posted May-26-2005 12:08 PM               

I did Maffetone religiously for 3 months and saw little improvement at all. I went from a 23:37 5k to a 23:17 5k in 3 months, all the while adding mileage. The mileage add alone can account for the improvement.

My biggest problem with Maffetone is that it is way too one-size-fits-all. I am 36, but my HRmax is 201. Working backwards from an age-based formula of HRmax, that makes me 19. He claims his formula is not based on HRmax. If that is so, why subtract age from 180. Isn't age the only aspect that decreases HRmax? I am convinced his formula is designed for people with more average HRmax's, and my hypothesis is that because of my high HRmax of 201, his formula did not stress my aerobic system enough to cause improvement. That, or as Tom says, low HR training is really only good for base-building.

I am going to adjust my MAF from 144 to 161 (180-19 with no adjustments) and try that for 3 months, still no speedwork. This makes my training method more Hadd than Maffetone, since 161 is about 73%HRR. I am still going to perform the MAF tests every 3 weeks to see what happens. I'll let you know what happens. Let the madness begin.

IP: Logged

posted May-26-2005 08:19 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by sawduck:
As of right now, I have to go with Tom on this discussion. I was a runner who never really ran that fast to begin with. I probably ran all my training runs just under 9 min/miles, and did relatively little speedwork. At the time that was still a minute below my estimated AT.

I did Maffetone religiously for 3 months and saw little improvement at all. I went from a 23:37 5k to a 23:17 5k in 3 months, all the while adding mileage. The mileage add alone can account for the improvement.

My biggest problem with Maffetone is that it is way too one-size-fits-all. I am 36, but my HRmax is 201. Working backwards from an age-based formula of HRmax, that makes me 19. He claims his formula is not based on HRmax. If that is so, why subtract age from 180. Isn't age the only aspect that decreases HRmax? I am convinced his formula is designed for people with more average HRmax's, and my hypothesis is that because of my high HRmax of 201, his formula did not stress my aerobic system enough to cause improvement. That, or as Tom says, low HR training is really only good for base-building.

I am going to adjust my MAF from 144 to 161 (180-19 with no adjustments) and try that for 3 months, still no speedwork. This makes my training method more Hadd than Maffetone, since 161 is about 73%HRR. I am still going to perform the MAF tests every 3 weeks to see what happens. I'll let you know what happens. Let the madness begin.

---

Try what I mentioned earlier - if you're running well into your aerobic
regime, your heart rate should not climb very much over a 5 mile
period. In fact, before my accident, my heart rate would not climb
by more than 4 beats over a 12 mile/2 hour run @ 60% VO2Max.
It's quite possible that the Maffetone approach can be overly
conservative, in particular if you've never spent time building core
speed. See how much heart rate climb you get over your runs.
If it climbs a lot you're approaching anaerobic, if it doesn't climb
much, you're mostly aerobic. 73% HRR is very high for me, but
certainly could be low for others. Good luck, I hope you find the
best mix.

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

MyStuff

IP: Logged

posted May-26-2005 08:53 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by leitnerj:

Try what I mentioned earlier - if you're running well into your aerobic regime, your heart rate should not climb very much over a 5 mile period.

---

A little something I picked up on my Internet travels. I think you could a little drift in a five mile period.

A study published in the Journal of Applied Physiology found that heart rate increases 7 beats per minute for each 1% loss in bodyweight from dehydration. If you run for 50 minutes in 70 degree heat, you can expect to lose 1.5-3 pounds due to sweat loss. For a 150 pound runner, that would represent a loss of 1-2% of bodyweight which would increase heart rate by about 7-14 beats per minute. If this runner had planned to do a tempo run at a heart rate of 160-166 beats per minute, his pace would tend to slow as the run progressed. He should, therefore, partially account for this increase and allow his heart rate to increase to about 170-172 beats per minute by the end of the run.

