posted Jan-02-2006 04:22 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by leitnerj:
Yup. But, on the contrary, I believe over anaerobic threshold
(which some consider slightly different from lactate threshold),
I believe everything is fully anaerobic, no oxygen being used
and all carb being used for energy. The two vo2max tests I
have had done, from different organizations, both define AT
as the point at which RQ = 1 and hence all energy is from carb.
Neither identifies a lactate threshold, probably because, there
are no actual blood lactate measurements and hence it can't
be determined exactly. However, O2 and CO2 intake and
exhaust are measured precisely.

---

Here is one definition of AT from the literature, but I do believe other schools of thought give different definitions.

"During exercise, the oxygen consumption above which aerobic energy production is supplemented by anaerobic mechanisms, causing a sustained increase in lactate and metabolic acidosis, is termed the anaerobic threshold (AT). The oxygen consumption at the AT depends on factors that affect oxygen delivery to the tissues. It is increased when oxygen flow is enhanced and decreased when oxygen flow is diminished."

It would seem that this definition promotes the idea of the using LT and AT interchangably. At least the last sentence provides a basis for why lowHR training helps raise your LT or AT. The physiological adaptations of lowHR improve oxygen delivery to the muscles.

I have seen others use something more akin to your definition, but I can't remember where.

--jm

IP: Logged

posted Jan-02-2006 05:39 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by junkmiles:

Here is one definition of AT from the literature, but I do believe other schools of thought give different definitions.

"During exercise, the oxygen consumption above which aerobic energy production is supplemented by anaerobic mechanisms, causing a sustained increase in lactate and metabolic acidosis, is termed the anaerobic threshold (AT). The oxygen consumption at the AT depends on factors that affect oxygen delivery to the tissues. It is increased when oxygen flow is enhanced and decreased when oxygen flow is diminished."

It would seem that this definition promotes the idea of the using LT and AT interchangably. At least the last sentence provides a basis for why lowHR training helps raise your LT or AT. The physiological adaptations of lowHR improve oxygen delivery to the muscles.

I have seen others use something more akin to your definition, but I can't remember where.

--jm

---

Yeah, most information, on-line at least, seems to use them interchangeably. I think they represent two different concepts that
happen in virtually the same circumstances. Then, of course, some
will say there is no lactate threshold.

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

MyStuff

[This message has been edited by leitnerj (edited Jan-02-2006).]

IP: Logged

posted Jan-02-2006 07:02 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by leitnerj:
Yeah, most information, on-line at least, seems to use them interchangeably. I think they represent two different concepts that happen in virtually the same circumstances. Then, of course, some will say there is no lactate threshold.

---

Those folks are playing with or taking advantage of semantics. They complain that a threshold is an abrubt line of departure.

While it may not be abrupt, there certainly is a transition range where you start to accumulate lactate faster than you can clear it. And training below that 'range' is necessary for aerobic development.

--jm

IP: Logged

posted Jan-02-2006 08:15 PM               

------------------
http://interwovendesign.com/kick/userdisplay.php3?username=A6RNNER

IP: Logged

posted Jan-02-2006 08:51 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by A6RNNER:
alrighty, ive got maffetones book on order and have been doing hr training with my new 625 for about a week or so now and its definitely slooooowed my run speed down. feel great afterwards and am not sore like before so i can really see how this will work with my running...QUESTION...does the your same 70% hr work with other multisports, specifically biking and swimming...i know its probably in the 40+ pages here but i dont feel like reading a book 2night.
thanks

---

You need to stay under MAF for everything. All sports and activities.
And you will see similar results. My pace in biking and swimming picked
up in similar ways to running using this approach. Good luck, keep it
simple, and don't cheat and it should pay off for you.

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

MyStuff

IP: Logged

posted Jan-02-2006 09:02 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by junkmiles:

Those folks are playing with or taking advantage of semantics. They complain that a threshold is an abrubt line of departure.

While it may not be abrupt, there certainly is a transition range where you start to accumulate lactate faster than you can clear it. And training below that 'range' is necessary for aerobic development.

