Cool Running :: Maffetone low heart rate training - progress and observations (long!)

> home > community > discussion forums > basic training > maffetone low heart rate training - progress and observations (long!) (Page 36)

| > rules | > faq | > e-mail to a friend | moderator: Liam

Maffetone low heart rate training - progress and observations (long!)

Topic is 65 pages:
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65

Topic Closed
> next newest topic | > next oldest topic

Author	Topic: Maffetone low heart rate training - progress and observations (long!)
tithers Cool Runner	posted Dec-27-2005 03:08 PM quote: Originally posted by tithers: I'm still on the mend from my surgery, but Santa Hubby bought me a garmin 301 and the maffetone book for Christmas, so I will be joining all y'all awesome people! Sooo...I'm a newb at this and will start reading this afternoon. I ran Chicago with a modified Galloway method, so I'm not a total newb at running. I plan on running a late spring early summer marathon-maybe San Diego. In your professional and experienced opinions, using the Maffetone method, will I be ready to run this marathon using HRT? I hear the first month or two can be painfully slow running and I definitely want to improve my time over my last marathon. My goal is to do it in 5 hours or less...I cramped up big time in Chicago and ended up with a dismal 5:38:46. Proud to have finished, disappointed in my time. Anyone? Bueller? IP: Logged
sibelius Member	posted Dec-27-2005 03:43 PM ============================================ I think MAF can over estimate if it is high relative to your actual maxHR. Based on the folks here who have successfully implemented the MAF approach, pushing HR down even further than MAF (-5, -10, even -15) can lead to improvements. Maybe if folks put up their numbers we can see what the correlation is between MAF, %maxHR and %HRR. ============================================ I'll bite. As indicated earlier, I am going more by Mittleton than Maffetone (at present time), but here are my numbers: Unadjusted MAF: 139 % MHR: 75 % HRR: 60 IP: Logged
briandirect Cool Runner	posted Dec-27-2005 04:59 PM quote: Originally posted by junkmiles: I believe for inexperienced runners early in a base building phase 75-80%maxHR is probably not primarily aerobic. Remember a main goal of the lowHR training, as espoused in this thread, is not just easy, conversational running, but using fat as fuel. You may very well be running easy at 150-155, but are you using fat as your main energy source at this level of effort? Hi junkmiles There is not a direct dependency between the percentage of fat burned and the amount of aerobic and anaerobic respriation. At least it appears to me that there is not according to my recent reading. We are talking about two very different parts of the system. This seems to me a common point of confusion in discussing the whole issue of slow paced training. Furthermore, an runner, could never be at conversational pace as well as being in the high aerobic range at the same time - almost by definition. Also I would like to point out that Lydiard did not advocate only high intesity aerobic running. I just found a 100+mpw Marathon training program from him which includes 4 days per week at 1/4 effort. I don't think anyone could run 100 miles at hign aerobic intensity and survive for long. Dipping elsewhere into his stuff I find that he gave advise to novice runners too. Specifically, I just saw he writes that they should run only easily for several months before attempting anything more intensive. -brian IP: Logged
junkmiles Cool Runner	posted Dec-27-2005 06:45 PM quote: Originally posted by sibelius: [B I'll bite. As indicated earlier, I am going more by Mittleton than Maffetone (at present time), but here are my numbers: Unadjusted MAF: 139 % MHR: 75 % HRR: 60[/B] Unadjusted MAF: 137 % MHR: 73 % HRR: 64 IP: Logged
Cashmason Cool Runner	posted Dec-27-2005 06:45 PM Today was MaF test number 2. Had a couple of large spikes in the heart rate while running at the same speed and 5 seconds later Heart Rate was back under MaF again. Wonder if something like buh bump cream would help with those spikes or it was interference. Lap (#) Time (m:s) Distance (mi ) HR (bpm) Energy (Cal) 1 14:31 1.00 120 182 133 2 14:50 1.00 118 173 128 3 15:07 1.00 119 129 110 4 14:46 1.00 119 125 136 5 2:08 0.15 119 124 19 IP: Logged
