted Sep-18-2005 09:10 PM               

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

MyStuff

IP: Logged

posted Sep-18-2005 09:12 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by StealthRunner:
Temperatures do make a difference. Saturday I had planned a medium long run of 10 miles. I have been running in the evening, but decided to run in the AM. Unfortunately I didn't make it out the door until 9:00 AM. Not smart. The sun came out, the fog burned off, and I was stuck running out in the full sun with a temperature near 80. All I can tell you is that I got so sick of hearing my HRM go off ( I couldn't get it to turn off), I just about threw it in the Arroyo. I can home feeling so discouraged. A lot more than ants were passing me! I must say though, I did have a change of heart reading the article that Mark Allen wrote. Thanks, I really needed that. It was a good lesson. I think next spring I will train with a sweat shirt on to get used to the heat. The LA Marathon can get pretty hot! I did bale on that run because it became too miserable to stay under MAF. Today I hit the pool and did drills for one hour. Good runs to all!

---

I think once over about 65 degrees, dewpoint is the critical factor.
Dewpoint of 70 or more means pain. You should check it at weather.com
before long runs and factor that into your performance. When high, just
realize that the results ain't gonna be pretty!

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

MyStuff

IP: Logged

posted Sep-18-2005 09:25 PM               

My splits were (lap time/avg HR):

1) 11:19/134
2) 12:34/137
3) 13:00/136
4) 12:47/137
5) 12:54/137

I could have kept going but I didn't want to over do it. I feel great, so I may stick with a 1 hour running time for this coming week and see how it goes.

The great part is (and I'm not sure how accurate this is) my calorie burn (according to my Garmin). You were pretty accurate. While I may be burning fewer calories per mile, My increased time makes up for it. Where I was burning 650 to 670 calories a run previously, I burned over 830 today and felt better doing it.

I'm anxious to see how much my lap times improve using 137 as my target heart rate. I'll bump it up to 139 as I grow more consistent maintaining a rate without staring at my wrist.

------------------
My Profile

My Running Log

IP: Logged

posted Sep-18-2005 09:31 PM               

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

MyStuff

IP: Logged

posted Sep-19-2005 07:11 AM               

Run 1 = Maff - 15
Run 2 = Maff - 10
Run 3 = Maff - 5
Run 4 = Maff

Long Run Start at Maff - 15 - work up to Maff and then back down to Maff - 15 at the end.

Does this make sense? It was/is may game plan for the full 18 week cycle.

------------------
topdown

IP: Logged

posted Sep-19-2005 07:20 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martlet:
According to the formula, my max HR is 139 (180-age-5 for years of laziness). Today I ran 5.3 miles for the first time (my previous longest run was 4 miles) since I started running 2 months ago.

---

Just to clarify, 139 would be your maximum aerobic function
heart rate, not your max heart rate (I'm assuming that may have
been a typo, but just in case not ...)

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

MyStuff

IP: Logged

posted Sep-19-2005 07:23 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by topdown:
A few pages ago, there was made mention of the fact of taking your Maff and running below at different degrees. I am following Higdon's intermediate II and what I am thinking of doing (did last week actually) is to run each of the first 4 runs of the week at 5 bmp differences. As in

Run 1 = Maff - 15
Run 2 = Maff - 10
Run 3 = Maff - 5
Run 4 = Maff

Long Run Start at Maff - 15 - work up to Maff and then back down to Maff - 15 at the end.

Does this make sense? It was/is may game plan for the full 18 week cycle.

---

It would be nice in theory, but the main problem is that your pace
goes down as you get later in a run. Your better bet is to start the
run at MAF-15 and then work up to MAF. Unless you've been doing
it for a long time, I'd be surprised if you weren't walking at the end
of a long run to keep 15 beats under MAF.

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

MyStuff

[This message has been edited by leitnerj (edited Sep-19-2005).]

IP: Logged

posted Sep-19-2005 08:59 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by leitnerj:
Just to clarify, 139 would be your maximum aerobic function
heart rate, not your max heart rate (I'm assuming that may have
been a typo, but just in case not ...)

---

Yes, that was a typo. I'm not sure what my max HR is. I hit 186 during a sprint the other day.

------------------
My Profile

My Running Log

IP: Logged

posted Sep-19-2005 09:25 PM            

I had an interesting observation yesterday and wondered if anybody else had noticed the same thing. Yesterday was an off day for me so I decided to compare a few different styles of running shoes that I have. Can you tell I really wanted to run? Anyway, I ran almost an all out sprint in them. What I really noticed is that I seemed so much more relaxed at such a fast pace. I believe that this has crossed over from all the relaxed jogging I have been doing on the Maffetone method. I have been jogging with my arms down by my side since I found it uses less energy hence a lower HR. Geese, what some people will do to go faster! Anybody else feel that they too are running more relaxed at their faster paces?