IP: Logged

posted May-26-2005 08:59 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by tomrunsalot:
A little something I picked up on my Internet travels. I think you could a little drift in a five mile period.

A study published in the Journal of Applied Physiology found that heart rate increases 7 beats per minute for each 1% loss in bodyweight from dehydration. If you run for 50 minutes in 70 degree heat, you can expect to lose 1.5-3 pounds due to sweat loss. For a 150 pound runner, that would represent a loss of 1-2% of bodyweight which would increase heart rate by about 7-14 beats per minute. If this runner had planned to do a tempo run at a heart rate of 160-166 beats per minute, his pace would tend to slow as the run progressed. He should, therefore, partially account for this increase and allow his heart rate to increase to about 170-172 beats per minute by the end of the run.

---

Yes, yes, good point, I should have caveated that by saying
"if you can minimize dehydration ..." When I ran the treadmill in
the endurance study, I drank the equivalent amount to what the
Olympic marathoners take in, which is supposed to be the maximum
amount that you can rehydrate yourself without overhydrating. This
amounted to about 6 20 oz bottles over the 2 hour period, which turned
out to be just right (never had to pee during the run and my heart rate
barely climbed). I just find it hard to believe, however, that during
5 miles, you're going to dehydrate very much and lose a non-negligible
amount of water weight, but I never tested. I do know that I have returned home from 20 mile runs in 75 deg weather about 15 lbs
lighter than when I left.

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

MyStuff

IP: Logged

posted May-28-2005 07:38 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by leitnerj:

Try what I mentioned earlier - if you're running well into your aerobic
regime, your heart rate should not climb very much over a 5 mile
period. In fact, before my accident, my heart rate would not climb
by more than 4 beats over a 12 mile/2 hour run @ 60% VO2Max.
It's quite possible that the Maffetone approach can be overly
conservative, in particular if you've never spent time building core
speed. See how much heart rate climb you get over your runs.
If it climbs a lot you're approaching anaerobic, if it doesn't climb
much, you're mostly aerobic. 73% HRR is very high for me, but
certainly could be low for others. Good luck, I hope you find the
best mix.

---

Another thing I found interesting is that Maffetone, in one of his online articles, lists sample MAF paces and talks about how they relate to 5K times. Since I have started using my HRMax-adjusted MAF of 161 instead of 144, my pace in my zone is right around 10 min/miles, which is exactly the pace he says will yield a 23:20ish 5K. I just did a 23:17 5K last Saturday. My pace with unadjusted MAF of 144 was 12:00 min/mile.

[This message has been edited by sawduck (edited May-28-2005).]

IP: Logged

posted May-28-2005 08:27 AM               

1. I haven't seen anyone actually get slower by running at
exclusively low heart rates. (If you feel you have, not just
for one single race, please post the experience here).

2. It's not obvious that people have become faster using
this approach, however, many, especially myself, have been
able to substantially increase pace held at longer distances,
where "longer" can be as short as 1 mile, maybe even less.
That is, distances where there is a significant aerobic component.

3. For those who do not have substantial speed to start,
very nominal (and sometimes insignificant) improvements
may be seen, e.g., if you run a mile race in 10:30, you're
not likely to achieve a 9:30 min/mi pace after 16 weeks of
MAF running. However, maybe after 12 weeks, you'll be
able to maintain a 10:30 pace for 4 or 5 miles. I think this
is the part the Maffetone (and even Hadd) leaves out as
virtually all examples you see are with people that have
moderate to high speed when they start.

Tom, certainly you disagree with #1, but perhaps you agree
with 2 and 3.

For those intending to rigorously try the Maffetone approach,
I would suggest performing the test, as he suggests, every
three weeks, on the track or treadmill and monitor progress.
If by the 3rd test, you're really not seeing any progress and
you're certain that you are following to the letter (using
the conservative estimate for MAF HR, never running above
it, even on hills, etc.) and you don't
find the approach giving you any other significant benefits
(ability to run much longer distances, much less soreness
after runs, more enjoyable runs, etc.), then there's no doubt
you should start working higher zones to build up on core
speed. First and foremost, no matter what someone tells
you here, try to enjoy running. After about 3 weeks of misery,
this approach gave me enjoyment. If those 3 weeks became
3 months, I would have felt differently.

