posted Jan-03-2006 09:22 PM            

Congrats to all Maffers (Maffies?)

IP: Logged

posted Jan-03-2006 09:32 PM               

IP: Logged

posted Jan-03-2006 09:44 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ksabbo:
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 [b]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[/B]

---

I certainly agree - and it's a great plan to start out with the strict
Maffetone plan and then transition to Parker or some other multi-zone
method if you feel like something different will be required to take you
to the next level.

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

MyStuff

IP: Logged

posted Jan-03-2006 09:52 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mike Behnke:
I have to jump in here to report continuing success with low HR training! I'm about 7 weeks into it now. My first few runs were in the 10:30-10:50 pace range at 139 bpm for 3-mile runs. Today, I ran a 6 mile run outside on a semi-hilly course and the slowest mile was 9:50! I ran mile 4 at 9:22 with only 133 bpm. So needless to say I am excited so far. I have to admit that patience is no problem right now as I have no races until maybe trying for a 10K PR around June. I'm also excited about how good my body feels all the while increasing my miles per week. I'm at 30 mpw and shooting for a goal of around 50 mpw by mid May or June. To all other "Maffetoners" HANG IN THERE! 'cause I know I'm going to. Thanks Jesse for starting this thread!

---

That's great to hear. Sometimes I wonder if this thread causes more
frustration than good. At some point, while I'm slowly trying to build
some sort of FAQ, I need to take the time to try to roll up all of the
people who have been very successful at it and see if there's something
clearly in common (not so nebulous as "higher concentration of
slow twitch muscle fibers or something). It would be nice if we could
give everyone an answer "yes, it will work for you" or "nope, sorry, you're
not the type"

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

MyStuff

IP: Logged

posted Jan-03-2006 09:55 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.

---

It is normal in two ways - first, you probably still have a lingering part
of your illness (my guess is that your resting heart rate may be 20-30
beats high), and second, yes, after a couple of weeks, you will lose
some of the fitness, but it should come back within a few runs. Don't
sweat it, just ease back in, keep it low, and it shouldn't be long to
return to where you were.

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

MyStuff

IP: Logged

posted Jan-03-2006 10:00 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by briandirect:

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).]

---

I'm not sure the results themselves are impressive, but the
improvement from February, just before my injury (and my MAF
training) was the notable part. AT and LT certainly are probably
just near the same point in reality (not necessarily at the same
point), but you're getting beyond my capacity with your analysis of
the physiology!

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

MyStuff

IP: Logged

posted Jan-04-2006 08:30 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by leitnerj:
I certainly agree - and it's a great plan to start out with the strict
Maffetone plan and then transition to Parker or some other multi-zone
method if you feel like something different will be required to take you
to the next level.

---

To Karen...
sorry if my post was not clear enough...I am that way when speaking also, just can't seem to get the real point across.

Leitner...

So you do agree that 12 weeks of MAF for base building is good (enough) and then perhaps try a more rigerous training for a specific event?
Like speed play and hills?

Another part to this question is (and I haven't seen this in the book yet) is what kind of running schedule does MAF recommend? How many miles per week? run etc? or is that left up to me and what I think I require?
Would a 20 mile a week (or should I aim for 25-30) base be enough to start marathon training that will incorporate speed and hill work?
For San Diego I KNOW I need hill work, the flatness of Phoenix does not help me train for the wonderful rolling landscape of San Diego (btw it seems to only roll up)

IP: Logged

posted Jan-04-2006 10:52 AM            

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.

---

Could be meds as indicated.
If not meds then it is totally normal. Your body may still be recoverying from being sick. More likely, with two weeks off running, you probably lost a non-trivial amount of the fitness gains you made previously. I missed 4 days of running a couple weeks ago due to cold/flu. My first two days back were lousy and it took 5 days to get back to the level I was at 2-3 days before I noticed symptoms. I use this as a reference point, because 2 days before symptoms my runs were on a negative trend, so I was already coming down with something.

