posted Mar-13-2006 06:57 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by SueT48:
I did my first metabolic test yesterday. I've been doing low heart rate training since October. Still not blazing speed, but I've worked up to 5mph. I started with a 14 to 15 minute/mile pace, so a 12 minute mile is not too bad. Not where I had hoped to be by this time, but definitely an improvement. The results from testing reaffirmed that this training really does work. I'm turning into a fat-burning machine ;-). Interestingly, the heart rate at the top of my lowest aerobic threshold (zone 1) is 138 which is only one beat off from my Maffetone-calculated heart rate of 137. I'm doing a great job of burning fat in the two lowest areobic zones - up to a heart rate of 155. I need to continue to work to see if I can extend optimal fat-burning into the higher aerobic zone. My LT was measured at 170, and my vo2max is 50 which was a pleasant surprise. I wish I had baseline numbers prior to beginning the slow training for comparison. I'm thrilled to have the positive feedback.

---

that's excellent news and an improvement of 2-3 minutes per mile
at low HR is fantastic. And I have almost no doubt that the fat burning
improvement is probably the biggest payoff of this whole approach.
I knew I needed something like that after one of my marathons a
couple of years ago when all of my favorite gels popped out of my
pockets into the street in a mob and I was left with none. Now it
doesn't matter anymore! Good for you.

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

MyStuff

Low Heart Rate Training FAQ

IP: Logged

posted Mar-13-2006 07:33 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ewart Harris:
Hi Jesse,

You are doing great. Congratulations on your recent performances. I was looking at your running log. It is remarkable. I cannot believe that you ran 19 miles and cycle the day before a Marathon and still did so well. Is there a reason for you doing that much work the day before? I looked at your log and I am amazed at the amount of running you are doing. I have increased my mileage significantly with little or no side effects. However, I am more using Hadd versus Maffetone. I am wondering if I should modify my training to be more of a Maffetone type training. I am 11 weeks away from a Marathon and I am planning to finish in 3:00hrs. I have been using the millage schedule on this web site for the Competitive Marathon. Do you think I should maybe increase the amount of mileage suggested on this schedule since I am doing low HR training? I have not done any farlick or tempo run or even hill specific training.
Once again congratulations!

---

Hey Ewart-

This is definitely not the time to change what you're doing. Stick with
the plan you're working and then you can make an assessment after
your race as to what adjustments you want to make. If you can
tolerate it ok, I say the more mileage the better with this sort of
approach, whether you are following Hadd, Maffetone, Mark Allen,
or whatever.

Seems a bit silly, I know, as to why I've been running long runs,
bike rides, and such the day before my last couple of marathons
(although, last week I hit marathon PR after running 20 the day
before), but the reason is that I'm preparing for other races, including
a 50 miler in the second week in April, a half ironman in June,
a 100 miler in July, and an ironman in October (along with a number
of other marathons and 50ks in between). One of my means of
preparation is through back-to-back long runs and other such
training "combos." It seemed to work perfectly for the 50 miler
I ran in November and the "easy" mileage doesn't seem to take
too much out of me. This is definitely an artifact of this form of
training, as a year and a half or so ago, I could barely tolerate
45-55 miles per week of running only.

Good luck!

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

MyStuff

Low Heart Rate Training FAQ

IP: Logged

posted Mar-13-2006 08:22 PM               

Diane

IP: Logged

posted Mar-13-2006 08:27 PM               

Diane

IP: Logged

posted Mar-13-2006 08:28 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by diane143:
Jesse, which half are you doing in June?

Diane

---

I'm doing eagleman. (In May I'll be doing Columbia tri - olympic and
in October, it will be chesapeakeman).

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

MyStuff

Low Heart Rate Training FAQ

IP: Logged

posted Mar-13-2006 08:33 PM               

Diane

IP: Logged

posted Mar-14-2006 08:07 PM               

Also I guess im one of the youngest runners attempting this programme (I'm 17) so I guess I'll just log down my training and the improvements (if any). I'm currently 2 weeks into this programme and the current pace I'm going at is a 11 min mile pace. My MAF HR is 163. Note that the HR I did my activity at is a rough average estimate I look at the HR monitor occasionally to just keep it in check. The only logs that are accurate are the durations of the activity.

First week:
mon: 37 minute 22 second run at 152 HR

wed: 40 minute 47 second run at 153 HR

fri: 38 minute 13 second run at 156 HR

sun: 43 minute 32 second run at 153 HR

Most of the time I stopped before 40 minute was when my feet was far too sore to continue. I also noticed a queer syndrome. Most of the time when I train slower, my body tends to speed up itself automatically the next training run. You'll also notice that I don't run strictly to the 10% milage increase rule but I figured since I'm just training base now and since 40 minutes at 11 min mile pace isn't the maximum I can go on for (since I have to stop due to feet sores), I'm rather flexible with the current training although I might be stricter after a few weeks.

Second week:
tues: 52 minute 38 second run at 137 HR

I think my shoe wore out. The soles of my feet were hurting like crazy and I couldn't run continously and I ended up taking walks. A s such I decided to do a longer duration of the workout.

After about 2 or 3 weeks when my legs get used to this I'll increase the frequency of runs per week and hopefully eventually achieve my goals.

Hope this wasn't too draggy.

d3finition

IP: Logged

posted Mar-14-2006 09:08 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by d3finition:
Just a question do u stay at a heart rate just below maf or about 20 to 30 beats below maf?

Also I guess im one of the youngest runners attempting this programme (I'm 17) so I guess I'll just log down my training and the improvements (if any). I'm currently 2 weeks into this programme and the current pace I'm going at is a 11 min mile pace. My MAF HR is 163. Note that the HR I did my activity at is a rough average estimate I look at the HR monitor occasionally to just keep it in check. The only logs that are accurate are the durations of the activity.

First week:
mon: 37 minute 22 second run at 152 HR

wed: 40 minute 47 second run at 153 HR

fri: 38 minute 13 second run at 156 HR

sun: 43 minute 32 second run at 153 HR

Most of the time I stopped before 40 minute was when my feet was far too sore to continue. I also noticed a queer syndrome. Most of the time when I train slower, my body tends to speed up itself automatically the next training run. You'll also notice that I don't run strictly to the 10% milage increase rule but I figured since I'm just training base now and since 40 minutes at 11 min mile pace isn't the maximum I can go on for (since I have to stop due to feet sores), I'm rather flexible with the current training although I might be stricter after a few weeks.

Second week:
tues: 52 minute 38 second run at 137 HR

I think my shoe wore out. The soles of my feet were hurting like crazy and I couldn't run continously and I ended up taking walks. A s such I decided to do a longer duration of the workout.

After about 2 or 3 weeks when my legs get used to this I'll increase the frequency of runs per week and hopefully eventually achieve my goals.

Hope this wasn't too draggy.

d3finition

---

There's no single answer to your first question. Most people who
are brand new to this are running most mileage right up against the
MAF heart rate, mainly because any lower than that is walking, or
just about. After having done about 6 months of this training, I do
some runs about about 15-20 beats below MAF, mainly as
recovery runs. Some with higher levels of aerobic fitness even
do less than that.

There's no doubt that you should have good, properly-fitting running shoes. That can make a big difference. There's really nothing
about this type of training that should cause sores all over your
feet or anything like that. Also, you may want to
follow Mark Allen's advice and add 5 beats to your MAF heart rate
since you're under the age of 20. It looks like you're spending
a good deal of time far less than MAF, moreso than you need to,
unless you're just finding a place at which you enjoy running.

If you want to track progress, you need to log more than just
heart rate and time - you'll need total distance, or at least mile
splits (preferably with avg heart rate over each split).

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

MyStuff

Low Heart Rate Training FAQ

IP: Logged

posted Mar-14-2006 10:39 PM               

I drop in on this thread every now and then and continue to be amazed by both your indisputable achievements and your basic analytical orientation: you're trying to figure it out, using your body as the experiment.

I've been trying to do the same thing, using my HR monitor to understand LT and more intense paces. I'd like to share some information with you and then ask you for some specific guidance--since I sent in my NYC marathon chit several weeks back and have fingers crossed.

My max HR is 196. That's a solid, reiterable figure.

Recent PRs include a 1:31:56 half marathon (7:01 pace) in mid December and a 25:39 4-milerr (6:25 pace) in early February.

I've averaged 45 mpw over the past 10 weeks.

I run four recovery runs (3-4 miles) a week. They generally range from 9:30 to 10:00 pace, with the slower runs at HR 133-135 (68%) and the "faster" runs at 139-140 (71%). My subjective impression, confirmed by 4/4 breathing rates, is that anything 142 (72%) or below is recovery pace for me.

I run two 10 milers and a 15 miler, generally, on W/F/Sun. I always start these runs slowly, with the first mile < 9:00 and the first three miles almost always below 147 (75%). On the long runs, I may stick with that HR/pace a little longer--up to 5 miles. But it's very rare, frankly, for me to run more than 5 miles of a longer run under 150 (76.5%). Generally I follow the John Kellogg plan, which is to stay slow but gradually open it up, so that my HR almost always tends to rise through 155, 160, to at least 165 (84%). I should note that I NEVER hit this HR in the first mile or two; I'd feel distinctly stressed if I did. But at 6 miles--at that point in a 10 miler or 15 miler--84% feels like a good, full, aerobic pace.

Through much experiment and close listening, I've discovered the following training ranges above that:

170 -171 (87%): feels like marathon pace, although I haven't run a marathon for a while. Definitely sub-threshold for me. And noticeably more comfortable than 174-175, which is where I'm forced to switch from 3/3 to 3/2 breathing.

175 (89%): feels like half-marathon pace: the pace I'd work into a couple of miles into a well-paced half marathon

177-178 (90-91%): feels like threshold. I can stabilize at this pace and run a 20-minute tempo run. If I hit 179-180, I'm above threshold

182-183 (93%): feels like 10K pace. I run repeat miles so that I've attained and stabilized at this HR by about 400 meters in. This is definitely somewhere above threshold and below VO2max.

187-191 (95-98%): VO2max intensity. The lower end feels like 5K pace. The upper end feels like last mile of 5K pace.

On my long runs this spring, I've several times spent 63 minutes--most of the return leg on a 15 miler--averaging HR 174, which is right at half-marathon intensity, but (because I'm untapered, training hard, already had 7 miles under my belt, yada yada) averaging only 7:40-7:50 pace, which is signnificantly slower than actual half marathon race pace.

I know I've asked you this sort of question once or twice before, but I don't think I had this much HR/pace evidence to lay before you. So here's my question: Given what you've learned, which is clearly a great deal, how would you tweak--or radically revise--what I'm doing. Would you, for example, have me simply lighten way the hell up, so that I'm running the same mileage on the same days, but so that I'm sticking to some HR in the 140s on those three longer days? Is that Maffetone in a nutshell?

I'm all ears.

IP: Logged

posted Mar-14-2006 11:28 PM               

I've been looking for info on HR training etc. and found this enourmous thread. I'm new to running (11 weeks now) and have a hand me down HRM. I've been wearing it and my heart rates are typically up in the 160's. According to just about every different calculation out there, including MAF this is too high to be giving me aerobic benefit.

I honestly do not think I can run any slower. If I manage to get it to 158-162 I am fairly comfortable. When it is 168 I am huffing and puffing and do slow down or have to take a walking break.

I am 33, have allergies and some allergic asthma and not fit (carrying an extra 30 lbs that I am working on).

So....my question I guess is how much do I worry about HR at this stage? Am I skipping by the aerobic zone and not gaining anything from the running I am doing? My goal is to keep building my base and endurance....speed is not something I am concerned about.

Thanks in advance for any advance....

IP: Logged

posted Mar-15-2006 12:08 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by bdot:
Hi,

I've been looking for info on HR training etc. and found this enourmous thread. I'm new to running (11 weeks now) and have a hand me down HRM. I've been wearing it and my heart rates are typically up in the 160's. According to just about every different calculation out there, including MAF this is too high to be giving me aerobic benefit.

I honestly do not think I can run any slower. If I manage to get it to 158-162 I am fairly comfortable. When it is 168 I am huffing and puffing and do slow down or have to take a walking break.

I am 33, have allergies and some allergic asthma and not fit (carrying an extra 30 lbs that I am working on).

So....my question I guess is how much do I worry about HR at this stage? Am I skipping by the aerobic zone and not gaining anything from the running I am doing? My goal is to keep building my base and endurance....speed is not something I am concerned about.

Thanks in advance for any advance....

---

If you're really going to try this program, then figure out your MAF. If it comes out to e.g. 150 BPM, then create a zone of 135-150. The first few miles should be in the low end, and then let it rise. Then do whatever it takes to stay below MAF. If you have to walk--walk. If you have to take walk breaks--do so. Eventually, you'll be running everything, and a little faster.

If you don't want to do this program, then make sure you are running a pace where you are conversational--easy conversation--pretty much the same as normal. If you have to walk...

If your goal is to build your aerobic base endurance, then give it your best try. Build your miles 5% per week, with the aim of eventually doing a long-run (15+ miles) at least every few weeks.

It takes time and patience, but I believe it will pay off for you, and you will lessen the probability of major injury.

Good luck!

--Jimmy

My Running World
My Maffetone Low-HR Training Experiment

[This message has been edited by jjwaverly42 (edited Mar-15-2006).]

IP: Logged

posted Mar-15-2006 12:27 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by KudzuRunner:
Jesse:

I drop in on this thread every now and then and continue to be amazed by both your indisputable achievements and your basic analytical orientation: you're trying to figure it out, using your body as the experiment.

I've been trying to do the same thing, using my HR monitor to understand LT and more intense paces. I'd like to share some information with you and then ask you for some specific guidance--since I sent in my NYC marathon chit several weeks back and have fingers crossed.

My max HR is 196. That's a solid, reiterable figure.

Recent PRs include a 1:31:56 half marathon (7:01 pace) in mid December and a 25:39 4-milerr (6:25 pace) in early February.

I've averaged 45 mpw over the past 10 weeks.

I run four recovery runs (3-4 miles) a week. They generally range from 9:30 to 10:00 pace, with the slower runs at HR 133-135 (68%) and the "faster" runs at 139-140 (71%). My subjective impression, confirmed by 4/4 breathing rates, is that anything 142 (72%) or below is recovery pace for me.

I run two 10 milers and a 15 miler, generally, on W/F/Sun. I always start these runs slowly, with the first mile < 9:00 and the first three miles almost always below 147 (75%). On the long runs, I may stick with that HR/pace a little longer--up to 5 miles. But it's very rare, frankly, for me to run more than 5 miles of a longer run under 150 (76.5%). Generally I follow the John Kellogg plan, which is to stay slow but gradually open it up, so that my HR almost always tends to rise through 155, 160, to at least 165 (84%). I should note that I NEVER hit this HR in the first mile or two; I'd feel distinctly stressed if I did. But at 6 miles--at that point in a 10 miler or 15 miler--84% feels like a good, full, aerobic pace.

Through much experiment and close listening, I've discovered the following training ranges above that:

170 -171 (87%): feels like marathon pace, although I haven't run a marathon for a while. Definitely sub-threshold for me. And noticeably more comfortable than 174-175, which is where I'm forced to switch from 3/3 to 3/2 breathing.

175 (89%): feels like half-marathon pace: the pace I'd work into a couple of miles into a well-paced half marathon

177-178 (90-91%): feels like threshold. I can stabilize at this pace and run a 20-minute tempo run. If I hit 179-180, I'm above threshold

182-183 (93%): feels like 10K pace. I run repeat miles so that I've attained and stabilized at this HR by about 400 meters in. This is definitely somewhere above threshold and below VO2max.

187-191 (95-98%): VO2max intensity. The lower end feels like 5K pace. The upper end feels like last mile of 5K pace.

On my long runs this spring, I've several times spent 63 minutes--most of the return leg on a 15 miler--averaging HR 174, which is right at half-marathon intensity, but (because I'm untapered, training hard, already had 7 miles under my belt, yada yada) averaging only 7:40-7:50 pace, which is signnificantly slower than actual half marathon race pace.

I know I've asked you this sort of question once or twice before, but I don't think I had this much HR/pace evidence to lay before you. So here's my question: Given what you've learned, which is clearly a great deal, how would you tweak--or radically revise--what I'm doing. Would you, for example, have me simply lighten way the hell up, so that I'm running the same mileage on the same days, but so that I'm sticking to some HR in the 140s on those three longer days? Is that Maffetone in a nutshell?

I'm all ears.

---

I'm not Jesse, but I really want to be, so I'm going to practice answering a question as if I were him.

The Maffetone method in a nutshell is to run ALL your miles at or under your calculated MAF, until your training paces stop progressing. Then you add anaerobic work and racing. Followed by a period of aerobic base again. A cycle.

There's nothing wrong with the way you're training right now, and you seem to be having fun calculating and making up some personalized zones. It all depends what your goals are.

Personally, I'm experimenting right now to see how this method works for me, so I'm giving it my best shot--following the rules exactly how they've been layed out in the book "Training For Endurance" by Phil Maffetone.

What you are currently doing is more the usual way of training. Your zones aren't far away from Pfitzinger's HR zones layed out in Advanced Marathoning:

VO2 max intervals 94-98% MHR
lactate threshold 80-90% MHR
long runs 73-83 MHR
recovery 75% and below MHR

Many people have found success with these, as did I. Though they left me burned out and on the verge of injury.

--Jimmy

My Running World
My Maffetone Low-HR Training Experiment

IP: Logged

posted Mar-15-2006 01:28 AM            

First of all, I believe that you are trying to push yourself way to hard. You should not be huffing and puffing. This means that you are working in your anaerobic zone. You do not want to be working in this zone for right now. I personally learned the hard way by either coming up injured or by getting sick. No fun. I would suggest to just make it a goal to get out and walk each day and add a few “jog breaks” as your HR allows. This way you will be able to increase your time faster and more safely, not to mention more benefit, than by just trying to jog for a short period of time. I’m just afraid if you keep up what you are doing, you will either burn out and hate running or get injured. Take your time and enjoy the experience! You will be surprised on how fast you will improve. Good luck!

IP: Logged

posted Mar-15-2006 01:34 AM            

[B] I'm not Jesse, but I really want to be.

--Jimmy

A long with many others, I'm sure.

How's the training going?

IP: Logged

posted Mar-15-2006 01:45 AM               

As the Moderator of this forum, I have been asked by the powers that be to keep an eye on the number of threads that we keep on teh server, as against archiving material (It is all still available, just archived). From time to time I archive off threads that haven't been read for a while, and to be fair, no one seems to notice.

This thread obviously takes up a LOT of server space due to its size, and I have been conscious of its importance as well as its length. Would anyone have a big objection if we froze the current thread and started an updated one. This would serve two purposes. One, it would free up some space on the Live System, and two, it would save people reading through a complete epic to get to the important points.

ANy thoughts anyone?

Thanks,

Liam

IP: Logged

posted Mar-15-2006 03:05 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by bdot:
Hi,

I've been looking for info on HR training etc. and found this enourmous thread. I'm new to running (11 weeks now) and have a hand me down HRM. I've been wearing it and my heart rates are typically up in the 160's. According to just about every different calculation out there, including MAF this is too high to be giving me aerobic benefit.

I honestly do not think I can run any slower. If I manage to get it to 158-162 I am fairly comfortable. When it is 168 I am huffing and puffing and do slow down or have to take a walking break.

I am 33, have allergies and some allergic asthma and not fit (carrying an extra 30 lbs that I am working on).

So....my question I guess is how much do I worry about HR at this stage? Am I skipping by the aerobic zone and not gaining anything from the running I am doing? My goal is to keep building my base and endurance....speed is not something I am concerned about.

Thanks in advance for any advance....

---

I know the feeling of "not being able to run any slower". Maybe you can try this. If you like running at HR's 158-160 than run at them till you see a pace improvement at them HR's. If you are comfortable as you say than you are running aerobic at those HR's. Soon as you see a pace improvement at the 160 HR zone drop it down to 155. The pace should be as you were used to. Than, soon as you see a pace improvement at the 155 zone drop it to 150 and so on till your at your MAF Hr.

Some on this board will tell you "walk if you have to" but I think thats a bunch of bull. Runners don't get faster by walking they get faster by running. I know this comment will stir some argument here but it's thats my opinion. As long as you can hold a conversation while your RUNNING than you can bank that your in an aerobic zone.

BTW, do you know what your max heart rate is?

IP: Logged

posted Mar-15-2006 07:10 AM               

The Maffetone method in a nutshell is to run ALL your miles at or under your calculated MAF, until your training paces stop progressing. Then you add anaerobic work and racing. Followed by a period of aerobic base again. A cycle.

There's nothing wrong with the way you're training right now, and you seem to be having fun calculating and making up some personalized zones. It all depends what your goals are.....

Jimmy:

I'm certainly having the fun you mention, but I'm also eager to try new things. I've gone back and looked at the Maffetone hyperlink in the post that began this thread back in May; I've also looked at your own webpaged experiment.

If I understand Dr. Maffetone & you correctly, my MAF training zone should be 180 - 47 (my age) + 5 (I've been running for many years and don't get colds) = 138, or about 71% of my MHR (196). Is that correct?

IP: Logged

posted Mar-15-2006 07:33 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by KudzuRunner:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by jjwaverly42:
[B] I'm not Jesse, but I really want to be, so I'm going to practice answering a question as if I were him.

The Maffetone method in a nutshell is to run ALL your miles at or under your calculated MAF, until your training paces stop progressing. Then you add anaerobic work and racing. Followed by a period of aerobic base again. A cycle.

There's nothing wrong with the way you're training right now, and you seem to be having fun calculating and making up some personalized zones. It all depends what your goals are.....

Jimmy:

I'm certainly having the fun you mention, but I'm also eager to try new things. I've gone back and looked at the Maffetone hyperlink in the post that began this thread back in May; I've also looked at your own webpaged experiment.

If I understand Dr. Maffetone & you correctly, my MAF training zone should be 180 - 47 (my age) + 5 (I've been running for many years and don't get colds) = 138, or about 71% of my MHR (196). Is that correct?

---

Correct. But the other part is training under that MAF, a zone of at least
128 on the bottom end. Not going over 138.

If you read the book, and I urge everyone who is trying this training to properly educate themselves and actually read what the guy actually wrote, you'll see he also talks about warming and cooling down, MAF tests, adding anaerobic training and when to do it, and how he came up with all this. Plus training stories.

Get the updated book here:
http://www.pccoach.com/products/books/book_fit_t4e.htm

--Jimmy

My Running World
My Maffetone Low-HR Training Experiment

IP: Logged

posted Mar-15-2006 07:55 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Liam:
Hi all,

As the Moderator of this forum, I have been asked by the powers that be to keep an eye on the number of threads that we keep on teh server, as against archiving material (It is all still available, just archived). From time to time I archive off threads that haven't been read for a while, and to be fair, no one seems to notice.

This thread obviously takes up a LOT of server space due to its size, and I have been conscious of its importance as well as its length. Would anyone have a big objection if we froze the current thread and started an updated one. This would serve two purposes. One, it would free up some space on the Live System, and two, it would save people reading through a complete epic to get to the important points.

ANy thoughts anyone?

Thanks,

Liam

---

Hey Liam,

I'm not sure what you mean by "LIVE SYSTEM" as one can access the archives just as well as the current threads. I thought it all just sat on the same server. Perhaps you are talking about the actual processing of the posts, which begs the following question:

I am curious. Perhaps, you know the answer to this:

Does the size of the thread affect loading time?

I've noticed the loading time is getting pretty slow.

If that's the case, then it might be wise to start MAFF thread number 2, and archive this one. It's the only reason I can see to do so. Just as long as it can still be accessed, as there is a lot of good info in the thread that might need to be used from time to time.

Archiving this might also relieve some of the tension certain individuals feel when they see such a big thread. Size matters in nature. Bigness can be scary. :> )

I think the creator, Jesse, will have to weigh in on this.

--Jimmy

My Running World
My Maffetone Low-HR Training Experiment

IP: Logged

posted Mar-15-2006 08:42 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by runawayjesse:
I know the feeling of "not being able to run any slower". Maybe you can try this. If you like running at HR's 158-160 than run at them till you see a pace improvement at them HR's. If you are comfortable as you say than you are running aerobic at those HR's. Soon as you see a pace improvement at the 160 HR zone drop it down to 155. The pace should be as you were used to. Than, soon as you see a pace improvement at the 155 zone drop it to 150 and so on till your at your MAF Hr.

Some on this board will tell you "walk if you have to" but I think thats a bunch of bull. Runners don't get faster by walking they get faster by running. I know this comment will stir some argument here but it's thats my opinion. As long as you can hold a conversation while your RUNNING than you can bank that your in an aerobic zone.

BTW, do you know what your max heart rate is?

---

I've been doing my running with walk breaks. The program I have followed has been working to 10 mins run followed by 1 min walk. I've only been at the 10 min stage for 2 weeks now (just starting the second week actually). Before that my HR was staying lower. I can usually can on a conversation or at least short sentences when in the 158-160 range.

I don't know what my max is but my resting is 52-54 (as measured the last two mornings).

When I say I am not fit I should qualify that. By a runners standard I am not fit but I am not a complete couch potatoe . I walk my dog each day for an hour, occasionally hike and do yoga once a week.

Thanks for the advice...for now til I get more accustomed to running I think I will stick with the conversation pace and work on getting my HR down and slowing down if I can without walking.

B.

[This message has been edited by bdot (edited Mar-15-2006).]

IP: Logged

posted Mar-15-2006 09:04 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by runawayjesse:
I know the feeling of "not being able to run any slower". Maybe you can try this. If you like running at HR's 158-160 than run at them till you see a pace improvement at them HR's. If you are comfortable as you say than you are running aerobic at those HR's. Soon as you see a pace improvement at the 160 HR zone drop it down to 155. The pace should be as you were used to. Than, soon as you see a pace improvement at the 155 zone drop it to 150 and so on till your at your MAF Hr.

Some on this board will tell you "walk if you have to" but I think thats a bunch of bull. Runners don't get faster by walking they get faster by running. I know this comment will stir some argument here but it's thats my opinion. As long as you can hold a conversation while your RUNNING than you can bank that your in an aerobic zone.

BTW, do you know what your max heart rate is?

---

I say "walk if you have to" IF you are really going to properly do this Maffetone Training. If you are training way above your MAF, you are doing another training method. Nothing wrong with that, but it's not giving this method the proper try.

I also believe that if you can't stay under your MAF and still be running, then one of the following, or a combination of, must be true:

--you are a beginning runner
--you are overweight
--for some reason like a layoff or injury, your aerobic system hasn't got the attention it deserves, and is currently swiss cheese
--you have some physical problem, sickness, or on something that is affecting your HR.

If any of the above is true, and you can't stay under MAF and be running, and you are really giving this program a go, then you should be walking some of the time.

Normally, it's a beginner who may or may not be overweight that can't keep it under MAF without walking. I'm not about to tell them to go out and run intervals to get faster. They should be easing their body into the rigors of running. Building slowly. Not overdoing it in anyway. Keeping healthy while building their aerobic endurance. Letting their joints, heart, and muscles adapt in their own time. It would be irresponsible to say anything different.

Sometimes it's just perception. I can run a 15:00 pace. I can walk it as well. Walking it seems fast. Running it seems slow. They're really the same speed, though walking takes less effort.

The main problem I believe people have with any kind of low HR training is thinking they have to be running faster. Like there is some kind of scarlett letter imprinted on your very being if you are moving slowly (even though it's temporary).

Walking might be the very thing someone needs on their journey to fulfilling their potential.

--Jimmy

My Running World
My Maffetone Low-HR Training Experiment

IP: Logged

posted Mar-15-2006 10:14 AM               

------------------
Clay

IP: Logged

posted Mar-15-2006 10:46 AM               

Thanks for the reference. I'll definitely order the book. I'm always interested in investigating coherent training philosophies.

I took a walk on the dark side this morning. Although I do, as I say, run four days a week at MAF or less (<139), I never ever run my longer runs at that HR--although I do always start off at that rate. So this morning, just for the heck of it, I thought I'd see what happened.

Instead of my usual 10 miles, I only made 8.75 miles. That was divided into two roughly equal sections, because I needed a bathroom break. In neither was I able to keep my average HR at 138 or below; I averaged 141 in each section and averaged around 9:30 pace overall. That figure surprised me: normally I run that pace on recovery days, at a slighly lower HR. I'd assumed that with two short/easy days since my brisk, fast-finishing 14 miler on Sunday, I'd run somewhat faster than that at the same effort.

Here are some subjective impressions from the run:
*) It was incredibly peaceful running at that low HR.
*) Even though I run four x a week at this HR, it was a constant struggle to continue into a longer run at that pace--i.e., to keep my HR below 140 as I ran 5, 6, 7 miles. Even the slightest rise sent it above. I felt as though I had to yank myself back from a higher gear, repeatedly.
*) What I discovered surprised me: my body quickly told me, in a low quiet voice, that it was tired from the hard training that I've been doing. It told me that even this 8.75 mile recovery run, after two short easy days, wasn't enough recovery. It told me that faster training is, or can be, a kind of addiction that feeds on itself, masking accumulating underlying tiredness. Normally I'd have run some hard hill repeats today; I'd planned, though, so run a progression run with 3-4 miles at marathon pace (7:30 pace or so)--a sort of back-off run, since I'm running a half-marathon as a build up race on Sunday. Instead, I ran much slower than I ever run an 8+ mile run--and I'm quite sure it was the right run for today.

I'm intrigued. Even the briefest flirtation with MAF has taught me something new. I'll buy that book. Thanks for humoring me.

IP: Logged

posted Mar-15-2006 11:07 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by jjwaverly42:
I say "walk if you have to" IF you are really going to properly do this Maffetone Training. If you are training way above your MAF, you are doing another training method. Nothing wrong with that, but it's not giving this method the proper try.

I also believe that if you can't stay under your MAF and still be running, then one of the following, or a combination of, must be true:

--you are a beginning runner
--you are overweight
--for some reason like a layoff or injury, your aerobic system hasn't got the attention it deserves, and is currently swiss cheese
--you have some physical problem, sickness, or on something that is affecting your HR.

If any of the above is true, and you can't stay under MAF and be running, and you are really giving this program a go, then you should be walking some of the time.

Normally, it's a beginner who may or may not be overweight that can't keep it under MAF without walking. I'm not about to tell them to go out and run intervals to get faster. They should be easing their body into the rigors of running. Building slowly. Not overdoing it in anyway. Keeping healthy while building their aerobic endurance. Letting their joints, heart, and muscles adapt in their own time. It would be irresponsible to say anything different.

Sometimes it's just perception. I can run a 15:00 pace. I can walk it as well. Walking it seems fast. Running it seems slow. They're really the same speed, though walking takes less effort.

The main problem I believe people have with any kind of low HR training is thinking they have to be running faster. Like there is some kind of scarlett letter imprinted on your very being if you are moving slowly (even though it's temporary).

Walking might be the very thing someone needs on their journey to fulfilling their potential.

--Jimmy

My Running World
My Maffetone Low-HR Training Experiment

---

I started MAF training 11 weeks ago and my MAF is 144(was 145 but I got older), that is true MAF 180-age-10 for me. I never had to walk but my pace was always very slow. In 11 weeks and mileage increase by nearly 100% my pace went nowhere. I'm starting to toy with the notion that it is possible to "run to slow". I have no evidence to back this up at this point though I'm working on it. Now, on week 12 I upped my HR zone by 10 bpm and I'm going to hold it their for awhile to see if my pace improves.I'm obvisiously faster than before. The effort at this HR is still very easy and the pace is wayyy better. I guess I'm in search of a HR zone where I see improvement.

IP: Logged

posted Mar-15-2006 11:17 AM               

IP: Logged