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

MyStuff

IP: Logged

posted May-28-2005 08:47 AM               

Even at 144 bpm MAF, I was still able to increase my 5K time by 20 seconds. I estimate I was running at about 60% HRR or a little less that whole 3 months. I was barely working up a sweat on those runs.

My runs became much more peaceful and relaxing.

I'll add another to the list: Before Maffetone training, I was very much running hard almost all the time, but probably not as hard as most. Now that I'm used to running really slow (12 min/mile), now my training runs of 10 min/miles feel like I'm burning up the road. These runs are still fun and relaxing too. In other words, using the Maffetone approach trains you to take your easy runs EASY and learn to enjoy it. Race during the race, not during training.

IP: Logged

posted May-28-2005 09:06 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by leitnerj:
If I look around at the various runners that I know or that
have posted here, there are a few things that seemed to be
coming clear:

1. I haven't seen anyone actually get slower by running at
exclusively low heart rates. (If you feel you have, not just
for one single race, please post the experience here).

2. It's not obvious that people have become faster using
this approach, however, many, especially myself, have been
able to substantially increase pace held at longer distances,
where "longer" can be as short as 1 mile, maybe even less.
That is, distances where there is a significant aerobic component.

3. For those who do not have substantial speed to start,
very nominal (and sometimes insignificant) improvements
may be seen, e.g., if you run a mile race in 10:30, you're
not likely to achieve a 9:30 min/mi pace after 16 weeks of
MAF running. However, maybe after 12 weeks, you'll be
able to maintain a 10:30 pace for 4 or 5 miles. I think this
is the part the Maffetone (and even Hadd) leaves out as
virtually all examples you see are with people that have
moderate to high speed when they start.

Tom, certainly you disagree with #1, but perhaps you agree
with 2 and 3.

---

Yes, of course I disagree with number 1. I tried running for 3 weeks at less than 75% MHR and got slower in a 12K. I went back to hard and easy days and ran a faster pace in a half marathon 5 weeks later. Every year I take it easy in the winter and increase the tempos and intervals in the spring and get faster, fitter. Lots of runners do the same. Its called getting in shape for the season. But you don't need a testimonial to convince anyone that slacking off of training (going slower) is going to result in improved times. Do you? Has the world turned upside down? Get faster through exclusively slow paced training? Please be serious. Its a myth, too good to be true. It can't be shown to work in a legitmate experiment.

But I think there is some merit for beginners in the maffetone/go slow approach. I wish he didn't have the lame formula approach for MHR; it makes his program sound more appropriate for sedentary patients looking to lower the risk of heart attacks rather than for fit, recreational runners. Its amatuer.

I am skeptical of Hadd, but open to his approach since he has a progression built in, but I have not seen any solid testimonials, evidence, or experts who support it.

As you know, I think many of testimonials where improvements are noted (like yours) are anomolies and seem to be related to injury healing and overcoming burnout. I think the proper uses of HRMs are to provide more detailed information for LT or other paced workouts and for periodically managing easy days.

IP: Logged

posted May-28-2005 10:05 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by tomrunsalot:
Yes, of course I disagree with number 1. I tried running for 3 weeks at less than 75% MHR and got slower in a 12K. I went back to hard and easy days and ran a faster pace in a half marathon 5 weeks later.

---

Oh, please, Tom, what a load of crap. You ran for 3 weeks at less
than 75% MHR and suddenly you've lost some ability in the all-too-popular
12k race. You've got to come up with something better than that. That
is an entirely irrelevant piece of insignificant nonsense. Show me
the web link for your 12k race before your 3 weeks of 75% MHR and
after your 3 weeks.