So, 2 weeks off could require at least that long to get back to where you were. Slow down and ease back into it. Don't expect to start right back up where you were.

--jm

IP: Logged

posted Jan-04-2006 03:23 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by christa0120:

...............
Another part to this question is (and I haven't seen this in the book yet) is what kind of running schedule does MAF recommend? How many miles per week? run etc? or is that left up to me and what I think I require?
Would a 20 mile a week (or should I aim for 25-30) base be enough to start marathon training that will incorporate speed and hill work?
For San Diego I KNOW I need hill work, the flatness of Phoenix does not help me train for the wonderful rolling landscape of San Diego (btw it seems to only roll up)

---

Not sure Maffetone makes a recommendation on mileage, but I haven't read his books yet. I know a lot of marathon training plans I've seen recommend you be able to run 20mi/wk at the start. You'll build to peak mileage from there. If you can swing the time you should maximize the number of miles you run while building your base. How much you run will impact on what you plan for your marathon training. How many miles do you plan on running when you start a traditional marathon plan?

Also, for now you may want to use time as a better measure than mileage, especially if you've slowed down a lot to hit your MAF target.

One thing I would definitely recommend is that you vary your MAF runs on a daily basis. For example, if you work up to a 20-30mi/wk in 5 days you'd eventually run something like the following:

3 off 6 3 6 off 9 (or 12). or in time: 30 off 60 30 60 off 90 (2h)

A 12 mile long run may be a bit high for 30 miles/week, but this is illustrative, not specific. You can stall your progress if your daily runs are all the same length and intensity. During MAF, since all runs are easy you need to get the hard/easy component of training from time/distance.

good luck.

--jm

p.s. for folks who are not seeing improvement and running relatively low mileage, insufficient variation in your runs day-to-day may be a factor.

[This message has been edited by junkmiles (edited Jan-04-2006).]

IP: Logged

posted Jan-04-2006 05:54 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by junkmiles:

Not sure Maffetone makes a recommendation on mileage, but I haven't read his books yet. I know a lot of marathon training plans I've seen recommend you be able to run 20mi/wk at the start. You'll build to peak mileage from there. If you can swing the time you should maximize the number of miles you run while building your base. How much you run will impact on what you plan for your marathon training. How many miles do you plan on running when you start a traditional marathon plan?

Also, for now you may want to use time as a better measure than mileage, especially if you've slowed down a lot to hit your MAF target.

One thing I would definitely recommend is that you vary your MAF runs on a daily basis. For example, if you work up to a 20-30mi/wk in 5 days you'd eventually run something like the following:

3 off 6 3 6 off 9 (or 12). or in time: 30 off 60 30 60 off 90 (2h)

A 12 mile long run may be a bit high for 30 miles/week, but this is illustrative, not specific. You can stall your progress if your daily runs are all the same length and intensity. During MAF, since all runs are easy you need to get the hard/easy component of training from time/distance.

good luck.

--jm

p.s. for folks who are not seeing improvement and running relatively low mileage, insufficient variation in your runs day-to-day may be a factor.

[This message has been edited by junkmiles (edited Jan-04-2006).]

---

Ty JM,
very informative post, gives me lots of things to think about.
I also agree with the varying of the runs...which I have done in my prior experiences also.

IP: Logged

posted Jan-04-2006 06:50 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by christa0120:

Leitner...

So you do agree that 12 weeks of MAF for base building is good (enough) and then perhaps try a more rigerous training for a specific event?
Like speed play and hills?

Another part to this question is (and I haven't seen this in the book yet) is what kind of running schedule does MAF recommend? How many miles per week? run etc? or is that left up to me and what I think I require?
Would a 20 mile a week (or should I aim for 25-30) base be enough to start marathon training that will incorporate speed and hill work?
For San Diego I KNOW I need hill work, the flatness of Phoenix does not help me train for the wonderful rolling landscape of San Diego (btw it seems to only roll up)

---

On your first question, you'll have to decide when you hit 12 weeks
whether it's good enough. When I hit 12 weeks, things were going
really well at strictly low heart rates, so I had no reason to give it
up and I'm glad I didn't. You may feel differently. Nonetheless,
I think spending 12 weeks base building before beginning any program
is going to be a good preparation.

As far as running schedule goes, that's more up to you (or you follow
some schedule). My suggestion in preparing for marathon training is
to get cozy with 25-30 mpw for a while before jumping into a specific
regimen.

You can get great hill work on the camelbak mountain! good stuff.

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

MyStuff

IP: Logged

posted Jan-04-2006 07:20 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by junkmiles:

p.s. for folks who are not seeing improvement and running relatively low mileage, insufficient variation in your runs day-to-day may be a factor.

---

I think this is a great point and I've certainly noticed such a thing.
I find it helpful to squeeze in a "long" and a "medium-long" run
(however you want to define them) in
each week to help keep some variations and is always seems that
the day after each are days for new improvements in pace, subtle
as they may be.

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

MyStuff

IP: Logged

posted Jan-04-2006 09:25 PM               

Does anyone here run right after they lift weights or do you always space them out at different times/days? The reason I ask is that due to my schedule, I run right after I lift 3 days a week. On those days, I notice I have to run .2 to .3 MPH hour slower to keep under MAF than on days where I don't lift before hand. It makes sense as lifting is anaerobic and it no doubt is adding some stress to my system. I know that Maffetone does not recommend lifting in his books but I am committed to 3 days a week for the other benefits of stregth training.

Just curious if this is unique to me or if others have the same experience.

IP: Logged

posted Jan-04-2006 09:32 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by sibelius:
Jesse & Folks:

Does anyone here run right after they lift weights or do you always space them out at different times/days? The reason I ask is that due to my schedule, I run right after I lift 3 days a week. On those days, I notice I have to run .2 to .3 MPH hour slower to keep under MAF than on days where I don't lift before hand. It makes sense as lifting is anaerobic and it no doubt is adding some stress to my system. I know that Maffetone does not recommend lifting in his books but I am committed to 3 days a week for the other benefits of stregth training.

Just curious if this is unique to me or if others have the same experience.

---

I actually do run right after I lift weights (some days), but I only do upper body
weightlifting. I'm not sure I've seen a noticeable difference (either
that or I just haven't paid attention). I also sometimes run right
after biking or swimming (and vice versa). Whenever you do
anything before, you're going to take a little bit out of what you
do after, which shows up in terms of a pace reduction at low HRs.

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

MyStuff

IP: Logged

posted Jan-04-2006 09:41 PM               

Thanks for all your responses and most of all for your dedication to this thread. While I have not had the level of success that you have obtained yet using this method (only been on 3.5 weeks), it has definately allowed me to dramatically increase my mileage while remaining healthy. Good luck in all your endeavors in FY'06.

Scott

IP: Logged

posted Jan-04-2006 09:45 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by sibelius:

Good luck in all your endeavors in FY'06.

---

You must work for the government as well!

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

MyStuff

IP: Logged

posted Jan-05-2006 03:44 AM            

I have been following Low Heart rate training for 4 months now and have seen great improvement in my - training distance/time, pace, injury/stiffness frequency and many non running related things like sleep, energy etc.
If I may I would like to list a few observations that I think may be interesting to this debate.... or may be useful for Jesse while compiling his FAQ's. I certainly don't profess to be an expert in any of the subjects I'm commenting on.... but I have built up some experiences and these are what have shaped my opinions below.
To fill you in I come from a power sport background where short intense bursts are the order of the day. My slow running was very sporadic and I mainly did it as a way of recovering from injury etc. So when calculating my MAF I used the -5 for runners who haven't run for over 2 years... mainly because I haven't run consistently enough over the years. So I worked my MAF to be 180 - 31 - 5 =144. This leads me straight on to my first point.

Over Rating Your MAF.
=====================
I think that some users of the MAF system are 'over rating' themselves (Some give themselves the full +5 points rather than maybe subtracting 5). It is always good to 'under rate' your MAF as I believe that there is more to lose by training just over it than quite a bit under it. I think that the 'running for two years' means consistently at least 4/5 days a week... and the competitive runner' means near elite... even if you have been running this consistently you could still see massive benefits from under rating your MAF I believe.

Staying Aerobic.
================
Mark Allen (I came to train by MAF out of my admiration for him) mentions in one of his articles that if your 'energy generator' switches over to Anaerobic from Aerobic then it can take up to 12 hours to switch back. I know a little about the science behind it but I am not going to over complicate something that not even scientists can agree on. But I think that if you go over a certain heart beat then you are in danger of switching into a more carb based fuel supply (even if your HR comes down again). It is much better to make sure you stay totally aerobic rather than take the 'more is better' theory by trying to exercise right on your MAF. So I would say 'under Rate' your MAF and then stay 10 beats below that (which allows a slight rise on hills).
Initially you should feel a little stiffness after the first few workouts if you are new to running, but after then you should never really have any stiffness/soreness/tightness..... if you do then I would suggest that it is lactic acid build up and a sign that you weren't as aerobic as you should of been!! Slow down!
Cortisol (stress hormone) levels will start to rise quickly if exercise intensity and time go over certain levels. This hormone is bad news.... it is responsible for most of your injuries and illnesses. Slow Down!
I think that staying well away from the anaerobic level is a Huge key to this type of work.

Warm up.
========
Ultra Steve made a very good point earlier in this thread. He mentioned the story of the Ultra runner who walked the first day of an ultra race. This lead me to try a couple of small experiments. I tried to do exactly the same runs but with a warm up that consisted of - 20 min walk then a 15 min run/walk/run/walk. I would then start my run and this really helped in keeping my heart rate stable and no dipping. And I have no doubts that these runs were as close to 100% aerobic as I could get, and my body was really in a 'fat burning for fuel' mode for the whole time. This left me with little fear that my aerobic system, fat burning, circulation etc would all improve over time.
Some would say that with a warm down this is over kill for a 30 min run. But I believe that a 20min warm up and 10/20 min warm down is the minimum that should accompany a run. And possibly the slower you warm into it the better. If you try this you'll notice how well you travel after the 30 minute warm up period is over.
I think warm up is Hugely important.

Running distance/time.
======================
I am a believer that you really need to increase time and distance while slight improvements happen. With people who are on tight time budgets then I suggest just extend that short run when you feel good and when the time allows.
Someone who runs seven days a week with one long run will improve at a much faster rate than someone who runs 4 days a week with only a medium size run. Mark Allen also says that a 20 min walk/jog/run will at least protect your aerobic system so you lose very little. So I would suggest if you have little time then try and do one long run a week and then do 5/6 of these maintenance walk/runs to make sure you lose nothing until the next long run. These maintenance 'workouts' could be as you walk home from work etc.
But I fear some 3 day a week runners aren't doing enough.

Over analysing.
==============
This happens Just like those dieters who believe that the key to losing weight is all about the short term goal. Aerobic base building should be like a good diet/nutrition plan..... it should be a habit and part of your life! You aren't going to break world records in weeks or months. The best athletes don't even bother using a clock in their base period... they just believe in adding up the slow miles and forgetting about everything else.
Nothing is going to happen when you keep jumping on the scales every day..... just believe that every successful athlete out there has a base period just like this every season.... the only difference is they can actually run at their lower heart rates, rather than shuffle/jog/walk.
This is a long term thing and if you do over analyse it then you will become too uptight and it will disappear just like that healthy eating plan.... just relax and let it become habit..... you have the other 6+ months to do what you want with.
Do yourself a favour and leave your stopwatch at home and just run run run. You will feel improvements

All good/fast runners can run aerobically.
==========================================
I know many of you reading run for many different reasons, some are competitive, some aren't. Some want to run a race, some are doing it just for the sake of doing it. But to some the following is going to hurt.... You complain that the initial pace is too slow - doesn't this tell you something about your aerobic fitness??? If you can't run 10 minute miles with a heart rate of 130 then how do you think you are going to run a 10k, Marathon etc at anywhere near that pace? It has been proven that your race pace will be relative to your MAF (Aerobic) pace. To my knowledge there has never been someone you can run much faster at race pace than he can at Aerobic (MAF) pace!

Consistency.
============
To me this is probably the most important thing that you can bring to your running. Without it improvement will be sporadic and sometimes non existent.
Here I am going to give you a couple of quotes that sum up the importance of consistency - Steve Moneghetti (Champion Runner) 'I try to think of my training Diary like a phone book. If I stack up a weeks worth of training then it is easily ripped. If I stack up a month then it is a bit harder to rip. If I stack up a years then it is harder to rip. I aim to stack up my training to the size of a phone book'.
And I'm not too sure who said the this one that I heard recently but I think it was trying to talk about the complexities of weight training when it said '90% is just turning up, the rest is just detail'. This obviously says it all, the ones that perform the best are the ones that train the most consistently..... now I know what you are thinking OVERTRAINING! But that is the great thing about this MAF method, just run more MAF miles than the next man and you'll see better results..... unless he did something special with the other 10%!!
I think what I'm trying to get at is that the most important thing is avoiding injury so you can train as much as you need/want/ or is possible. The MAF method is perfect for this. I think that you only need a rest day every two weeks when training at these low intensities.... a rest day can be a short walk then a short run.... it's only maintenance.

KISS.
=====
A saying that is used a lot in sport - KISS...... Keep It Simple Silly.

I think I have said all I want. I don't really want to be pulled up on the above because like I said it is only my opinions and I don't want to over analyse anything. And I fully realise that certain points I've mentioned might go totally against what others believe. But if you want to agree/disagree with a certain point then I'd love to hear which one and why.

Now that my team sporting 'career' is over I'm going to use this method and when I notice my progress standing still then I will do what weight lifters have been doing for years... Change things (periodise)! Change my length of runs, change the areas that I run, run more on the treadmill, try some hill walking, throw in some cycling and swimming, take a short break, try some beach running etc etc etc and then get back to my routine...... your body has an amazing capacity to get used to the workouts you are doing..... I certainly think a bit of quicker tempo work for a short while wouldn't harm.... then back to solely aerobic..... try this and you'll always improve as long as you just turn up ultra consistently (the 90%).

Thanks for all the input Jesse, Jimmy, Steve and co. I am enjoying it and I will produce some figures when I've been at it a little longer.

Cheers
Damo

IP: Logged

posted Jan-05-2006 05:42 AM               

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

MyStuff

IP: Logged

posted Jan-05-2006 07:48 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mike Behnke:
I have to jump in here to report continuing success with low HR training! I'm about 7 weeks into it now. My first few runs were in the 10:30-10:50 pace range at 139 bpm for 3-mile runs. Today, I ran a 6 mile run outside on a semi-hilly course and the slowest mile was 9:50! I ran mile 4 at 9:22 with only 133 bpm. So needless to say I am excited so far. I have to admit that patience is no problem right now as I have no races until maybe trying for a 10K PR around June. I'm also excited about how good my body feels all the while increasing my miles per week. I'm at 30 mpw and shooting for a goal of around 50 mpw by mid May or June. To all other "Maffetoners" HANG IN THERE! 'cause I know I'm going to. Thanks Jesse for starting this thread!

---

WOW, MIKE!!
I'm really envious and happy for YOU!!

Keep letting the posters of your success and keep up the GREAT RUNNING !

Boston~~~~

IP: Logged

posted Jan-05-2006 07:55 AM               

While I appreciate the great info from the prior poster, I think this statement is incorrect. My current MAF pace is around 12 to 13 minutes per mile. My last 1/2 Marathon pace was 8:25. That is at minimum a 3:30 minute spread. There is no doubt in my mind that people are racing at paces that far exceed MAF. Heck, I think most peoole are doing training runs that far exceed MAF. I think the point is that we want to build a strong aerobic base so that we can improve both our race times and run them more comfortably which would be at a lower heart rate.

I may have misinterpreted your comment, but I thought I'd chime in here.

IP: Logged

posted Jan-05-2006 08:01 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by leitnerj:
Damo - thanks very much for that! We could have removed about 35
of the pages of posts with your succinct summary! Indeed it will be
very helpful for building an FAQ!

---

I'll SECOND that, Jesse! Very good and organized, and lots of information that I personally find fitting. Consistency, long (er) runs, and that rest day, can be a *walk* day for sure. You could actually be active 7 days a week.

Thanks, too, Jesse, for building a FQA!! Great idea for quick resourse....

Boston

IP: Logged

posted Jan-05-2006 09:43 AM               

Boston124
Cool Runner posted Jan-05-2006 09:37 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hello Everyone!
I am aware that outside temps and hills and himidity can effect HR. However, I thought that the cooler the temp the HR you are aiming for can be easier---rather you would go alttle faster at that HR because the temp is cooler.

However, I don't think I'm finding this with winter running. Could this becasue your body is working harder to stay warm and cool off because of the running. OR, am I just the only one finding this.

My HR is much slower outside in cold weather than inside on the treadmill.

For example, an outside run (and yes some inclines come and go) can be a 13:51 pace, and at the same HR inside on a treadmill while running a 12:30 pace. Is that a big difference??? Or just normal. I do have the treadmill on a 0% incline because I'm still building base and watching my MAFF HR.

I just thought running outside in cooler weather would be a bit faster.

IP: Logged

All times are Eastern Time

IP: Logged

posted Jan-05-2006 11:17 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by sibelius:
- It has been proven that your race pace will be relative to your MAF (Aerobic) pace. To my knowledge there has never been someone you can run much faster at race pace than he can at Aerobic (MAF) pace!
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
While I appreciate the great info from the prior poster, I think this statement is incorrect. My current MAF pace is around 12 to 13 minutes per mile. My last 1/2 Marathon pace was 8:25. That is at minimum a 3:30 minute spread. There is no doubt in my mind that people are racing at paces that far exceed MAF. Heck, I think most peoole are doing training runs that far exceed MAF. I think the point is that we want to build a strong aerobic base so that we can improve both our race times and run them more comfortably which would be at a lower heart rate.

I may have misinterpreted your comment, but I thought I'd chime in here.

---

I think you have slightly misinterpreted this point in Damo's post. If you take it in the context of the whole comment on faster runners and don't fixate on MAF, but the concept of staying aerobic it is completely reasonable. Maybe it should be stated more generically as: "A trained runner cannot run a long distance race at a pace much faster than their maximum aerobic pace." Also, I think it is better applied to well-trained runners than to relative beginners.

Elite, highly trained runners have at least two things going for them over lesser trained runners. They are able to run aerobically at a much higher effort and they produce less lactate at these higher efforts. This translates to two things:

1. They are able to run faster, while staying aerobic
2. And they are able to sustain these efforts for longer.

Paul Tergat ran a 2:09 at the NYC Marathon (4:55-56 pace). You can be pretty sure he was running aerobically just below his LT. Fast runners don't tolerate the pain of lactic buildup more than slow runners, they don't have the buildup.

Given that a marathon is about 98% aerobic and 2% anaerobic, it doesn't seem possible that even a well-trained runner could run it much faster than their best aerobic pace. And a poorly trained runner certainly couldn't.

Your ability to run a HM at 8:25 pace doesn't mean YOU were operating primarily aerobically. Other factors do play a role, such as your mental and physical toughness, but glycogen depletion probably wasn't a factor. I would guess (and it is just a guess) that extending the distance to a marathon you may see a drop off larger than predicted by Mcmillan's running calculator. Based on the calculator you should be able to run a 3:52 marathon (8:52 pace). I don't know how long you've been doing MAF type training, but I suspect, if you continue your MAF pace could easily hit 8-9m/m, which would ultimately concur with Damo's point.

At that MAF pace you'd probably better the predicted 8:52 marathon pace, assuming you had the miles. However, you probably wouldn't better the pace by 3 min. I doubt Tergat's best aerobic pace is 3 min slower than his marathon pace. I think the 3:30 gap between your MAF and HM pace is more an indication of the gains you can make in aerobic fitness than a real counter to Damo's point. You are trying to push your aerobic pace down closer to your HM pace, not the other way around.

IP: Logged

posted Jan-05-2006 12:06 PM               

At that MAF pace you'd probably better the predicted 8:52 marathon pace, assuming you had the miles. However, you probably wouldn't better the pace by 3 min. I doubt Tergat's best aerobic pace is 3 min slower than his marathon pace. I think the 3:30 gap between your MAF and HM pace is more an indication of the gains you can make in aerobic fitness than a real counter to Damo's point. You are trying to push your aerobic pace down closer to your HM pace, not the other way around.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Thanks for your reply JM. I always enjoy reading your posts.

I agree with you 100% that my 1/2 Marathon was not run primarily aerobically. While I kept the 8:25 mile pace throughout most of the race, the last 3 miles were a major mental and physical struggle and I had nothing left in the tank as I crossed the finish line. Absolutely no way I could have continued anywhere close to that pace for a Marathon distance so I definately was not "aerobically fit" by any sense of the definition.

I've been doing low heart rate training for a little over 3.5 weeks. I started following Parker initially which allowed me to run with a heart rate under 150 using his formula. After reading up on Maffetone and reading this thread, I have began a more stringent practice of running around 140 bpm which is my MAF. Current pace is between 12 to 13 minute/mile on a treadmill and I'm a bit faster outside. It's been frustrating, but I understand I can't rush the process. I've only been running for about 4 months total so I definately am a newbie with a lot of room for improvement. Good news is that for the last 3 weeks I have been running 6 days a week and averaging about 50 miles/week - all without any pain.

If I could eventually run a 9 minute mile as MAF pace I would do cartwheels. I think a more realistic shorter term goal would be to lower my MAF pace to between 10 and 11 over the next 3 months. Actually, as long as I am seeing some incremental improvement on a monthly basis, I think I will be satisfied.

Thanks again.

IP: Logged

posted Jan-05-2006 12:12 PM               

1) Why should the fit/elite runner ADD points to their MAF rate? If anything, I'd think a more fit person could more efficiently run UNDER their MAF and get better results while the unfit person will have to spend months of mainly walking to keep the MAF rate. This is based on my experience as an unfit runner, the Mark Allen article, and Jesse's lower-than-MAF approach.

2) I absolutely hate that MAF is almost completely based on your age. I don't see how 180-age is any better for determining your "ideal aerobic HR" than the 220-age is for determining your maxHR. Do you really think someone with a max-HR (or AT-HR) 20 bpm higher than someone else the same age/experience will see the same benefits of training at the same HR? I certainly believe genetics plays a signifigant role in these things.

I really believe Jesse's huge improvements are due to the fact that he does so much volume and that his maxHR is considerably higher than the (useless) 220-age formula.

It seems to me the best method of determining the target HR would be a % of AT, followed by a % of heart rate reserve. But, I have no idea as to what the % of either would be.

IP: Logged