IP: Logged

posted Sep-19-2005 09:28 PM               

8:02.38/133, 7:44.63/143, 7:54.24/144, 8:03.76/143,
8:18.99/143, 8:26.83/143, 8:33.86/142, 2:53.44/141
total = 7.33 miles in one hour. avg HR 142.

fastest first mile pace that I've had, particularly at such
a low heart rate. In 2nd mile, I had it at 8.1 mph for
about 1/2, then my heart rate was leveling at 144, so
I came down a few %. Times are still improving slightly
even though I'm sprinkling in some mildly higher heart
rates (still aerobic) mostly at the end of long runs. 7.33 miles
is my new high for an hour under MAF. What's amazing is that
even after 3 days straight of long runs, this was still
my best. I must admit that I am getting to the point where
the effort level is getting quite high to maintain the speed
on the treadmill for that long (but not from a breathing or
cardiac standpoint). I naturally wanted to maintain a HR
of around 125-130, which was around 8:30/mi at the beginning.
However, mentally, I was telling myself to push a bit.

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

MyStuff

IP: Logged

posted Sep-19-2005 09:34 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by StealthRunner:
Hello everyone!

I had an interesting observation yesterday and wondered if anybody else had noticed the same thing. Yesterday was an off day for me so I decided to compare a few different styles of running shoes that I have. Can you tell I really wanted to run? Anyway, I ran almost an all out sprint in them. What I really noticed is that I seemed so much more relaxed at such a fast pace. I believe that this has crossed over from all the relaxed jogging I have been doing on the Maffetone method. I have been jogging with my arms down by my side since I found it uses less energy hence a lower HR. Geese, what some people will do to go faster! Anybody else feel that they too are running more relaxed at their faster paces?

---

Ironic that you posted this just before I put my latest up, where I
had a related message. When I'm outside and everything slows
me down a bit (but not in the miserable heat and humidity), I
much prefer to go a little bit faster. However, on the treadmill
when heat and humidity are not an issue, I'd be more relaxed
a bit of a slower speed. I think it's probably because I used to
do my training runs between about 8:20 and 8:50 per mile when
I wasn't doing speed work and that was my comfort zone as
far as speed went. Now, indoors, or in cold weather, my speed
at MAF is a good bit faster than that, but in warm or humid
weather, it's slower.

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

MyStuff

IP: Logged

posted Sep-19-2005 09:42 PM            

Nope, I meant that my running form is much more relaxed. I'm not as tense in the shoulders for sure. A wonderful feeling of flying!

IP: Logged

posted Sep-19-2005 09:57 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by StealthRunner:
Hi Jesse,

Nope, I meant that my running form is much more relaxed. I'm not as tense in the shoulders for sure. A wonderful feeling of flying!

---

Oh, yes. But the same story still goes! I guess my low to mid
8s is just my comfortable pace, at least as far as my body goes.

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

MyStuff

IP: Logged

posted Sep-20-2005 01:06 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by leitnerj:

It would be nice in theory, but the main problem is that your pace
goes down as you get later in a run. Your better bet is to start the
run at MAF-15 and then work up to MAF. Unless you've been doing
it for a long time, I'd be surprised if you weren't walking at the end
of a long run to keep 15 beats under MAF.

---

Are you just talking long runs or all runs in general. The idea from this came from two parts....The first was a post you made two pages ago

quote:

---

Originally posted by leitnerj:

First, keep in mind that you will have variations in pace (significant
variations) with heat, humidity, resting heart rate, and hills (I can't
forget dehydration either). Vary any of these quantities and things
will change. There's no hard guideline to "how much" lower. Mark
Allen says to do your run between 80% and 100% of MAF. I
found that the lower I ran, the faster my results, and the more
I conditioned myself to be faster at lower heart rates. If you get
to where you can run a decent pace at, say 15 beats below MAF,
then you might want to work different zones on different training
days, all below MAF. Or run 75% of your run at 15 beats below
and your last 25% right at the MAF. You'll want to experiment
for yourself - I'm not sure there's a right answer to that one.

---

and the second was in one of Maffetone's books about if you start and end at a low pace then it is the equivalent of a warmup/cool down.