--jm

---

I think we can safely say this - at a similar heart rate below vo2max,
there is a point where lactic acid accumulates very quickly and
a point where there is a metabolic endpoint to the use of oxygen,
and henceforth, to the use of fats for fuel. There is nothing magic
about this point, as far as the energy sources go because there has
been a gradual transition to this point. However, being the "endpoint"
for the aerobic system, it becomes a very meaningful point upon
which to base training zones, as it accounts for fitness, genetics,
and other individual quantities, whereas basing them on maximum
heart rate does not take into account all such factors.

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

MyStuff

IP: Logged

posted Jan-02-2006 09:46 PM            

I could feel that my running form had suffered from the extremely slow pace. Then the other day I read in Advanced Marathoning where Pfitzinger warns that excessively slow long runs reinforce poor running style, and I had to agree that this was happening to me. My ideas of good form (which I am finding difficult to follow) include: relaxed upper body, good posture ("running tall"), smooth and light steps ("running on eggshells"), and ~180 strides/min.

I think I could stand the slow pace if I believed I could do it without developing bad habits. Is anyone else having trouble with this? As for myself, I have decided to train at a slightly higher HR for a while, to see if I can regain my form and get some of the aerobic improvements at the same time.

IP: Logged

posted Jan-02-2006 10:06 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by msteed:
Without meaning to derail the fascinating discussion, here is something that has been bugging me. I am entering my 5th week of low HR training. Initially I was targeting my MAF HR during all runs. Having seen zero improvement in my pace after three weeks (impatient, I know), I started targeting MAF-5 so that I stayed strictly below my MAF HR. This has slowed me to a pace of 12:00 to 14:00 (I can't avoid the hills if I want to run outside).

I could feel that my running form had suffered from the extremely slow pace. Then the other day I read in Advanced Marathoning where Pfitzinger warns that excessively slow long runs reinforce poor running style, and I had to agree that this was happening to me. My ideas of good form (which I am finding difficult to follow) include: relaxed upper body, good posture ("running tall"), smooth and light steps ("running on eggshells"), and ~180 strides/min.

I think I could stand the slow pace if I believed I could do it without developing bad habits. Is anyone else having trouble with this? As for myself, I have decided to train at a slightly higher HR for a while, to see if I can regain my form and get some of the aerobic improvements at the same time.

---

I think you've got to do what you're comfortable with and what you
believe in. The only thing I can tell you is that I can run a mile in
about 5:36 (I'm sure better today) and I started out at around a
17 minute mile, working through 15, 12, and the low 7s about 4 months
later, while my marathon time improved by over 30 minutes, my
50 mile time improved by over 2 hours, and my 10k time improved
by over 2 minutes. Initially, the only way I could go so slowly was
on the treadmill. There are no flat runs here (except on tracks) and
there's probably no way I could have done those paces outside in
the summer at anything that I can come close to calling "running." Pfitzinger is a well-respected runner, coach, and exercise physiologist, but he (and others who say the same thing)
is wrong on this one. However, I would say that it is probably true
that if you run slowly all the time, at basically the same pace, you'll
get slower. A short period of a few weeks changing your running
gait is not going to affect anything.

I do believe in people finding a program that works for them, whether
it's something like this or the more traditional. However, I would
suggest that you find a respected program and stick with it as closely
as possible. Hence, follow a Pfitz-type program, but just make sure
you don't overdo it on the "easier" days. You may not see aerobic
system development over the short term, but you certainly have a
good chance of success with it if your body can handle it. This
Maffetone stuff doesn't work when done "half way." I've tried it and
if you think your frustration level is high, it will be worse because
you'll be slowing yourself down, seeing no improvement, and you
may actually become slower. By the way, his reference to pace
is ambiguous here, but Pfitzinger does assume that you have a good
aerobic base before beginning his training programs as he describes
in this article: Pfitz on Aerobic Base.
My feeling is that he avoids specific discussion of paces, heart rates,
and so forth because he doesn't want to contradict the statement that
you quoted above.

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

MyStuff

IP: Logged

posted Jan-03-2006 01:15 AM            

IP: Logged

posted Jan-03-2006 01:47 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by msteed:
Without meaning to derail the fascinating discussion, here is something that has been bugging me. I am entering my 5th week of low HR training. Initially I was targeting my MAF HR during all runs. Having seen zero improvement in my pace after three weeks (impatient, I know), I started targeting MAF-5 so that I stayed strictly below my MAF HR. This has slowed me to a pace of 12:00 to 14:00 (I can't avoid the hills if I want to run outside).