junkmiles Cool Runner	posted Dec-27-2005 07:17 PM quote: Originally posted by briandirect: Hi junkmiles There is not a direct dependency between the percentage of fat burned and the amount of aerobic and anaerobic respriation. At least it appears to me that there is not according to my recent reading........ Also I would like to point out that Lydiard did not advocate only high intesity aerobic running. I just found a 100+mpw Marathon training program from him which includes 4 days per week at 1/4 effort............ -brian There is a dependency between intensity of effort and percentage of fat/glycogen used for energy production. Intensity of effort for the general population is often quantified in terms of heart rate. Also, it is my understanding that only aerobic energy production can utilize fat as an energy source. Anaerobic energy production does not use fat at all. The energy source for all muscle contractions is Adenosine triphosphate (ATP). ATP is produced either aerobically or anaerobically. Phosphocreatine (PCr) and Anaerobic Glycolysis are the two main anaerobic sources of ATP. Lipolysis is the process of breaking down fat to produce ATP and it occurs aerobically (in the presence of O2). It is relatively slow process and it's overall contribution to muscle energy supply will decrease as the intensity of the exercise increases. Glycogen is also broken down aerobically (aerobic glycolysis). When the intensity is in the high aerobic range, fat provides less of the energy than glycogen, at the low end this is reversed. The Maffetone approach is supposed to work the low end. On Lydiard: The 1/4 effort has been equated to 65-70%HRR this would be in the lower end of the aerobic zone. The 1/2 effort has been equated to 70-75%HRR, which is the "strong aerobic effort". --jm [This message has been edited by junkmiles (edited Dec-27-2005).] IP: Logged
junkmiles Cool Runner	posted Dec-27-2005 07:29 PM quote: Originally posted by tithers: Anyone? Bueller? You have plenty of time to give the lowHR approach a try. Give it 3 months and you'll have 3 months to implement a traditional marathon training plan. Don't know what pace you were training at so whether or not you actually slow down is a function of your current level of aerobic conditioning. A lot of people will slow down, but not all. Even if you do slow down your pace should improve over the first 3 months. read thru some of the earlier posts on this thread and you'll get the basic idea as well as some useful informational links. good luck. IP: Logged
BJL Cool Runner	posted Dec-27-2005 08:39 PM Has anyone ever tried this MAF and been reduced to walking 90% of the time? Has anyone here been a total newbie like me and had success? It seems like a lot of you MAF folks have been running for a long time before trying MAF, I've only been running for 6mos, except now I'm barely running. I can't increase my mpw b/c it's taking me so frustratingly long to get thru the miles at/under my MAF.. The best I can do is almost 20mpw, and this takes me almost 5 hours!!! My average pace is 15mm; aveHR is 138. The past 5 mos when I ran for almost 5h it was close to 30mi (my longest week) and 10:45ave pace (and dead on aveHR 155 for all 5 mos). I've already run for over 17h in Dec, previous mos were 14h - that's the only "improvement" if I can even call it that b/c I'm barely jogging. I'm 4 weeks into MAF, I'm 39 and was hoping to try a marathon or half in the summer/fall b/c I turn 40 - goofy but last spring turning 39 I decided to "reclaim" by body and really wanted to shoot for a 'thon at 40 - the first of many I was hoping. I'm doing my best to stay at/under 141, but I just walk, jog for a minute then walk... I do go over 141 for a total of 3-5min for every 45-60min - every time I try to run - I get back in the zone quickly tho. Honestly, please, should I just become a walker? Bag the MAF and run slow and get my mpw to 30 and then try MAF for improvement? Or should I just keep on walking to stick this out? I feel like my goals for the big "40" are dimming. I know I've asked before but I realized that many of you are experienced runners, I'm not. Thanks for reading this and your advice is appreciated. Happy New Year. ------------------ Each day is a gift from God, let's live like we believe it... [This message has been edited by BJL (edited Dec-27-2005).] IP: Logged