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

MyStuff

[This message has been edited by leitnerj (edited May-28-2005).]

IP: Logged

posted May-29-2005 02:28 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by tomrunsalot:
Yes, of course I disagree with number 1. I tried running for 3 weeks at less than 75% MHR and got slower in a 12K. I went back to hard and easy days and ran a faster pace in a half marathon 5 weeks later.

---

IP: Logged

posted May-29-2005 08:14 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by pigeye:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by tomrunsalot:
[b] Yes, of course I disagree with number 1. I tried running for 3 weeks at less than 75% MHR and got slower in a 12K. I went back to hard and easy days and ran a faster pace in a half marathon 5 weeks later.

---

Just to follow up on that, this would imply that either you don't taper
for marathons or in the taper period a good piece of your running is
above 75% HRMax. Even marathon training programs that are far
less radical than Maffetone will suggest during the three weeks
before the marathon you would do little, if any, running above 75%.

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

MyStuff

IP: Logged

posted May-29-2005 02:06 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by leitnerj:
Oh, please, Tom, what a load of crap. You ran for 3 weeks at less
than 75% MHR and suddenly you've lost some ability in the all-too-popular
12k race. You've got to come up with something better than that. That
is an entirely irrelevant piece of insignificant nonsense. Show me
the web link for your 12k race before your 3 weeks of 75% MHR and
after your 3 weeks.

---

Crap? You promote this Maffetone stuff and the aptley titled "Heart Rate Training for Dummies" and my conventional wisdom and first hand experience is crap? Fine.

How can you surprised that my race results would decline after essentially slacking off on training for 3 weeks by following the all-slow approach? What could have possibly been a more natural result? You lead a pied piper parade into all slow training with your results last year after a similar short period (even though you often forget to tell folks you upped your mileage significantly).

Here's the result links. The Bridge to Bridge 12K was on October 3, very hilly and crowded, my pace 8:19. My typical 10K pace is around 7:35. On October 19, I ran a half marathon at pace of 8:07. Yes, 2 weeks of intervals and tempos after a break yielded this improvement. I didn’t need a clock to understand that all-slow training was bad training; I felt fitter and faster after working harder. Big surprise. My results are not important; common sense should be the issue here.

http://www.bridgetobridge.com/results12k.asp
http://www.bigsurhalfmarathon.org/frame.html

If you will look back in time, it was about August last year that Jimmy began the post on low HR training and I tried it. Like everyone, I achieved significant improvement in my pace at 75%MHR, however, I believe this was all due to basic biofeedback and measurement issues. Like many, I found “tricks” to improving my pace at low HR: run in the mornings, no coffee, breath soft/relax, 15-minute warm up. This improvement in pace low HR had NO impact on my race performance, it made me slower. All slow training leads to poor form and poor fitness for all but beginners or those in need of a rest.

IP: Logged

posted May-29-2005 02:49 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by tomrunsalot:
Crap? You promote this Maffetone stuff and the aptley titled "Heart Rate Training for Dummies" and my conventional wisdom and first hand experience is crap? Fine.

How can you surprised that my race results would decline after essentially slacking off on training for 3 weeks by following the all-slow approach? What could have possibly been a more natural result? You lead a pied piper parade into all slow training with your results last year after a similar short period (even though you often forget to tell folks you upped your mileage significantly).

Here's the result links. The Bridge to Bridge 12K was on October 3, very hilly and crowded, my pace 8:19. My typical 10K pace is around 7:35. On October 19, I ran a half marathon at pace of 8:07. Yes, 2 weeks of intervals and tempos after a break yielded this improvement. I didn’t need a clock to understand that all-slow training was bad training; I felt fitter and faster after working harder. Big surprise. My results are not important; common sense should be the issue here.

http://www.bridgetobridge.com/results12k.asp
http://www.bigsurhalfmarathon.org/frame.html

If you will look back in time, it was about August last year that Jimmy began the post on low HR training and I tried it. Like everyone, I achieved significant improvement in my pace at 75%MHR, however, I believe this was all due to basic biofeedback and measurement issues. Like many, I found “tricks” to improving my pace at low HR: run in the mornings, no coffee, breath soft/relax, 15-minute warm up. This improvement in pace low HR had NO impact on my race performance, it made me slower. All slow training leads to poor form and poor fitness for all but beginners or those in need of a rest.

---

Yes, it is crap because you have presented an insignificant
data point. I can't believe you can even call such nonsense
significant in the least bit. First it is entirely baloney to say
that 3 weeks of sub 75% HRMax running made you lose
fitness. Are you even paying attention to what you're saying?
Second, it is even further nonsense to think that running in any
type of new program for 3 weeks is going to have a real impact
on your time in a race, good or bad. Your result was either
entirely arbitrary or it was due to any of another of factors
(more hills, didn't pace well, warm or humid day, etc.)
By the way, generally I have found your negative commentary
as quite useful in this thread, because people should see all
sides. However, in this case, it's as if you're just speaking
emotionally. I think it would be productive if you were to present
something, either in this thread or a new thread that shows how
significantly you've improved using other training methods and
people can decide what is right for them. If your times at 5k
project out very nicely to your marathon times but they didn't
initially, just say what you did and what the times were. Tell
how you qualified for Boston by improving by 10, 20, 60 minutes,
or whatever. In this thread, I'm starting
from scratch and I'll be presenting my results from scratch, trying to
learn what's good and bad along the way. It may turn out that
the approach has many flaws which will come out clearly, in which
case we may learn something. You've clearly had a
lot more success than I have through traditional training approaches
and your body can handle a lot of intense workouts. Unfortunately,
mine cannot. As long as I can continue to improve without beating
myself into the ground and now I enjoy running immensely more,
I feel that it's worth sharing. I'm not telling
people this is the best thing to do, I'm just presenting the results
I have seen.

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

MyStuff

[This message has been edited by leitnerj (edited May-29-2005).]

IP: Logged

posted May-29-2005 06:37 PM               

129 almost seems rediculously slow to me. I run my easy runs usually right around 140.

IP: Logged

posted May-29-2005 06:43 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by GaRebelRunner:
Concerning Maffetone's method. If I understand him correctly my HRM training pace should be 129 (180-51). When exactly does the "base" period end and the training period begin? For example, I'm training for the Quad Cities Marathon September 25. If I don't include any races or weekly tempo runs how do I build up speed other than over time as my body adjusts to a lower HRM?

129 almost seems rediculously slow to me. I run my easy runs usually right around 140.

---

Now, that was bizarre - I just did a reply to this message but it
ended up in the other HR thread. I must be going crazy. Anyway,
here it is.

I think with everyone (I've seen no counterexamples) it seems dead
slow at first. With many people who have run much faster, only
at very high heart rates, improvement started to appear after around
6 weeks (I improved a lot after 3, but I was apparently an anomaly).
Next, I'd say, are you sure you didn't check any of the boxes to add
5 points here and there? For example, if you've been endurance
running injury free for over 2 years, for one, you would add 5 points.
You may want to see the earlier dialogue in the
about possible conservatism of Maffetone's approach. I
suggested that if it seems dead slow so that you have to walk a good
part of the time and you don't seem to improve, just pick the heart
rate that you feel is your very easy run heart rate, warm up for 20
minutes, pick your run up to the "very easy run" pace, then maintain
that pace for at least 5 miles. If your heart rate doesn't climb more
than about 5-7 beats, assuming you remain well-hydrated, you're
likely well into your aerobic function zone. If it climbs by a good
bit more, you probably need to try a lower heart rate. Incidentally,
Runner's World (or maybe it was Running Times) had an article that
provided the easy run test - say the pledge of allegience in its
entirety without any cracking or breaking up. If you can do that, then
you are in the right zone. For me that corresponds very well with
my sub-MAF zone.