I could feel that my running form had suffered from the extremely slow pace. Then the other day I read in Advanced Marathoning where Pfitzinger warns that excessively slow long runs reinforce poor running style, and I had to agree that this was happening to me. My ideas of good form (which I am finding difficult to follow) include: relaxed upper body, good posture ("running tall"), smooth and light steps ("running on eggshells"), and ~180 strides/min.

I think I could stand the slow pace if I believed I could do it without developing bad habits. Is anyone else having trouble with this? As for myself, I have decided to train at a slightly higher HR for a while, to see if I can regain my form and get some of the aerobic improvements at the same time.

---

Yes, the exact same thing is happening to me. I'm not sure what to do. I've tried to concentrate on form, but I'm plodding along and it's not pretty. I'm almost a month in so I haven't done this long enough to debate the merits of the program, but suffice to say that I wouldn't have done it in the first place if I didn't think it was worth trying.

I know that the slower miles are easier on my body overall, but I've slowed down to the point where I've lost any sort of smoothness. My feet seem to land really hard. I clanked through seven miles this morning. That's 90+ minutes of thud, thud, thud. I'm hoping I can see some kind of improvement and pick up just a little bit of pace so I can get some form back.

IP: Logged

posted Jan-03-2006 08:33 AM               

Q - is it okay to "stride out" the last bit? I like to race my dog for the last block, it feels good to have my legs go fast after plodding along so slow, it's less than a minute but it's breaking MAF rules...it's also interesting to see how quickly HR comes back down. Anyone else push at the end of a run?

------------------
Each day is a gift from God, let's live like we believe it...

IP: Logged

posted Jan-03-2006 09:16 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by leitnerj:
By the way, his reference to pace is ambiguous here, but Pfitzinger does assume that you have a good aerobic base before beginning his training programs as he describes in this article: Pfitz on Aerobic Base. My feeling is that he avoids specific discussion of paces, heart rates, and so forth because he doesn't want to contradict the statement that you quoted above.

---

As near as I can tell, by "excessively slow" Pfitz means less than 73% HRmax or 65% HRR -- these are the low end of his recommended long run intensity. Since these intensities are based on HRmax, they can differ largely from Maffetone's 180 formula. But in my case, MAF = 180-37 = 143, and Pfitz = 0.73*185 = 135 or 0.65*135+50 = 138. Pfitz's upper limit for aerobic/easy runs is much higher than MAF (0.83*185 = 153 or 0.78*135+50 = 155). 153-155 bpm is not an easy effort for me, and I plan to stay well below that. My grand hope is to become faster at a fairly low HR (say MAF+2 or +3) in the next few weeks, and work my way back to training at MAF-5. This is not strict Maffetone, but I must do what I can to keep my sanity.

IP: Logged

posted Jan-03-2006 10:17 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by msteed:

I think I could stand the slow pace if I believed I could do it without developing bad habits. Is anyone else having trouble with this? As for myself, I have decided to train at a slightly higher HR for a while, to see if I can regain my form and get some of the aerobic improvements at the same time.

---

Your gait is going to change a bit to run slower, but you should be able to maintain the 180 stride rate if you shorten up your stride considerably. As far as running tall, you shouldn't have to adjust that to slow down. The light feet is a little harder the slower you go, but you don't have to pound the ground either.

It may take a bit more concentration, but you should be able to avoid getting any bad habits ingrained. Of course, you would hope to speed up over the coming weeks.

good luck.

--jm

IP: Logged

posted Jan-03-2006 10:50 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by BJL:

Q - is it okay to "stride out" the last bit? I like to race my dog for the last block, it feels good to have my legs go fast after plodding along so slow, it's less than a minute but it's breaking MAF rules...it's also interesting to see how quickly HR comes back down. Anyone else push at the end of a run?

---

Congrats!

On your question: 100m strides with full recovery 2-3 times per week are part of the program and won't result in lactate buildup. In your case, it totally depends on how long your end of run push lasts. Pushing it for a minute or so at the end of the run is technically breaking the Maffetone 'rules'. I'm just speculating, but I'd say that anything more than 30s or so is probably too long according to Maffetone.

