posted Jan-05-2006 02:13 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by sibelius:
.......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.

---

Another point on your comment:

Actually the purpose of building a strong aerobic base is to increase the contribution of the aerobic part of your performance at all levels of effort, as well as aid in pushing up your Lactate Threshold. Ultimately, this allows you to run at higher heart rates more comfortably since there is less build up of lactic acid.

For example, if a (elite) runner's maxHR is about 195 and in peak shape he'd expect to run a marathon with an avg HR between 170-180 (probably more like 175-180) and have an LT in the upper end of that range or above. Clearly, that is a range well above anyone's MAF HR, but in a well-trained runner it wouldn't result in a bonk inducing build up.

--jm

p.s. It's nice to be appreciated. Thanks for the kind words.

IP: Logged

posted Jan-05-2006 02:49 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by camy:
Here are a couple of my questions/concerns to the MAF approach:

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.

---

1. Fit runners can add points, because they are able to run aerobically at higher levels of effort (e.g. higher HR). While running too fast is detrimental, runnng too slowly relative to your fitness slows down the rate of improvement. Also, for folks who are essentially walking all the time to stay under MAF, they can always run at higher HRs until pace improves and then push the HR target down to below MAF.

2. Jesse has a good post a couple pages back on the relationship (or lack thereof) between 180-age and 220-age. The gist is that the relationship is somewhat superficial. Since none of us have the derivation of 180-age we can't really compare it to the 220-age method.

I will say that I think there is a limitation of the MAF approach, especially when applied to folks with low maxHRs. I think it is prone to overestimating your aerobic zone. But for a some the population it is a good starting point.

Jesse's large volume was likely a huge contributor to his performance, but it was all aerobic, which I think is the point. The principle still applies to folks with less volume, but you may not see gains as large or as quickly. I don't think you can isolate the volume as the only factor. I'm doing significantly less volume then he did, but see a trend that will have me on target in 3-4 months.

% of AT or LT is a perfectly reasonable approach, as is % of max sustained HR (an estimate of LT). The figures I've seen say 80-85% of LT. Pfitzinger puts recovery runs under 70% HRR. Hadd (letsrun.com) would say easy runs at maxHR-50bpm.

In my case, these all fall within a 10-15bpm range which just happens to encompass my MAF. I did my earlier runs at 70%HRR and then as pace improved I dropped the target HR to MAF. I'd say the fact that there is this coincidence of methods helps deal with any skepticism on my part. I could essentially ignore any doubts I had about the specific formula, since it correlated with several other approaches.

And lastly, I've seen it working for me so I'm comfortable using it as a guideline. You have to go with what works for you in practice. Using MAF as a guideline for yourself, isn't invalidated because it seems to be off for someone else.

--jm

IP: Logged

posted Jan-05-2006 07:24 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by camy:

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.

---

Volume, maybe, but because of my high max heart rate, no. Why would
my higher max heart rate and the fact that I run at a target heart
rate lower than MAF (i.e., my max is 210 and I try to stay under
139) come together to cause significant improvements? That's
a bit backwards. I think my
volume was what helped me find improvements so fast and the
extent of my improvements were due to the fact that I had horrible
aerobic conditioning before I started. Anyone who runs a 20-22
minute 5k and can't run faster than about 3:40 marathon (after
going through full marathon training) has very poor aerobic
conditioning. Likewise, anyone who runs at 25 minute 5k and
can't do better than a 4:20 marathon has the same problem. Or
someone who runs a 19 minute 5k and can't run faster than a
3:20 marathon. Speed work and anaerobic training is not going
to help these people - aerobic conditioning will.

I do agree that % of anaerobic threshold is useful for training
zones, but what % would you use to fix an aerobic problem?
(That's more of a test to see how much of this horrendous thread
you have read.) What % of HRR would you use to fix an
aerobic conditioning problem?

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

MyStuff

IP: Logged

posted Jan-05-2006 07:34 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by junkmiles:
1. Fit runners can add points, because they are able to run aerobically at higher levels of effort (e.g. higher HR). While running too fast is detrimental, runnng too slowly relative to your fitness slows down the rate of improvement. Also, for folks who are essentially walking all the time to stay under MAF, they can always run at higher HRs until pace improves and then push the HR target down to below MAF.

2. Jesse has a good post a couple pages back on the relationship (or lack thereof) between 180-age and 220-age. The gist is that the relationship is somewhat superficial. Since none of us have the derivation of 180-age we can't really compare it to the 220-age method.

I will say that I think there is a limitation of the MAF approach, especially when applied to folks with low maxHRs. I think it is prone to overestimating your aerobic zone. But for a some the population it is a good starting point.

Jesse's large volume was likely a huge contributor to his performance, but it was all aerobic, which I think is the point. The principle still applies to folks with less volume, but you may not see gains as large or as quickly. I don't think you can isolate the volume as the only factor. I'm doing significantly less volume then he did, but see a trend that will have me on target in 3-4 months.

% of AT or LT is a perfectly reasonable approach, as is % of max sustained HR (an estimate of LT). The figures I've seen say 80-85% of LT. Pfitzinger puts recovery runs under 70% HRR. Hadd (letsrun.com) would say easy runs at maxHR-50bpm.

In my case, these all fall within a 10-15bpm range which just happens to encompass my MAF. I did my earlier runs at 70%HRR and then as pace improved I dropped the target HR to MAF. I'd say the fact that there is this coincidence of methods helps deal with any skepticism on my part. I could essentially ignore any doubts I had about the specific formula, since it correlated with several other approaches.

And lastly, I've seen it working for me so I'm comfortable using it as a guideline. You have to go with what works for you in practice. Using MAF as a guideline for yourself, isn't invalidated because it seems to be off for someone else.

--jm

---

As usual, jm's answers are better than mine. In particular, it is
interesting to compare what the various low HR approaches give
you (Hadd, Maffetone, Mark Allen, etc.) and you should see
some correlation (most of us who have done this have seen
this). I correlated mine with some of the details from my vo2max
test and the writing on the wall really started to appear when I
combined it with how things have transformed for me in marathons
and longer (i.e., no longer running out of glycogen or hitting the wall)
in transforming to mostly fat burning from mostly glycogen burning.
It's a major difference.

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

MyStuff

IP: Logged

posted Jan-05-2006 07:49 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by leitnerj:
Volume, maybe, but because of my high max heart rate, no. Why would
my higher max heart rate and the fact that I run at a target heart
rate lower than MAF (i.e., my max is 210 and I try to stay under
139) come together to cause significant improvements? That's
a bit backwards. I think my
volume was what helped me find improvements so fast and the
extent of my improvements were due to the fact that I had horrible
aerobic conditioning before I started.

---

I say your high maxHR plays a role as there is a greater difference between your MAF and your AT. Odds are a person with a maxHR of 210 will have a signifigantly higher AT than one with a maxHR of 185 (aren't you 35ish). So, the person with the higher AT will be burning more fat % (and less carb %) at the MAF HR.

I also thought you attributed your lower-than-MAF target as a key ingredient to your success? Perhaps I mis-remembered that one.

quote:

---

<snip>

I do agree that % of anaerobic threshold is useful for training
zones, but what % would you use to fix an aerobic problem?
(That's more of a test to see how much of this horrendous thread
you have read.) What % of HRR would you use to fix an
aerobic conditioning problem?

---

Also, I just found a reply from you on the Multisport forum and really like the post, so I'll copy it in here:

quote:

---

Going one step further, if you are
going to try the low HR approach at base-building, if you have had
a vo2max test, I would suggest using a max heart rate during
base phase that is associated with an RQ (or RER) of .78, which
corresponds to 75% fat/25% carb burn. This will ensure that you
are well into the fat burning regime and using mostly aerobic
properties. The number will generally correspond to Maffetone's
equations but could be off, especially for those with very low max
heart rates.

---

This is the kind of stuff I like to see. A method that is actually explained as to the why and a target HR that is tailered for an individual based on a scientific, repeatable test.

The fact is that my MAF is within 10 bpm of both 70% HRR or 85% AT. But in MAF terms 10 bpm is the difference between a 30 and 40 year old.

[This message has been edited by camy (edited Jan-05-2006).]

IP: Logged

posted Jan-05-2006 08:27 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by junkmiles:
1. Fit runners can add points, because they are able to run aerobically at higher levels of effort (e.g. higher HR). While running too fast is detrimental, runnng too slowly relative to your fitness slows down the rate of improvement. Also, for folks who are essentially walking all the time to stay under MAF, they can always run at higher HRs until pace improves and then push the HR target down to below MAF.

---

For the latter, this was me. If I started with MAF, I would have been walking after 20 seconds of a 14 min/mi pace. I decided to just run at a slow pace and keep my HR as low as I could and add walk breaks when it would creep up. Then, I decided running wasn't enough and threw in some cycling and swimming of which neither I could do aerobically, but I managed to get through a couple of Fall sprint triathlons. Now, I can run *close* to my MAF and am dedicating the next few months to low HR stuff.

quote:

---

2. Jesse has a good post a couple pages back on the relationship (or lack thereof) between 180-age and 220-age. The gist is that the relationship is somewhat superficial. Since none of us have the derivation of 180-age we can't really compare it to the 220-age method.

---

quote:

---

I will say that I think there is a limitation of the MAF approach, especially when applied to folks with low maxHRs. I think it is prone to overestimating your aerobic zone. But for a some the population it is a good starting point.