junkmiles Cool Runner	posted Dec-27-2005 09:31 PM quote: Originally posted by BJL: ..... Honestly, please, should I just become a walker? Bag the MAF and run slow and get my mpw to 30 and then try MAF for improvement? Or should I just keep on walking to stick this out? I feel like my goals for the big "40" are dimming. I know I've asked before but I realized that many of you are experienced runners, I'm not. Thanks for reading this and your advice is appreciated. Happy New Year. If you really can't get thru a week at MAF and you had been doing your earlier running at 155 you could ease into MAF. Try the following approach: Push your HR down to 150, which should be marginally slower than your 155 pace. When you see an incremental improvement (e.g. 20-30s/mi), push down another 5bpm. Now you're running at 145; you will slow down again. When you see an improvement at 145, push down again. Now you're running at 140, you're not walking, and you are running close to a pace at 140 that you could previously only hit at 150 or 155. Continue to run at 140, which is under MAF for you, as long as you improve or until you need to step up the marathon training. It's not strictly maffetone and will delay the other benefits of staying strictly low, but it will allow you to build up the miles, increase your pace, lower your HR and eventually get to run at your MAF HR. I more or less backed into this particular approach when I decided to base build. I'd read about Maffetone, but thought other approaches suited me better. Eventually it got to the point where I had nothing to lose and could easily run below MAF. Since a fall marathon would be 9-10 months away, you have plenty of time to try this approach. 2-3 months to push the HR down to MAF. At least 3 months at MAF and then 3-4 months (12-16 weeks) to do a marathon training plan thru the end of september. You'll be all set for a marathon in October. whatever you do stick with it. --jm [This message has been edited by junkmiles (edited Dec-27-2005).] [This message has been edited by junkmiles (edited Dec-27-2005).] IP: Logged
Cashmason Cool Runner	posted Dec-27-2005 10:02 PM Junk Miles has some good ideas if you really really want to try MaF. I have another idea, probably less good. I am trying to read your emotions not your words. A marathon seems to be an important goal for you right now and maf is frustrating you like it does everyone at the start. My suggestion would be bag Maf for now. Train in a way that makes you feel comfortable and enjoy your first marathon. Come back to Maf after you have reached your goals and have free off season time and are not feeling the pressure to prepare for any goal races. IP: Logged
briandirect Cool Runner	posted Dec-28-2005 03:07 AM Hi Junkmiles I think you might have missed my point. Basically; Maf is low instensity aerobic; 'conversational pace' always has to be low intensity aerobic; Lydiard's 1/4 effort is also clearly low intesity aerobic. They might well be different intenities, who knows, but they cannot not be a world apart. IP: Logged
CSuzette Cool Runner	posted Dec-28-2005 09:15 AM My reading of Lydiard indicates that he wanted his runners running most of their mileage in their "steady state" which was about 70-75 percent of MaxHR. That would be the 100 MPW that everyone talks about. This assumes that their AT was at 75 percent. For some elite athletes it can be higher. However, I was looking at one of his recent interviews and he said that the 100 MPW was not all of the running that they did. 6 days a week they ran one hour in the morning at a "jog" whatever that was. That means that they must have been doing their running in the afternoon. Interesting. IP: Logged
junkmiles Cool Runner	posted Dec-28-2005 10:03 AM quote: Originally posted by briandirect: Hi Junkmiles I think you might have missed my point. Basically; Maf is low instensity aerobic; 'conversational pace' always has to be low intensity aerobic; Lydiard's 1/4 effort is also clearly low intesity aerobic. They might well be different intenities, who knows, but they cannot not be a world apart. Nope, I got it and I agree with you. I was just pointing out additional data to support your point. I wasn't clear, sorry. The 1/4 effort is supposed to be easy running. I'm pretty sure in many cases though, Lydiard's 1/4 effort is likely to be above unadjusted MAF especially for masters runners. Lydiard's low end easy running is more in line with the Pfitzinger approach model ~70%HRR rather than the McMillan or Daniel's low end (65-70% maxHR). A lot of folks would agree that Pfitzinger's approach is probably better suited to those who are already fit. Even as you noted, you don't really start Lydiard's approach until you've been doing a few months of nothing but very easy running/jogging. In my case, the model from each coach(MAF~Lydiard~Pfitzinger~Daniel's~Hadd) all fall within the same range, depending on whether or not I consider myself fit or not. I take the 5bpm Maffetone allows and I'm running more in line with Pfitzinger/Lydiard levels of effort. I run to an unadjusted MAF and I'm doing my easy running more along the lines of McMillan, Hadd and Daniel's at the low end. I think each will have it's place as a person gets more fit. I'm fit enough to easily run for 2 hours or more at a decent clip, but my running at lowHR sucks. That just means I'm in shape, but not necessarily aerobically fit. I'm not racing anytime soon so working the low-end is worth the sacrifice (slow running) until my pace improves. IP: Logged