--jm

IP: Logged

posted Jan-03-2006 12:00 PM               

One of my new years running resolutions is to enter one race per month. These will be anywhere from 5K to Marathon distance.

At the same time, I am committed to training at or under MAF for all my non-race training runs. While I have not seen dramatic pace improvement yet, running aerobically has allowed me to run 50+ miles a week without any injury and I'd like to keep that up. I'm guessing that when you add up all my monthly mileage, I'll be running at or under MAF about 85% to 90% of the time.

Will running above MAF one race per month screw up the aerobic training - or should that be fine? My main "goal" race is a Fall (Silicon Valley) Marathon. I have a July Marathon (SF) planned which essentially will be treated as a long training run. I'm hoping to have a fairly decent aerobic engine primed for late October. However, if I'm going off track, let me know.

Thanks.

IP: Logged

posted Jan-03-2006 12:57 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by leitnerj:
Yup. But, on the contrary, I believe over anaerobic threshold
(which some consider slightly different from lactate threshold),
I believe everything is fully anaerobic, no oxygen being used
and all carb being used for energy. The two vo2max tests I
have had done, from different organizations, both define AT
as the point at which RQ = 1 and hence all energy is from carb.
Neither identifies a lactate threshold, probably because, there
are no actual blood lactate measurements and hence it can't
be determined exactly. However, O2 and CO2 intake and
exhaust are measured precisely.

---

BTW, thanks for posting your VO2max test results. They look very impressive. I understand where you are coming from with the RQ now, and why this is significant tests. I still feel somewhat skeptical that RQ = 1 and LT are the same point. But I don't need to dig into that now.

I also am puzzled by the idea that respiration is fully aerobic after AT. If so why would we need to breathe at all! OK I know that there are other muscles and organs in the body, but intuitively, one would expect aerobic respiration of main muscles involved in running to continue to increase even after AT. After all we are using more and more oxygen up to VO2max.

[This message has been edited by briandirect (edited Jan-03-2006).]

IP: Logged

posted Jan-03-2006 01:00 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by sibelius:
Would like some opinions please.

One of my new years running resolutions is to enter one race per month. These will be anywhere from 5K to Marathon distance.

At the same time, I am committed to training at or under MAF for all my non-race training runs. While I have not seen dramatic pace improvement yet, running aerobically has allowed me to run 50+ miles a week without any injury and I'd like to keep that up. I'm guessing that when you add up all my monthly mileage, I'll be running at or under MAF about 85% to 90% of the time.

Will running above MAF one race per month screw up the aerobic training - or should that be fine? My main "goal" race is a Fall (Silicon Valley) Marathon. I have a July Marathon (SF) planned which essentially will be treated as a long training run. I'm hoping to have a fairly decent aerobic engine primed for late October. However, if I'm going off track, let me know.

Thanks.

---

Maffetone would say no running above MAF at anytime during base building. Folks on this board who have seen significant improvement dedicated a block of time (12-20 weeks) and stayed strictly below MAF under all conditions. 85-90% of your runs under MAF will probably help maintain your aerobic base to date. It probably won't improve it as fast as 100% <MAF, if it improves it at all.

--jm

IP: Logged

posted Jan-03-2006 03:13 PM            

I have been doing the HR training for about 4 weeks. However, I have been really sick so wasn't able to run for 2 weeks (not included in the 4 weeks of training) I finailly got back to running today, and man I couldn't even run w.o my HR going way up?

Is this normal, and will it recover or am I starting from scratch again?

Little history- running over a year about 15-20mpw avg high 9's -10/min miles. With HR training slowed to 11-12/mile on TM 12's outside. Todays run 13-14/min miles. Walked mostly.

IP: Logged

posted Jan-03-2006 04:33 PM            

So I commit to 12 weeks of MAF training...then what?

I want to train for San Diego again (thanks to all those resolutions)
Do I use something like this?
Mon Easy (MAF)
Tues mid-long run...easy/base
wed off
Thurs - track, speed play
Fri off or easy 3
Sat or Sun Long? (MAF style)

or is there some other training regime suggestion?

------------------
This is me

IP: Logged

posted Jan-03-2006 04:38 PM            

So I commit to 12 weeks of MAF training...then what?