I did a 16 k run Saturday with this - average HR was 125 (10 below / 92% of Maff) - Finishing @ 123bpm and ran a 5:54km average.

My time was a little slower than I would have liked, but do you really think this is wrong? I didn't think it was about pace, but more about "the zone"

Thanks

------------------
topdown

IP: Logged

posted Sep-20-2005 09:22 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by topdown:
and the second was in one of Maffetone's books about if you start and end at a low pace then it is the equivalent of a warmup/cool down.

I did a 16 k run Saturday with this - average HR was 125 (10 below / 92% of Maff) - Finishing @ 123bpm and ran a 5:54km average.

My time was a little slower than I would have liked, but do you really think this is wrong? I didn't think it was about pace, but more about "the zone"

Thanks

---

Aha - you mean the MAF-15 for cool down. Gotcha. Makes sense.
I frequently don't even think about warmups and cooldowns in this
discussion because many people do different things for each.

And, let me be clear - I certainly can't claim that anything you said
was wrong. Nothing wrong at all. I understand what you were thinking
now and it sounds reasonable to me.

Sounds like you're getting some pretty good results.

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

MyStuff

IP: Logged

posted Sep-22-2005 03:15 PM            

IP: Logged

posted Sep-22-2005 08:03 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by slowmoe:
I am an absolute newbie. After taking 3 days to work through all of your posts, I have a question. I am currently in week 1 of the Pfitz base building program. Based on what I have read, MAFF does all training under 70% for base building. However, the Pfitz program has me doing two endurance runs a week at 75 to 85% of my MHR. The rest of the miles throughout the week seem similar to MAFF. Is the Pfitz base building program bad? Would I be better off switching to MAFF? Is anyone familiar with the Pfitz base building program? If so, what were your results?

---

Hi slowmoe. MAF stands for Maximum Aerobic Function, which
refers to the heart rate below which your runs exhibit mostly
aerobic properties (using fat for energy, engaging slow-twitch
muscle fibers, no building up lactic acid/hydrogen ions). It is not
a fixed percentage of max heart rate. For some it maybe 70%,
for others it may be closer to 65% of max heart rate and for
people who are, say, in their low 20s and have been running for
a few years, it may be as high as 75-80% max heart rate.
There's a formula that you use to calculate it, which is listed in
many of the links in this thread from Maffetone or Mark Allen.
I'm not sure which Pfitzinger "base-building" program you are
referring to, but I can say that you won't build aerobic base
by running long runs at 75-85% max heart rate. This is the
Pfitzinger article I know where he refers to aerobic base
building: Pfitz on base building in which he is non-specific but he does
say that the runs should be at a very low level of effort. 75-85%
max heart rate does not fit in to that category, particularly for
a new runner. Pfitzinger has excellent programs for runners
that are advanced and looking for high performance. Many, if not most,
of them assume you already have a strong aerobic base.
Most of his programs are not geared towards new runners. In
many cases, new runners will end up with injuries by following
his plan to the letter without strong background or preparation.
I followed Pfitzinger's Advanced Marathoning plan for one marathon
and I really wasn't ready for it (although I had been running enough
mileage) because I lacked the aerobic base needed. Hence I ran
my runs too hard, I burned out fast in the marathon, and I was
sore all the time. I will certainly go back to Pfitzinger's program
when I feel I have satisfactorily built my base.

Now, on the other hand, many new runners have difficulty with
the Maffetone running because they find that they can barely
walk to keep the heart rate low enough. Good luck, whatever
you decide to pursue.

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

MyStuff

IP: Logged

posted Sep-22-2005 08:28 PM               

I've got to ask, what do you think will signal to you that you've built a sufficient base?

Do you have some specific criteria or milestone in mind?

Also, Parker seems to also discount the value of training in the 75-85% HR zone. If its not training aerobic fitness and its not training anaerobic fitness, I wonder what it does do?

------------------
My Running Log

IP: Logged

posted Sep-22-2005 09:05 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by dgb2n:
Jessie,

I've got to ask, what do you think will signal to you that you've built a sufficient base?

Do you have some specific criteria or milestone in mind?

Also, Parker seems to also discount the value of training in the 75-85% HR zone. If its not training aerobic fitness and its not training anaerobic fitness, I wonder what it does do?