Jesse's large volume was likely a huge contributor to his performance, but it was all aerobic, which I think is the point. The principle still applies to folks with less volume, but you may not see gains as large or as quickly. I don't think you can isolate the volume as the only factor. I'm doing significantly less volume then he did, but see a trend that will have me on target in 3-4 months.

% of AT or LT is a perfectly reasonable approach, as is % of max sustained HR (an estimate of LT). The figures I've seen say 80-85% of LT. Pfitzinger puts recovery runs under 70% HRR. Hadd (letsrun.com) would say easy runs at maxHR-50bpm.

In my case, these all fall within a 10-15bpm range which just happens to encompass my MAF. I did my earlier runs at 70%HRR and then as pace improved I dropped the target HR to MAF. I'd say the fact that there is this coincidence of methods helps deal with any skepticism on my part. I could essentially ignore any doubts I had about the specific formula, since it correlated with several other approaches.

---

quote:

---

And lastly, I've seen it working for me so I'm comfortable using it as a guideline. You have to go with what works for you in practice. Using MAF as a guideline for yourself, isn't invalidated because it seems to be off for someone else.
--jm

---

IP: Logged

posted Jan-05-2006 08:45 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by camy:
I say your high maxHR plays a role as there is a greater difference between your MAF and your AT. Odds are a person with a maxHR of 210 will have a signifigantly higher AT than one with a maxHR of 185

---

That's definitely not the case. I think the only connection between
LT and max heart rate is that LT has to be less than max heart rate.
My max is 210, and my anaerobic threshold (and I use AT, rather than
LT because I haven't had a blood lactate test) is at 177. Are you
suggesting that if my max heart rate were 220-age (184) that my heart
rate would be at 151 (26 points lower, just as my max is 26 points
lower than "predicted")? Or 160? Of course, one has to have data
from a large sample to determine this. However, I'm sure we can
find many of the runners reading this whose max HRs are no more
than 185 or so, but have been running most runs in the 160s and
170s, probably with poor aerobic fitness, and we know that their
ATs must occur at least in the mid-to-high 170s (otherwise, how
would they be running most runs in the 170s?) I used to run my
long runs in the 160s-180s. 70% HRR for me is a heart
rate of 159. Not low at all and, in fact, corresponds to an RQ of
.89 for me, 62.5% carb/37.5% fat. Certainly wouldn't train your
body to use fat for fuel there.

quote:

---

Originally posted by camy:
I also thought you attributed your lower-than-MAF target as a key ingredient to your success? Perhaps I mis-remembered that one.

---

Absolutely - as I and others have said - the lower your training
heart rate, the better the success you will have because the more
you will be using aerobic properties. As Mark Allen indicates, try
to stay within 80-100% of MAF, the lower the better.

quote:

---

Originally posted by camy:
I remember 85% of AT and 70% HRR

---

85% AT is certainly a commonly defined "peak" for the
recovery zone. It's a bit high for me. In my case it corresponds to about
50/50 carb/fat burn (coincidence? I have no idea - I
posted something in mainstream racing to get people to
provide me results of vo2max tests but no one responded)

quote:

---

Originally posted by camy:
This is the kind of stuff I like to see. A method that is actually explained as to the why and a target HR that is tailered for an individual based on a scientific, repeatable test.

---

Believe you me, I agree. If only I really knew what I was talking
about, or I saw that kind of thing published somewhere. It seems
to make sense to me and it correlates with what I've seen. But
I'm a sample of one, so unfortunately I can't say anything scientific
about it. I'd love to get a grant to look at it! If I only I had some
qualifications. I truly believe, however, that most of this stuff has
virtually nothing to do with max heart rate, and that you will not
reap the aerobic benefits by using many of the HRR formulas
(although they may make good training zones once you are already
aerobically fit).

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

MyStuff

IP: Logged

posted Jan-05-2006 09:38 PM               

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

MyStuff

IP: Logged

posted Jan-05-2006 10:27 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by camy:
.....
True, and as stated above, it does work out for me close to the other methods. I replied to open the discussion about using a more individulized method of finding the target HR.
.............

---

"So fit runners will have a higher AT, so their MAF is adjust up, right?"

Yes. They adjust upwards.

"....... Now, I can run *close* to my MAF and am dedicating the next few months to low HR stuff."

That's the way to go. Seems like you found the same basic approach I did. I think it is effective for very new runners, as well as folks who've been running for a while, but training too hard.

"I wasn't trying to compare the two methods. I was pointing out that they both group people based solely by age, not taking genetics into consideration whatsoever. MAF does a little better job by having the +/- bpm adjustments. "

Didn't mean to imply you were making a comparison. Another factor working for MAF is the limited range in which it actually applies (age 20+ to 55). although, I think it's effective range is more like age= 30 to 50.

"I had not seen that Hadd figure before. Interesting enough, all of those do put me in a 146 - 156 range, but isn't 10 bpm a rather large variance? Take out MAF and I get a variance of 4 bpm."

For me the difference is about 14bpm. Drop MAF and the difference is 7bpm. I don't think 10bpm is too large a range if you err on the low side. The newer you are, the lower you should start out. And for more experienced runners, it seems to make sense to use the low number for recovery runs and the higher number for steady state aerobic runs (after a base building period).

good luck with your training.

--jm

IP: Logged

posted Jan-05-2006 10:41 PM               

or "A Haiku With A Very Long Title"

run, run more, run long
below MAF dammit
behold what unfolds

--Jimmy

My Running World

IP: Logged

posted Jan-05-2006 10:45 PM               

For the record, my max is 202 and, while I haven't been tested in a lab, I have enough reason to believe that my AT/LT is 180-185.

I've been running/cycling at exclusivly low HR (< 157 = 70% HRR) for about a month now, and increasing the mileage. I have also been reducing my upper limit (ie timer) by 2 bpm every other week. I will be running a half marathon in April and plan on all aerobic training. This is about the 3'rd or 4'th time I decide to give the MAF method a try, but cannot stick to it. I think I have a mental problem with it, not understanding (beliving) the 180-age basis. I just can't get it out of the back of my mind ... or maybe I'm doubting my ability to get out of running these 12 min/mi times, I dunno. In all of my frustration, I keep thinking about those that max out at 180 and how running at 150 has to be easy for them. Again, this may be the normal "this really sucks" attitude everyone must fight through.

I have never run fast or trained anaerobically. I've run 1 tempo run and 2 races. I'm currently running 5 hours per week (20 mpw) and cycling on a trainer for about 3 hours a week. I think I'll give this another month and see how it goes, but my backup plan is to just use Friel's Zone1 from the run/cycle TT in the Triathlete's Bible.

I have seen some improvements. I am getting my HR down slowly but surely at the approx same pace. I even had 1 run where I averaged 147, staying below 152 on a 75 min run, but that was a bit of an anomaly. I so badly want to start running faster. I think my biggest fear is that I'm going to run the half at a 12 min pace.

I'm rambling now, maybe I just needed to vent and get directed back on track.

Thanks

IP: Logged

posted Jan-05-2006 11:04 PM            

or "A Haiku With A Very Long Title"

run, run more, run long
below MAF dammit
behold what unfolds

--Jimmy

I agree with you. That is why I have been keeping my mouth shut.

IP: Logged

posted Jan-05-2006 11:17 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by junkmiles:

Another factor working for MAF is the limited range in which it actually applies (age 20+ to 55). although, I think it's effective range is more like age= 30 to 50.

--jm[/B]

---

Why do you say this and what do you suggest for an older runner?

IP: Logged

posted Jan-06-2006 01:34 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.

---

Yeah I didn't make my point very well in fact Junk Miles made a better stab at it...... All I meant was that you can interpret what race pace a runner can 'travel at' by his MAF pace, and I have never heard of someone who can go much faster than his MAF pace says he can go (Although you can give or take a few seconds taking into account the variables - Mental Strength, Anerobic fitness, Race Day nutrition etc etc). I was just trying to point out that If you can't improve your pace at a set aerobic HR (say MAF) then you aint gonna run much quicker! (Obviously the shorter the distance the less reliance on aerobic fitness, although I would say that even 400m runners benefit hugely from better aerobic fitness). So if after a set time of training (be it all Aerobic or all Anaerobic or a mixture) if you can't run at a faster MAF Pace then your race pace isn't gonna be any quicker. We all know the key to distance running is like Junk Miles said

1. Able to run faster, while staying aerobic (Runner B beats Runner A in a Marathon. Runner A has an Aerobic Max155bpm. Runner B has an Aerobic Max 150bpm).
2. Able to sustain this efforts for longer.

......How to achieve these two points is obviously the debate here. My answer would be more and more aerobic miles (diet etc too) to become more and more aerobically efficient. In fact some elite atheletes in many endurance sports believe that there base period is just a case of numer of miles. They don't even complicate it more than that (although they know they are in their Aerobic Zone from their breathing etc).

I didn't mention yesterday but the system of finding your 'Aerobic Zone' using the MAF formula is very good as I can't believe that you'd not be too far away as long as your are totally honest with the question(i.e -5 or +5 etc). It is just like saying two 40 year olds will have near enough the same 'Aerobic Zone' except if one had lots of Aerobic training then it would be higher than normal, and if he'd had a only bits it will be normal and if the other hadn't got off the couch or been ill then it will be lower than normal! Easy!! And it aint worth debating it (in my opinion)! They probably tested it with 100's or 100's of people and found that all (or 99.9%) fall perfectly into these MAF zones as long as they are honest about their level (and age! ha ha). I also believe that you need to readjust your MAF if you fall into the next category after a number of years of training. But don't be too keen to do this as the down side is much worse than the potential benefits in my opinion.

There are probably 1000's of efficiency improvements the body makes when exposed to aerobic exercise. So I don't see how someone CAN'T improve their aerobic fitness by running at low heart rates... But it must be 100% Aerobic (or as near as you can get)! And I realise that there is a debate over runners who have only just started, and they may have never run/exercised aerobically before. My advice if you want the best results would be - rather than run at a higher heart rate (like some suggest)start with walking long distances to really get the body working for long periods in 100% aerobic zones. I would choose a route that has slight hills so you can get your heart rate somewhere near your MAF i.e MAF 135 then try and get it around 110 -120. Then after walking for say one hour then throw in a jog (10 mins) at the end and just keep reducing this walking/warm up until you are only walking the first 15 minutes. What this is doing is making sure that you never go near the Anaerobic levels..... I'm a massive believer of warming up really slowly as I believe this helps keep your total workout aerobic, I still believe one big spike early on can ruin your workout(so watch those hills there is nothing wrong with walking!!!!). If you think this is a waste of time etc then you are very much mistaken. If you want to try it then go for a 2 hour walk and see if you don't benefit from it. In some ways I believe walking 10 hours a week will bring better results than Running/Jogging/Wogging 4 or 5 hours. Same way that running 4 or 5 will bring better results than tempo running 1 or 2! I'm sure Ultra Steve will be able to back me up here.

Side note that I forgot to mention yesterday - We have to look at other variables that might help our quest to become a fat burning aerobic machine. The things I believe can help are Diet, Sleep patterns, Stress(or lack of) etc. An important one I believe is diet. I agree with Steve and Jesse, No carbs should be taken before or during training runs if you want your body to improve it's Fat Burning efficiency. Although you should try and take on some electrolytes. I have seen great improvements from lowering my dependency on Carbs (especially sugary ones). I'm not a no Carbless/Atkins pusher but our 'western' diet has become unbelievably dependant on them. We do need carbs in our diets but I believe that we can cut a few of the sugary ones and replace them with more natural choices like Vegetables etc. But if you obviously already have a low body fat % then be careful as you energy reserves are obviously lower than someone who has more fat.

Just a note to weight lifters out there. If you keep your workouts under 45 mins then you limit the amount of cortisol (stress hormone) roaming your body. If you keep it under 30 mins then the amount is even lower. This is important as cortisol can have a negative affect on your Aerobic system. But I think that 3*30min workouts weekly are going to have as more positive effects as negative. I think that if you can keep your Anaerobic(weights) workouts very short and sweet then they will benefit you. But as a beginner then it's maybe best to leave weights until you see some progress on the MAF test as you are trying to force your body to become more efficient and less reliant on carbs.

When I first tried MAF running (before this thread came about) I worked out my MAF as 149 and then walked out the door and started into a slow jog as a warm up..... this meant I hit my MAF within 15 minutes and I felt my Heart do a big kick.... My heart rate then went into freefall and I was able to run quite fast just below my MAF heart rate...... When I got home and felt stiffness and tightness in my Quads I realised it must be lactic acid!! I was confussed as I could hold a conversation when I was running and I was under the MAF except that first spike that 'just' went over...... This led to me doing some more runs where exactly the same would happen... after a week or two of this I found this thread and Ultra Steves mention of the ultra guy who walked the first day of a race...... so I decided as time wasn't as tight as for others I would walk for an hour before jogging as I believed my body couldn't fail to be fully warmed up and well set in it's fat burning mode...... This worked brilliantly for me and my improvements happenend from that day forward without a single bit of lactic acid or stiffness! Then I also took on board Steve and Jesses No Carb before workour rule (although I've heard this banged about weight rooms for a number of years as a Fat Burning policy during cutting phase).

I did say that I like to keep it simple and not think too much about thresholds etc. My belief that nearly all of us can be twice the runner we dream by just taking the 'no brainer' approach and running at these low levels and looking at things like diet. All we are trying to do is make our bodies become more efficient. No disrespect to Jesse but I don't see a reason why most (if not all) can't get the same results as he did. (Although I think we were all amazed by your quick progress) But some it will take time for the body to react in a positive way to the changes.