BJL Cool Runner	posted Dec-28-2005 11:09 AM quote: Originally posted by junkmiles: If you really can't get thru a week at MAF and you had been doing your earlier running at 155 you could ease into MAF. Try the following approach: Push your HR down to 150, which should be marginally slower than your 155 pace. When you see an incremental improvement (e.g. 20-30s/mi), push down another 5bpm. Now you're running at 145; you will slow down again. When you see an improvement at 145, push down again. Now you're running at 140, you're not walking, and you are running close to a pace at 140 that you could previously only hit at 150 or 155. Continue to run at 140, which is under MAF for you, as long as you improve or until you need to step up the marathon training. Since a fall marathon would be 9-10 months away, you have plenty of time to try this approach. 2-3 months to push the HR down to MAF. At least 3 months at MAF and then 3-4 months (12-16 weeks) to do a marathon training plan thru the end of september. You'll be all set for a marathon in October. whatever you do stick with it. --jm Thank you, I think I will try this, easy running and incrementally pushing down the bpm. I'm so excited you think I could be all set for October b/c that's when the Chicago Marathon is, if I dare...not sure if or when I should sign up. I'll see how this backwards MAF approach works. I do want to be aerobically fit, I feel physically fit. Thank you for responding and your suggestion - I sincerely appreciate it! ------------------ Each day is a gift from God, let's live like we believe it... IP: Logged
briandirect Cool Runner	posted Dec-28-2005 11:12 AM quote: Originally posted by junkmiles: I'm pretty sure in many cases though, Lydiard's 1/4 effort is likely to be above unadjusted MAF especially for masters runners. I am sure that is so for many people at least. Good luck with your training. I am ratcheting down my HR from above. Might not be the optimum or base level, though it feels so and is considerably slower than I have ever run before. Anyway, I am heading south with my levels and reading up more on the MAFstuff on the way. IP: Logged
portlander Cool Runner	posted Dec-28-2005 03:28 PM I have been at this for 3 weeks, and have yet to do a MAF test. My MAF is 153, and I did a MAF-15 test last Friday on a trail loop that I always call 1.5 miles but I know is a bit short, just not sure how much. This is my favorite place in the world to run and interestingly, my HR always seems lower there by several bpm. It may be the environment, or just the fact that there are no sources of interference. Here are the results (lap/time/HR): 1 14:57 134 2 14:09 136 3 14:21 135 4 14:21 135 5 14:15 135 ----------- Total ~7.5 miles, 1:12:05, avg 134 (avg hr as shown on garmin - seems wrong based on lap data) Notes: Depending on the actual length of the loop (say 1.4 - 1.5 miles), this was between 9:34 and 10:15 pace. Much faster than my training runs have been over the last 3 weeks, even though I walked about 25m of a hill portion to keep strictly under 140. I was flying on the long, gradual downhill trying to keep HR above 130! It also felt like a much more intense effort. I'm not sure what to make of all this - breakthrough maybe? It looks like I am holding pretty steady at this HR. I think I will put in 2 more weeks at this level with hopefully more volume, and then bump to MAF-10. My question: Should I do a MAF test at 153 HR? Frankly I am concerned that I will be going way too fast - 153 is 80% of max for me (I'm 32, max HR=190), and I don't want to undo the work I've done so far. However, I would also really like to have a baseline to measure against over time. Any thoughts? IP: Logged
junkmiles Cool Runner	posted Dec-28-2005 07:10 PM quote: Originally posted by portlander: My question: Should I do a MAF test at 153 HR? Frankly I am concerned that I will be going way too fast - 153 is 80% of max for me (I'm 32, max HR=190), and I don't want to undo the work I've done so far. However, I would also really like to have a baseline to measure against over time. Any thoughts? I would keep most of your runs at this HR (140) and only bump up to MAF-10 on a couple of runs per week. When you can nail MAF-10 for an hour or more without slowing down or HR rise then you can bump up again. I wouldn't run at the 153 target anytime soon. See what kind of progress you make over the next 8 weeks. IP: Logged