---

For your first question, it depends on what your goals are. If you're
not base-building over a fixed period of time, then you might follow
Mark Allen's approach of running below MAF until you plateau (i.e.,
your speed no longer improves at heart rates below MAF). In this
go round, I started sprinkling in a little bit of higher heart rate stuff
here and there after my treadmill pace passed 8 min/mi, which
also happened to be roughly a month from my races. I still do about
95% of everything below MAF though, which is basically what
Allen suggests. In some cases, you may plan your season from
the start, where you do, say, 8-12 weeks of basebuilding, followed
by, e.g., Pfitzinger's Advanced Marathoning schedule or
McMillan's approach. Take a look at the last Mark Allen article
that I posted, probably 5 or 10 above this post and he gets into
it a little bit.

If I were to qualify anything blindly as junk miles, it probably would
be the 75-85% heart rate range, at least if you're doing most in that
range. It is sort of in no man's land. It's not hard enough to get a
significant benefit in terms of lactate threshold or VO2Max and it's too fast to get any aerobic benefit. However, at the high end, around 85%,
that would a good tempo/LT run for many, and as part of a multi-zone
training program, it may be a range that you want to hit for 10-20% of
mileage. If you have a solid aerobic base, this range may qualify as a
"strong aerobic effort" as per some of the recommendations in core
race training from Pfitz, Daniels, and others. 75-85% also may be a
good approach for running a marathon for someone that is not
especially experienced.

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

MyStuff

IP: Logged

posted Sep-22-2005 09:21 PM            

IP: Logged

posted Sep-22-2005 09:31 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Run Page Run:
Hey Leitner, you must really be in good shape, and i have a question. I had back surgery last feb, started walking seven days a week most weeks with a minimum of five days a week untill june. I then started running or jogging whatever the case may be and started off easy but eventually was really running to fast untill i read this post.According to my log i have been trying to use this program for the last seven weeks. I don't have a HRM yet so i just slowed down to where i never breath hard and average 10 to 11.5 min a mile. I''m 44 years old so i found out at this point i can only run every other day and am up to 4.4 and 5.5 miles every other day and a 7 mile long run on the weekend. Last night i ran 1.1 miles and then checke my hr by my pulse and a stopwatch and it was 132. Ok by the Maff method 180 -44 =136 then i have to take meds daily for depression -10 =126 then -5 for what ever that other reason was leaves 121. Ok on another note the old mhr method 220-44=176 so my mhr is around 176. I have read with other methods that anywhere betwen 65% and 75% is the range where you build base and our bodys use mainly fat and some carbs for energy. So by the old method....70% of my mhr =123bpm and my maff is 121...cool but i was running that first lap at 132 bpm which comes out to about 75% of my mhr. I do run slower at times and we have a lot of big hills here and i have to slow down but does 11 bpm really matter that much?I can tell over this period of seven weeks that my pace has gone up and my breathing down....I rarely walk up hills but don't feel the need to....i don't really get fatigued anymore...i have walked a few of the last part of the steepest ones. Due to my age i don't really plan to enter any races so i am going to base build for a real long time...and plan to get a hrm as soon as my daughters wedding is a done deal in Nov and this is a really interesting post,very scientific but i still wonder if ten bpm is that big of a deal? Do you think if someone trained at ten beats over maff, for six months that their results would be close to the same as if they trained right at their maff? Or what about five bpm over maff? Again i plan to stick with it or back off some when i get my hrm and check my pulse more often untill then but I'm just curios to what you and the others think about this.

---

You're asking a very common question and I really don't know the
answer. It's really got to be a trial and error thing. It sounds like you're
certainly seeing the progress with the HRM and given that you're still
in recovery mode and have no upcoming races, it's not too painful.
I can only point to a couple of anecdotal facts - first, for me, the
progress has been the fastest at the lowest heart rates I have
concentrated on, particularly at MAF - 10 or so. Second, many people
have posted that they have had no success with similar low-HR
methods. Eventually it comes out on all of them that they spent
all of their time running at less than 75% HRmax. For most people,
that's far too high to get the aerobic benefits described by Maffetone,
Mark Allen, and others. Incidentally, it would be very unusual if your
max heart were actually within a couple of beats of the 220-age
formula. That's just a statistical average over a large sample of
people, not a good predictor of max heart rate. Nonetheless, if you
follow Maffetone's approach, it doesn't matter what your max is.
That's appealing to me because I have a different "peak" heart
rate for short distance (around 10k or less) races, as compared
to longer distance races. It differs by 20 beats.

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

MyStuff

IP: Logged

posted Sep-22-2005 09:34 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Run Page Run:
Hey Leitner, you must really be in good shape

---

Well, I can just tolerate a lot of mileage now, but that's
only because in training, I'm hardly working rather than
working hard!

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

MyStuff

IP: Logged