Now, speed is very much a point of debate. Maffetone first says that
the critical thing is base-building for running under the MAF heart rate.
You should do that for 12-16 weeks only when you're not racing as
racing (and the anaerobic properties thereof) will interfere with the
base-building. After that point, Maffetone claims, you will continue
to see improvement just by running below the MAF heart rate. For
most, this improvement will likely be minimal, but who knows.
However, once you've done your base-building you can start to
add in your tempo, VO2Max, and other types of workouts if you
desire. You will likely stop seeing improvements in the paces at lower
heart rates (and you may actually lose a little bit of ground on that)
but if your core speed needs further improvement, you should focus
on speed-type workouts. The Maffetone approach will not likely improve your core
speed, but it will likely help to extend your short distance pace
capabilities out to longer and longer distances. So, if you're running
a 5:30 mile in a one mile race, but your marathon pace is a 9 minute
mile, it should help to close the gap between what you're able to do
at the long distances and what typical pace prediction tables will
give you. If your one-mile race pace already projects nicely to the
marathon distance, then I'm not sure what Maffetone's approach
will do for you, other than possibly reduce your training load a bit.

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

MyStuff

IP: Logged

posted May-29-2005 07:06 PM               

Sorry for the confusion. Thanks for the reply.

IP: Logged

posted May-29-2005 09:20 PM               

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

MyStuff

IP: Logged

posted May-30-2005 12:03 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by leitnerj:

Yes, it is crap because you have presented an insignificant
data point. I can't believe you can even call such nonsense
significant in the least bit.

---

You asked the question...I answered. You essentially called me a liar and asked for links to race times. I gave it. I admitted the data was insignicant...as insignificant as your own history that you've reprised adinfinitum. Like you, it was the only testimonial data I had. Sorry it did not meet your standards for scientific credibility.

But my point remains, supported by the top physiologists, by training fundamentals such as the specificity principal, and by common sense: train slow, race slow.

IP: Logged

posted May-30-2005 12:54 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by tomrunsalot:
You asked the question...I answered. You essentially called me a liar and asked for links to race times. I gave it. I admitted the data was insignicant...as insignificant as your own history that you've reprised adinfinitum. Like you, it was the only testimonial data I had. Sorry it did not meet your standards for scientific credibility.

But my point remains, supported by the top physiologists, by training fundamentals such as the specificity principal, and by common sense: train slow, race slow.

---

I didn't call you a liar directly or indirectly, I wanted to see what hard evidence you had that there was a specific effect that following Maffetone
training had on you. And there was none. Perhaps you believe there
was, which is fine. This thread is not geared towards you because you've
achieved the success that you want by other approaches, which is
great. Nonetheless, facts that you present that point out negative
aspects of this form of training are very pertinent. I just don't think you've
presented any in your latest responses. I'm presenting
my own results and responding to people's questions in the best way
I can and I'm certainly learning along the way. Why can't you do the
same and simply identify what has worked better for you and how it has?

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

MyStuff

IP: Logged

posted May-30-2005 01:42 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by tomrunsalot:
But my point remains, supported by the top physiologists, by training fundamentals such as the specificity principal, and by common sense: train slow, race slow.

---

You know, I'd be a lot more willing to listen to what you have to say if you were some badass elite runner who consistently churns out sub-3:00 marathons, but, based on the race reports in your profile, you're just another mid-packer like the rest of us. So exactly what unique experience and/or expertise are you bringing to the table here?

Dude, we get it. You're not a proponent of HRM training. OK, your job here is done, feel free to move on. Go over to the Carbo Canteen and tell all the fat people to stop eating so much.

------------------
My User Profile

IP: Logged

posted Jun-05-2005 04:48 AM               

Probably not 4, 7, or 8. Anyone got any ideas about which one of the others, tho?

Thanks!

IP: Logged

posted Jun-05-2005 06:13 AM               

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

MyStuff

IP: Logged

posted Jun-05-2005 02:14 PM               

I have two questions for others doing it though, do you stick with MAF HR even for your longest runs? And what intensity do you race longer runs at (like half marathons)? I'm still very conservative in my halfs and tend to stcik close to MAF for at least the first half of the race. I do find that my pace drops after a few miles by 10-30 seconds/mile, which appears to be expected. Hopefully, doing the shorter 5k and 10k w=races have helped me understand how much higher I can push myself. Race predictors say that I should do a half in 1:51, and I still haven't broken 2:00. Although, as I said I haven't raced often, and I do tend to prefer running them conservatively. My schedule isn't allwoing me to push hard in a half until late september, but I really want to nail that race. So any advice now, will really be helpful.

IP: Logged

posted Jun-05-2005 08:06 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by kzod:
I've had solid results running under my MAF HR. Of course I started out last year in terrible shape, and carrying around way too much weight. But, when I started training a 12-13 min/mile was a comfortable pace for me. 10 min poace was not something I could do even on a short 5k jog. Now my MAF pace is in the 9-10 min pace depending on surface and slope. Races have gotten better too, with a 24 min 5k that was all on hills and gravel paths (I feel like a could do much better on a flat course). I've also lost 30 lbs which would acount for much of the progress, but, I've maintained my weight the last few months (i.e. stalled weight loss), and I continue to post faster times.

I have two questions for others doing it though, do you stick with MAF HR even for your longest runs? And what intensity do you race longer runs at (like half marathons)? I'm still very conservative in my halfs and tend to stcik close to MAF for at least the first half of the race. I do find that my pace drops after a few miles by 10-30 seconds/mile, which appears to be expected. Hopefully, doing the shorter 5k and 10k w=races have helped me understand how much higher I can push myself. Race predictors say that I should do a half in 1:51, and I still haven't broken 2:00. Although, as I said I haven't raced often, and I do tend to prefer running them conservatively. My schedule isn't allwoing me to push hard in a half until late september, but I really want to nail that race. So any advice now, will really be helpful.

---

Sounds like excellent progress. For your longest runs, you should
try to keep under MAF the whole time. Of course, this means that
you will probably have to slow down a lot, especially if you don't
fully rehydrate along the way. As far as races go, it's interesting
that you are keeping under MAF during the race, as that would
be extremely conservative. I would think you should be able to
sustain at least 20 above MAF for the duration of a HM. You're
also at (or beyond) a crossroads, where you can decide whether
to maintain all of your training below MAF (if you are still continuously
seeing progress, it sounds like the way to go), or add in a few
other zones, where I would recommend tempos and/or hill training,
once to twice a week. It seems as though you've developed a good
aerobic base. I guess my feeling is that if the progress continues,
keep doing your runs under MAF until your times in long races
match those that predictors give based on your short race times.
However, if during the race, you are running under MAF for a good
part, there's no doubt that your race time will be on the conservative
side. And then there's the question as to whether it really matters,
as long as you are making progress and enjoying your running the
way it's going.

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

MyStuff

[This message has been edited by leitnerj (edited Jun-05-2005).]

IP: Logged

posted Jun-05-2005 08:29 PM               

Never tested my max, but the highest I've ever been able to get my HR is 175 while running. On the flip side my rhr is quite low @42. Maf for me is 146, but I'm getting fit enough that I may add that extra 5 in there for my next bday. The hardest I pushed my HR in a half was staying mostly around 160, finishing around 170. But, even in a recent 5k my average was 164. So, I'm getting better at pushing my limits and pace in the shorter runs.

As long as my 5k and 10k times keep progressing I'm happy. And I admit my priority in the halfs is finishing strong. I hate getting passed at the end of a race! I do have a goal race in sept as I said, and that one I'll push myself into the higher zones and try to see what I can truly do.

IP: Logged