I want to train for San Diego again (thanks to all those resolutions)
Do I use something like this?
Mon Easy (MAF)
Tues mid-long run...easy/base
wed off
Thurs - track, speed play
Fri off or easy 3
Sat or Sun Long? (MAF style)

or is there some other training regime suggestion?

------------------
This is me

IP: Logged

posted Jan-03-2006 05:03 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by christa0120:
ok leitner and other MAFers

So I commit to 12 weeks of MAF training...then what?

I want to train for San Diego again (thanks to all those resolutions)
Do I use something like this?
Mon Easy (MAF)
Tues mid-long run...easy/base
wed off
Thurs - track, speed play
Fri off or easy 3
Sat or Sun Long? (MAF style)

or is there some other training regime suggestion?

---

Christa, No doubt somebody else is going to jump in here and tell you this schedule won't work with Maff. It goes against the basic premis of what Maff is all about. What may work better for you with the racing goals you mentioned would be to train with Parkers program that is based on easy/hard running.

I purchased his book Heart Rate Monitor Training for the Compleat Idiot. Parkers program still has a lot of lower HR training, but has the flexibility of incorporating harder running/racing.

I think you need to choose a program and stick to it. I don't believe you will be happy with the results if you try to modify a program.

I plan on training Maff for 12 weeks and then switch over to Parker.
Karen

IP: Logged

posted Jan-03-2006 07:02 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by jackster:
Is this normal?

I have been doing the HR training for about 4 weeks. However, I have been really sick so wasn't able to run for 2 weeks (not included in the 4 weeks of training) I finailly got back to running today, and man I couldn't even run w.o my HR going way up?

Is this normal, and will it recover or am I starting from scratch again?

Little history- running over a year about 15-20mpw avg high 9's -10/min miles. With HR training slowed to 11-12/mile on TM 12's outside. Todays run 13-14/min miles. Walked mostly.

---

Jackster - Are you still on meds? They can really mess w/ your HR. I'm not clear, but if you've had 2 weeks off, and if your illness was at all respiratory, then I would not worry, keep taking it easy & see what happens. I know if you stay at the MAF or below, you'll get healthier faster. You run WAY faster than me, and I've only now after 5-6wks of HR training been able to go the whole way w/o walking or "wogging" b/c my HR was too high. I had a terrible sinus/borderline pneumonia thing so I think it's just taken a long time to heal from it. I'm going to guess you'll be back to your 11-12 within 10-14 days...but I'm completely novice at this so I'm sure others will offer more sound advice. Take care of yourself.

------------------
Each day is a gift from God, let's live like we believe it...

IP: Logged

posted Jan-03-2006 07:18 PM            

Kudos to all Maffers (Maffies?)! This thread has achieved ultra status, thanks to all the low HR.

IP: Logged

posted Jan-03-2006 07:21 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by msteed:
As near as I can tell, by "excessively slow" Pfitz means less than 73% HRmax or 65% HRR -- these are the low end of his recommended long run intensity. Since these intensities are based on HRmax, they can differ largely from Maffetone's 180 formula. But in my case, MAF = 180-37 = 143, and Pfitz = 0.73*185 = 135 or 0.65*135+50 = 138. Pfitz's upper limit for aerobic/easy runs is much higher than MAF (0.83*185 = 153 or 0.78*135+50 = 155). 153-155 bpm is not an easy effort for me, and I plan to stay well below that. My grand hope is to become faster at a fairly low HR (say MAF+2 or +3) in the next few weeks, and work my way back to training at MAF-5. This is not strict Maffetone, but I must do what I can to keep my sanity.

---

Sounds reasonable to me. Sanity should be top priority. And,
Hadd certainly suggests that for those who can't maintain the
lower heart rate, they should run a bit higher for a while, and
hopefully it will go down - which is what junkmiles proposed.
Keep us posted - it will be a good data point. Good luck.

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

MyStuff

IP: Logged

posted Jan-03-2006 09:14 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by pmbooks:
...post #1000.

Kudos to all Maffers (Maffies?)! This thread has achieved ultra status, thanks to all the low HR.

---

you may have to try again! I'm not sure what's been going on with
this site tonight, but I was finally able to delete all of my excess
posts of the same thing. I guess it does help to have a long-winded
blatherer who started the thing.

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

MyStuff

IP: Logged