Run Page Run Cool Runner	posted Dec-28-2005 07:22 PM Hey BJL, I'm a newbie to and have been running for about six months also. I smoked for about twenty years and quit a little over a year ago. I walked regularly for about five months before I started running. I'm a 44 yr. old male and am five nine tall and weigh about 173.I need to loose about five or ten more lbs of belly. I had built up to four to five miles every other night and six to eight mile longruns on the weekend and ran a pace of about ten mins/mile or eleven when i didn't feel as good.So, i to know the feeling of running and now wogging. I got a hrm and ran my first maff run 11/12/05. I mostly ran by time and not mileage but today i ran six miles on a dirt road with a fair amount of hills and a few are real steep and long. It took me 80 mins to run the six miles and my avg hr was 132. I use a maff of 126-136 and i try to stay at 130 but let it go to 136 on hills. When on a steep hill, when i get to 136 i slow down to the slowest jog possible rather than walk....as a matter of fact i can walk faster but i choose to do it this way. So i also know the feeling of the big 13min miles lol..... IP: Logged
ridgeline Member	posted Dec-28-2005 07:46 PM I tried out a HRM for the first time today. I was somewhat excited and nervous about what to expect given all this talk about how slow you must run at first. Background: i am at BEST an average runner and have not even used a watch during runs in some years. Calculated my max aerobic to be 150 bpm. I was surprised that i was not surprised at all. I ended up running pretty much exactly the same pace i do for 90% of my runs whic was @ 9 min/miles. I am so surprised b/c of what others, who i assume many of which are far faster runners than i, must maintain 10-14 min/mile paces for their target zone. Did i mis-calculate somewhere? Perhaps i have inadvertenly been training slow enough for some time but need to work more on my anerobic system to get faster...?? Anyone else have this experience? IP: Logged
Ksabbo Cool Runner	posted Dec-28-2005 07:48 PM quote: Originally posted by Run Page Run: know the feeling of running and now wogging. Don't know if the "wogging" was a typo or not, but that was great! I have done a bit of "wogging" myself on the hills. LOL Karen IP: Logged
Ksabbo Cool Runner	posted Dec-28-2005 07:54 PM quote: Originally posted by ridgeline: Anyone else have this experience? Yes, I did for the first run! Then I realized I had not calculated correctly . My first run was approx. 10 BPM over Maff. The second run was probably 5 BPM too high. I finally got it down to where it should be and experienced the Slooooowwwwwness. You may be a lucky one, but to be sure you may want to provide your statistics, i.e. male, female, age, weight, condition. What method of calculation did you use? These questions aren't suggested for me to give you a response , but rather some of the other more experienced Maff'rs. Karen IP: Logged
portlander Cool Runner	posted Dec-28-2005 08:00 PM quote: Originally posted by tpr55: Is it possible that I'm just not going to see major pace improvements? Even so, I would like to think that I am gaining something from this experiment/effort, but if the numbers are so unforgiving, I fear I may be wasting time. tpr55, do you take in a lot of caffeine? It will definitely raise your HR. I don't have any of my own data to support this, but I noticed a big difference in my HR over the summer when I ran before I had my coffee. At the time, I wasn't training by heart rate, so I didn't really care; 9:00/mile felt about the same whether I drank coffee or not, but the difference was approx 5-8 beats on the HRM. My New Year's resolution will be to stop drinking coffee. It's going to be a tough one, but it will be so much easier to get through if I see an impact on my running! IP: Logged
portlander Cool Runner	posted Dec-28-2005 08:10 PM quote: Originally posted by ridgeline: Anyone else have this experience? Yes, please post your info on how you calculated the MAF number. My MAF (153) calculates out to approximately 80% of max. Even before I started following the maffetone approach, I didn't run that fast on my easy days! As Jesse mentions early in this thread, you should start out at 10 or even 15 bpm below MAF for maximum benefits. So, I'm starting at MAF-15 which puts me at about 10:45/mile. IP: Logged