I'll finish by saying that I have found that big improvements can be made by listening to your body. Some days I get home and have already run/biked that morning and I just have a spare 30 mins so I just chuck on my trainers and go for a walk/jog/ride. Other days I get to the end of my 'maintenance' 30min(1hr total) run and just decide that I feel great and have more time to kill so I just continue and do another 20/30 mins. Obviously more miles = better results....... But if those more miles are done at an intensity that sends cortisol up and brings on injury/stress/illness then those more miles won't benefit you and you will either miss a lot of workouts through this injury/illness/soreness or your body won't be in the state to improve anyway. So lets be clear if you feel great and your morning HR shows that you are then why not now and again extending those runs or making time for an extra walk/run. I try and make some of my wasted time as exercise time as I feel then I can be more efficient with my time too. e.g I get a train to work, sometimes I cycle, sometimes I get off a stop early and walk/run. I think everyone should try and use part of their commuting time as exercise as it really helps in time management. But I guess you all know that!

Just to end I am sorry I have jumped in on this thread after all you guys have done such a good job of making fitness simple. Find your MAF. Exercise under it consistently. Test every now and again. Enjoy.
Seems simple but it is amazing how many people try and complicate it..... these complications only give you the last 10%..... you can become a excellent runner just by sticking to the basics..... But it does take time.......that's what people don't understand...... they try and complicate it and look for that magic formula that will make them elite inside a year or two.

Paul Tergat runs his Marathons at a HR that you and I can also run at.... The difference??? He is running so much more efficiently. I recently read about an Ironman winner who explained he ran the race at a heart rate of 140 and if he crept over then he slowed down. That says it all - his race pace in an Ironman is 140!! That is lower than my MAF!!

Anyway I am just putting this out there as I love talking about this. And I love reading all your posts too. Lets keep it simple though(but we still need to know a WHY we are doing something).... I love the A, B, C's! 'Do this' and 'get this' sort of stuff. If I ever decided to take this more seriously then I would go do a V02 Max test and find out the highest HR/Pace I could train at that was still 100% (or near as) Aerobic and I would run somewhere around there. Then I would complete MAF type tests on this heart rate and then every 12 months have my v02 Max retested.

Until that day comes then I will keep it simple. 100% Aerobic training + Patience = More efficient Damo.
And keeping it simple is what this thread has managed to do. Thanks again Jesse and co.

I'd love to hear your view if it differs from mine

Cheers
Damo

p.s Hope it wasn't too long!

IP: Logged

posted Jan-06-2006 09:25 AM               

I started Maff training because it just seemed to make lots of sense (very simple concept ). I am also an information junkie and seem to get a greater understanding of what is happening by reading and re-reading these posts. There is so much information that it doesn't always sink in the first or even second time.
I also have been one of the lucky ones to see some very quick improvement (training pace down by 1- 1.25 min/mile AND an even lower HR than 1st few runs) within less than 5 weeks. The first few runs were uncomfortably slow and instilled a fear of permanently becoming slower. I wondered if I was wasting my time and could possibly regress. Becuase I realized improvement very quickly, these fears went away and I totally get the concept of taking it easy. However, there are MANY runners frustrated and concerned about their progress. If they are like me in any way by feeding off the information posted here, the over analyzing stuff is probably keeping these fears at bay. After all, understanding the science behind the training is very much a NEED for some people.
At this point, I think I am going to just Keep It Simple S-----. Thanks again for posting. I appreciate EVERYBODY'S input. This thread os wonderful.
Karen

IP: Logged

posted Jan-06-2006 02:46 PM               

I'm an interloper from the multisport forum where Jesse has been kind enough to share a lot of his insights over there as well.

I am reading and re-reading this thread. I think I just HAVE to give this another go. There are supposedly no dumb questions, but this just may be one.

Do you think you have to have a high running volume to make this experience work? I also bike and swim training (double workouts nearly every day), so I only run 4x week. 3 runs are at about 5-miles to 10K (sometimes 1 run is less) and one long run of about 10 miles on the weekend. Is this enough running to give MAF a try, or is it too small a volume that I will just get slower and not reap the benefits?

I'm doing an Ironman in '06 and I will not make it through at the HRs I'm running right now. Way too high for the slow speed I'm going.

Background--Running for a solid decade before moving to triathlon 5 years ago, so I know how slow my running is now compared to where it used to be. Very discouraging.

IP: Logged

posted Jan-06-2006 02:50 PM               

As you will see below the average HR shows some flux. It is getting lower again and in the last two weeks I have done fewer runs but they have been longer. I am *hoping* that is why the HR avg is creeping up again. Regardless I do not know if you would term this success thus far or not. I do feel I am better equipped to run longer, my legs feel stronger, and I am not huffing and puffing at all. I just hope the trend to a lower HR continues.

Avg HR: 144-145. Early on (first few weeks) the HR was around 142 avg).

*************************************************

[This message has been edited by hurryinhoosier (edited Jan-06-2006).]

IP: Logged

posted Jan-06-2006 03:21 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by RunLin:
[B]Hi,

I'm an interloper from the multisport forum where Jesse has been kind enough to share a lot of his insights over there as well.

I am reading and re-reading this thread. I think I just HAVE to give this another go. There are supposedly no dumb questions, but this just may be one.

Do you think you have to have a high running volume to make this experience work? I also bike and swim training (double workouts nearly every day), so I only run 4x week. 3 runs are at about 5-miles to 10K (sometimes 1 run is less) and one long run of about 10 miles on the weekend. Is this enough running to give MAF a try, or is it too small a volume that I will just get slower and not reap the benefits?

I'm doing an Ironman in '06 and I will not make it through at the HRs I'm running right now. Way too high for the slow speed I'm going.

B]

---

RunLin- First of all, you have nothing to loose since right now you state your HR is too high to do an Ironman. I can assure you your HR isn't going to get much better if you keep going the way you are. You may not even make it to the Ironman without sustaining an injury. MAF will work for you. Your heart doesn’t know if you are biking, running, swimming, or anything else for that matter. All it knows is how hard it has to work in order for you to do it. You will find that you will probably be able to go for a longer period of time since your body does not have to work as hard. The results will come faster the more time you spend in your aerobic zone, not by how fast you are going. I have also found, for myself, that slower seems to work better. The down side is that MAF training at first is very frustrating, and hard on the ego. If you can train past that, you will be well on your way to your Ironman.

IP: Logged

posted Jan-06-2006 04:11 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by RunLin:
................
Do you think you have to have a high running volume to make this experience work? I also bike and swim training (double workouts nearly every day), so I only run 4x week. 3 runs are at about 5-miles to 10K (sometimes 1 run is less) and one long run of about 10 miles on the weekend. Is this enough running to give MAF a try, or is it too small a volume that I will just get slower and not reap the benefits?
.................

---

LowHR training should work well for you and is probably necessary for a triathlete in any case. Just make sure the time you spend on the bike and in the pool is also aerobic. I would suspect the pool is harder to manage, but Jesse probably has some experience on that front.

--jm

IP: Logged

posted Jan-06-2006 05:07 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by StealthRunner:

Why do you say this and what do you suggest for an older runner?

---

It's just my opinion. But you can correlate MAF with maxHRs and corresponding easy running HRs to see how they match up. It's not scientific, but seems a reasonable starting point to think about the issues. Allowing that age based formulas have some statistical validity, even if they are off on an individual basis, you can use one to predict a range of maxHRs and then compare to MAF.

Untrained runners can be expected to have an LT at about 60% VO2max, which roughly corresponds to about 75% maxHR. Assuming you're talking about relatively fit people looking to do lowHR then you might see numbers such as
(max HR estimated with 205-0.5*age).

Age -5 MAF +5 75%
30 145-155 143
43 132-142 137
50 125-135 135

MAF column shows range with +5 & -5.

MAF+5 may be high for a 30yo, but MAF-5 is close enough for government work. And it is close to easy running HR suggested by other coaches. For 50yo it is under, which is better than over. It's not until age 43 that the lines cross. At the far ends: ages 25 and 55, MAF is 10+bpm over and under, respectively. In the former, it is too high to see benefits and the latter, too low for rapid improvement.

Maffetone spots older runners 5bpm, which seems reasonable because the formula appears to underestimate a target HR. For young (<30) runners it appears (to me) to always be high.

My non-professional advice to any runner looking to use the Maffetone method:
Correlate your MAF HR with your tested (or best estimate) maxHR, as well perceived exertion estimates for your easy runs. Even better would be to have VO2max/Lactate threshold/RQ tests, but most folks aren't going to do this. So HR and perceived exertion are much better than nothing.

It's a guideline and without a coach you have to tailor any training method to your specific circumstances.

--jm

[This message has been edited by junkmiles (edited Jan-06-2006).]

IP: Logged

posted Jan-06-2006 05:57 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by junkmiles:

Untrained runners can be expected to have an LT at about 60% VO2max, which roughly corresponds to about 75% maxHR. Assuming you're talking about relatively fit people looking to do lowHR then you might see numbers such as
(max HR estimated with 205-0.5*age).

---

What exactly are the "attributes" of LT-HR?

When I was 2-3 months into running, I did a 5k TT (not race) in 29:49 min. My aveHR for that run was 186 and the last 15 min were above 190. I certainly considered myself "untrained" as I still do.

Also, about that time (the following week), I have a 52 minute "easy" run where I averaged 174 including the warmup. The last 34 minutes of this were all above 175. Again, this was my easy run and my notes say it felt easy.

I have also done a few max HR tests several different ways and I've always been right at 201-202.

I've read that LT is the HR/pace you can hold for about an hour. This, for me has always been 180+ or 90% of my max HR.

Now, I can run my easy runs at about 155 +/- 5 bpm, sadly, at about the same pace as that 174 average run, but I'll take the 20 bpm lower HR.

Am I way off base on this stuff?

IP: Logged

posted Jan-06-2006 06:08 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by StealthRunner:
MAF will work for you. Your heart doesn’t know if you are biking, running, swimming, or anything else for that matter. All it knows is how hard it has to work in order for you to do it. You will find that you will probably be able to go for a longer period of time since your body does not have to work as hard. The results will come faster the more time you spend in your aerobic zone, not by how fast you are going. I have also found, for myself, that slower seems to work better. The down side is that MAF training at first is very frustrating, and hard on the ego. If you can train past that, you will be well on your way to your Ironman.

---

True, that your heart doesn't care, but I believe that in MAF training, you are trying to increase the stroke volume of the heart AND the slow twitch fibers of your muscles. The latter is definately sport specific.

IP: Logged

posted Jan-06-2006 06:35 PM            

quote:

---

This thread deserves its own forum, imho.
(Anyone written to the mods about this?)

I've recently started trail running and have had a sort of
mini-epiphany of sorts in the process of running on uneven
ground and among trees:
It's about running more than it's about talking about running.

If I had a criticism re this thread, it would not be about its content,
but about how verbose it's turned out to be; the [valuable] points
have been made many times over. This is why it seems to me
more like a forum than a thread. Mean no offence, of course.

Paul

---

[This message has been edited by pmbooks (edited Jan-06-2006).]

IP: Logged

posted Jan-06-2006 06:52 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by dworrad:

No disrespect to Jesse but ...

---

Haha! How could that possibly be disrespect? Everyone's unique and
has a unique capability. What counts is the improvement within one's
own self. And that can mean many things (not just pace). I'd love to
see people who I'm beating out now in races, beat me severely soon.
In fact, I know one around here very well. In the last marathon I did in
3:24, he passed the half point at 1:29 and finished painfully in 3:40.
I told him afterwards that this was my only opportunity to beat him
at any race, at least until the first 50 miler he moves up to, or perhaps
in his first ironman this year (my first as well).

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

MyStuff

IP: Logged

posted Jan-06-2006 07:16 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by RunLin:
Hi,

I'm an interloper from the multisport forum where Jesse has been kind enough to share a lot of his insights over there as well.

I am reading and re-reading this thread. I think I just HAVE to give this another go. There are supposedly no dumb questions, but this just may be one.

Do you think you have to have a high running volume to make this experience work? I also bike and swim training (double workouts nearly every day), so I only run 4x week. 3 runs are at about 5-miles to 10K (sometimes 1 run is less) and one long run of about 10 miles on the weekend. Is this enough running to give MAF a try, or is it too small a volume that I will just get slower and not reap the benefits?

I'm doing an Ironman in '06 and I will not make it through at the HRs I'm running right now. Way too high for the slow speed I'm going.

Background--Running for a solid decade before moving to triathlon 5 years ago, so I know how slow my running is now compared to where it used to be. Very discouraging.

---

Hi Runlin! Welcome to this side of the fence. First, I would say that
your running alone is probably enough to see some progress, but,
especially at low mileage, I think it's important to change things around
periodically. Add a longer run. Lengthen the mid-week run, etc.
However, when you add in the volume of biking and swimming, as long
as you do it all exclusively under MAF, I think the aerobic conditioning
will add up quickly. Of course, everyone is a new experiment. I have
no doubt that when you get into full-force ironman training, if you can
get dedicate the first couple of months or so to sub-MAF training, that
will be ample volume. As I mentioned in multi-sport, there are some
major "catches" associated with this type of training - the big one being
spin class. You'd either have to crank the resistance all the way down
or control your cadence. Tough to do in those things - I've tried
unsuccessfully. Also, you'll want to do your best to avoid carbs
before your workouts, and it will be helpful even during your workouts
(now, that's not to say you shouldn't practice nutrition as obviously
that's critical to the marathon, but even then you should hold off on
the intake until a little ways into your training runs/rides). I think you'll
find that if you do this for a good period of time in a dedicated fashion,
you will make the bike-run transition in the ironman much less painful
than it would otherwise be. I guess the last thing is that if you really
want to go for it, you may have to change your swimming regimen
during your basebuilding period. My guess is that you do a lot of
intervals now. Unless your heart rate stays in control, that's going
to interfere as well. I can say this, my swimming pace per mile improved
over a 3 month period from over 50 minutes/mi to about 34:30 minutes
per mile at my peak conditioning, all under my MAF heart rate. And
my 50 minute miles were at a HR 20-30 beats higher. When I was
swimming slowly to control my heart rate, I was able to focus a lot
on form and I followed some of Terry Laughlin's advice on trying to
swim very slowly and efficiently. The definition of "slow" will continuously
change! Best of luck, whatever you decide to do.

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

MyStuff

IP: Logged