ridgeline Member	posted Dec-28-2005 09:25 PM I calculated MAF exactly how it says in Training for Endurance: 180- Age then from -5 to +5 based on running history. male - 32 yrs - running for a few years with limited injury history. not fast, but train long often (3+ hours - a few recent 50K runs). I set HRM at MAF -10 as a range. IP: Logged
Run Page Run Cool Runner	posted Dec-28-2005 10:39 PM Ridgeline, it sounds like your in really good shape. Leitner, the guy that started this post has had some amazing results with this program and if one reads his post it shows that he is very disciplined, hard working, and doesn't cheat a bit. I think alot of us newbies and other runners trying Maff for the first time need to realize that there are probably alot of variables associated with this program and what and how fast we will progress. Take Leitner for example and i'll compare him to me. Leitner not only ran many miles per week at his Maff pace but he also swam and biked using the same method. I mean this guy can go from what he has posted ,Runs I think fifty or sixty miles a week, takes fifty mile bike rides and swims for hours. His sheer volume of aeorbic work, plus he strength trains i believe, and he no doubt has good genetics for this, plus he no doubt is a hard worker, has much paitence, and is dedicated to his program. Ok so this guy has a plan and sticks to it and did really well on this program. Ok now me, I have only been running for six months, just quit smoking a year ago and was running above Maff most of the time untill five weeks ago. I can only run about 24 miles per week max right now and i don't bike or swim.The only strength training i do is one leg squats, just a few sets per leg after my runs to try and keep from getting a thigh imbalance but i do have a good stretching routine. I am fairly dedicated to this but I'm having a hard time increasing mileage due to family and just my ole 44yr young body doesn't want to recover that fast even at my maff which should all be recovery runs lol. Anyway I am willing to stick with the slow running for several reasons. I have seen what it has done for some others other than Leitner to. I feel at my age and the newbie i am it is the safest way to run for now, meaning i believe there is a lot less chance for injury and i'd rather be able to run my 23 or 25 mpw rather than get hurt and not run for a month at all and have to start over. Even if it never helps me at my low mileages and 13mins per mile it has to prepare me for later when i run 10 min miles or less for i have done that already but I deep down have the belief that I to will one day be running a 12 min mile at a hr of 130 then a 11 min mile at a hr of 130, but after that I don't know but will see. I also believe the hills i run up now and top out at 135 in my 13min miles....one day i'm gonna cruise up those hills at a hr of 128,,,YES, and a 11 min mile at least. COOL. Then if i decide to let it rip...only the skys the limit. I view this Maff training as a major part in the whole scheme of training and for me that means four to six months of Maff....and the length of time depends on how i fare with it...then, I will use periodization....pick up the pace....for two or three months,then pick it up some more and try some speed work, then back to base building with Maff. So if i stick with running, Maff will be in my life probably at least a third of a year. I don't have any plans for any races in the future for now so I don't have that bothering me...and i have noticed alot of people on here that have plans for races seem to really get discouraged with Maff. In closing, I believe that the runners that can already run high mileage will progress faster than a low mileage runner as myself with this or any other program,but we all must ramp up the mileage slowly for less chance of injury. Why get impatient....like i haven't... when running is supposed to be part of our lifestyle? I don't think most of us are trying to get ready for one big race and then end our carrear. If we view Maff or any running program as just a part of our plan that is to work into our plans of running the rest of our life, then it's not that big of a deal to have to slow way down for AWHILE, cause for me if i'm ever gonna race it's several years out. Take care all, Page IP: Logged

All times are Eastern Time (US).	> next newest topic \| > next oldest topic Topic is 65 pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65
Administrative Options: > Open Topic \| > Archive/Move \| > Delete Topic Hop to: