posted Apr-22-2006 06:42 PM               

Okay, I'm going to be the selfish prick that doesn't want to scroll through all the FAQ's and posts. If you have time to comment I'd really appreciate it...if not I understand completely.

I'd like to be another model for your theory. I am a 36 year old runner that has been running for about 6 years. I've done 4 marathons, most recently Boston this year in 3:09. I've not done any other races other than marathon length. I recently purchased the Garmin 305 and want to investigate HR training.

Prior to today I have never taken my HR during a run and have never tried to determine my max HR. Today I ran 4 miles at 6:55 pace and avg HR was 145. Only one hill in the course, about 0.1 mile long. HR climbed to 158 when I went up this hill hard.

If you are interested in taking on another pupil I would be willing to report all kinds of silly data. I love this Garmin! I would imagine the first step would be to determine a max HR. Any ideas on the best way? I assume it involves running 5-6 miles and then charging up a 1/2 mile incline until you puke or something similar.

Other relative data is my resting HR. Extremely low, I've measured it at 27 first thing in the morning while still laying in bed. I'm going to wear by Garmin to bed one night soon to get actual sleeping data.

Thanks for your attention, if you're too busy to deal with me just let me know.

IP: Logged

posted Apr-22-2006 07:00 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by leitnerj:
Are you being facetious? The point is that, theoretically, if you take
in carbs within approximately 3 hours of your run, you will be encouraging
your body to use carbs, rather than fat, for fuel. So, if you're going
to eat a big dinner at 3 am and start your run at 5 am, then you'll be
contradicting the approach. However, a big dinner before midnight
and a run after 3 am will ensure that you can meet this criterion. As
long as you sleep at least 3 hours, you should be pretty safe. Just
to be clear, after I finish my activities for the day, I eat a lot. Then I
eat a lot the rest of the day, then I eat a big dinner. Then I eat snacks
after dinner. Plenty of carbs, protein, fats, the whole works. I'm sorry-
I probably don't understand what you are asking.

---

Did not mean to be facetious, I guess I just wasn't clear :-) What I meant is whether it's 3 hours if all you do is sleep , or maybe it's much more. My experience is that I often feel full in the morning even after 6 or 7 hours of sleep if I had a big meal for dinner.

IP: Logged

posted Apr-22-2006 08:59 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by aharmer:
Jesse,

Okay, I'm going to be the selfish prick that doesn't want to scroll through all the FAQ's and posts. If you have time to comment I'd really appreciate it...if not I understand completely.

I'd like to be another model for your theory. I am a 36 year old runner that has been running for about 6 years. I've done 4 marathons, most recently Boston this year in 3:09. I've not done any other races other than marathon length. I recently purchased the Garmin 305 and want to investigate HR training.

Prior to today I have never taken my HR during a run and have never tried to determine my max HR. Today I ran 4 miles at 6:55 pace and avg HR was 145. Only one hill in the course, about 0.1 mile long. HR climbed to 158 when I went up this hill hard.

If you are interested in taking on another pupil I would be willing to report all kinds of silly data. I love this Garmin! I would imagine the first step would be to determine a max HR. Any ideas on the best way? I assume it involves running 5-6 miles and then charging up a 1/2 mile incline until you puke or something similar.

Other relative data is my resting HR. Extremely low, I've measured it at 27 first thing in the morning while still laying in bed. I'm going to wear by Garmin to bed one night soon to get actual sleeping data.

Thanks for your attention, if you're too busy to deal with me just let me know.

---

Hi aharmer! If you are going to use an approach such as Maffetone/
Mark Allen, you do not need a measure of max heart rate. That's
what I like about it and it's what many others do not like about it.
Why do I think that's good? First, I have a different "peak" heart
rate for short distance (less than 10k) as compared to medium-long
distance events. If I run less than 6 or 7 miles or so, or in a vo2max
test (which is around 5k duration), I don't get my heart rate beyond
about 196 at the point of total failure, however, in races greater than
10 miles, but less than 16, I have sustained heart rates of over 205
for 2 miles or more towards the end, without even being fully
expended at the finish. But, even without such factoids, there's
an arbitrary number of "anaerobic heart beats" between the anaerobic
threshold (the point where respiratory quotient reaches unity, and
you reach 100% carb/0 fat for fuel) and the max heart rate and none
of those heart beats "count" towards aerobic endurance. Now, I know
you said that you don't want to waste time with FAQs and such, but
I highly suggest you read FAQ items 1 & 2, just to see if there's really
a reason for you to take such an approach. From the information you
present, it's hard to say what it will do for you. If 3:09 is your marathon
PR (I would guess it may be faster than that) and your 5k time is,
say, 17:30-18 minutes or so, then there may be a lot you can get from
such an approach, but if your 5ks are around 19-19:30, you would
appear to have a strong aerobic fitness.

Now, with that said, my recommendation would be that you read
FAQ #1 and 2, and read the Mark Allen ironman live article. If you
don't want to do that, but you just want to have fun with the heart rate
monitor and become a somewhat blind guinea pig, I'm more than
happy to take your data. Here's the data I would like:
For at least one run a week on a terrain with as little variability
as possible (possibly treadmill or track), do a very easy warmup
for a good 10-15 minutes, then run 5-10 miles, keeping your
heart rate below (180-age+5), recording your splits for each
mile and average heart rate over the split. Don't take any
carbs within 3 hours of your run (you can take them during
your run after 15 minutes or so). That's it. If you've had a
vo2max test, I'd like to get some data from that, but that's another
story.

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

MyStuff

Low Heart Rate Training FAQ

IP: Logged

posted Apr-22-2006 09:01 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by raubalazs:
Did not mean to be facetious, I guess I just wasn't clear :-) What I meant is whether it's 3 hours if all you do is sleep , or maybe it's much more. My experience is that I often feel full in the morning even after 6 or 7 hours of sleep if I had a big meal for dinner.

---

3 hours between carbs and running. Doesn't matter how
big, whether you sleep, or whatever. Doesn't matter how many
carbs or calories.

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

MyStuff

Low Heart Rate Training FAQ

IP: Logged

posted Apr-22-2006 09:30 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by tigger:
Well....since you asked....I posted my results some time ago in the Lydiard thread and also in my own thread titled "Richard99". Check it out if you're interested, but briefly, yes I have seen substantial improvement by running at relatively low HR since January. No, I haven't raced in that period, but even Maffetone recommends (I think) absolutely no racing during basebuilding. My previous race results suggest some shortfall in aerobic fitness but not nearly as much as your 5k runner example. I chose to try to improve because I saw an opportunity to do it through increased base miles at an easy pace with the added benefit of lost weight. (7 lbs since Jan 1)

My MHR is 184 (measured) and my RHR is around 45 to 47. I try to run around 140 (75% of MHR) on average for an easy paced run. Sometimes I'm a little more and sometimes a little less, depending on how I feel when I start. I've held that HR for up to 2.5 hours over hilly terrain.

I have a couple of questions you may be able to answer.

First, why should anyone use a generic formula to calculate their aerobic running zone? How does this account for variation in individuals? At its core the maffetone recommendation is really no different than 220 minus your age times XX%. This leads to some people over training and others undertraining because of the great differences in heart rate across the population. For example, take a 20 year old newish runner with a MHR of 180. Using maffetone his recommended zone is 160, which is 89% of MHR. That's pretty much at LT for most runners. A similar 20 year old runner with a MHR of 220 would be running at 73% of his MHR. Why not get more specific and use your own observed MHR to calculate training zones?

Second, what about the effect of stressors such as heat? Pfitzinger advises adding a few beats per minute to your training zones to account for heat. It seems to me that the aerobic component of heart rate is only one (albeit the major one) component. Maffetone fails to account for any of the others.

Third, Lydiard said his method was NOT LSD. He said runners would gain aerobic benefit from slow running, but it would take longer to achieve the same benefit they could get from running near their maximum steady state.

Fourth, the maffetone method recommends base building for 3 to 6 months. What then? Surely one maxes out their aerobic benefit at some point and has to move onto improving other systems, such as VO2 max. I think somewhere you mentioned that you are still base building after several years of this method. Do you mean you are still increasing weekly mileage? If not, then what are you defining as base building?

I should add again that I absolutely agree people who run 21 minute 5k's and 4 hour marathons are badly underdeveloped aerobically. And I agree they will not benefit from more speedwork and eventually they will get frustrated and quit or will get injured and will be forced to quit. And I also agree that any improvement they can gain will be from more easy paced miles. Where I mildly disagree is that maffetone is superior to other aerobic training regimes. (You said above "when I make a statement such as "you won't achieve the aerobic basebuilding effect," that is not to imply that you will not develop your aerobic system or you will not aerobically condition yourself, or whatever, it just means that you will not likely see the same aerobic basebuilding effect as described by Maffetone or Mark Allen." This is the opposite of what Lydiard said about running at lower than your maximum steady state effort. He said it would take longer at lower pace to achieve the same effect.

Overall maffetone appears to me to be a spinoff from Lydiard, but a very conservative one (and based on an apparently generic and arbitrary formula) that leaves plenty of (perhaps too much) margin for safety. In some respects that makes it well suited to older runners who don't want the stress of fast paced training, or runners who want to focus on marathons or longer distances. I don't think we are very far apart in our approach to improving, but I believe one can get better results by more closely following Lydiard's advice.

I would be interested in how Dr Phil's formula was developed. Do you know?

---

tigger - I don't mean to be rude and I think you have some good
contributions here, but your questions are much of the same ones
that came up about every 5 pages in the 70 page thread we just
closed out prior to this one and the feedback was that many
were getting tired of how verbose the thread became with all of
the long and drawn-out responses. I tried to summarize most
of this stuff (at least what I find is relevant) in the FAQ. The
purpose of the FAQ was to try to cut down much of the
"verboseness" and redundancy in the thread to keep it from
blowing out of control again such that many people were angry
about it. Nonetheless, I'll try to give a quick answer to some of
your Q's and comments:
1. for younger (~25 and under) and older (~50 and over) there is
much ambiguity as to whether the heart rate zones will be good
or how effective the method will be.
2. as I mention in the FAQ, for someone with an exceptionally
low max heart rate, they'd be better off using Hadd's formula for
a low HR zone
3. Maffetone's formulas are derived empirically from working
with dozens of runners and Mark Allen has done the same
thing.
4. As I mentioned in many earlier posts and in the FAQ, I
don't believe max heart rate is a very useful quantity for
anything, for many reasons. However, % of anaerobic
threshold can be very useful for a personalized formula.
To get fully personalized, as I mention in the FAQ, one
should have a vo2max test done and do all base training
at the heart rate zone associated with a respiratory
quotient of about .78 (75% fat burn/25% carb burn), which
will roughly associate with MAF heart rate.
5. Indeed this method is not LSD. With LSD, you run
all of your long runs slowly. With this method, you pick
up your pace run after run, as your heart rate allows.
After 5 months of this form of training, my training pace
at low heart rate became faster than my training paces
were before I started (but at that time they were about
30 beats or more higher heart rate) and my fastest
treadmill pace below MAF became faster than my tempo
pace before this form of training. One can scroll through
my running log and see this effect, along with all the
others.

As I've mentioned over and over in this thread, I've
been doing dedicated MAF training for about a year,
with periods of "pure MAF" (all low HR) and then periods
of MAF with many races mixed in. As I've also mentioned
numerous times, I started out with a plan to do 12 weeks
of basebuilding as recommended, but my improvements
were so substantial, I found no reason to do anything else,
other than the races I was mixing in. Given that my
marathon time improved from 3:54 to 3:19 with about
6 months of dedicated MAF training with no speed work,
my vo2max improved from 54.3 to 62.5, my 10 mile race
PR improved from 77 minutes to 69 minutes, my 50 mile
race PR went from 10:34 to 8:28, to name
a few, why would I do anything differently?

Based on your questions, it appears that you have
not read the Maffetone or Mark Allen articles,
Maffetone's "Training for Endurance" book, or the
FAQ. That's fine as it's just additional information, but
most of your questions and comments are discussed
there.

With that said, my feeling is that most of the techno-babble
is covered between the articles by Maffetone, Allen,
Hadd, Russ, Pfitzinger, the FAQ, and in Maffetone's
and Mittleman's books, to name a couple. I gather that
people here are more interested in seeing and presenting
specific results as "expert testimony" is available in
many other forms.

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

MyStuff

Low Heart Rate Training FAQ

IP: Logged

posted Apr-22-2006 10:23 PM            

I disagree on MHR. It is commonly used by most running coaches and physiologists to define training zones. After all, it is one of two variables (the other is stroke volume) that defines how much blood is available for oxygen transport.

I still maintain that Lydiard is correct in his assessment of training ranges for optimal aerobic improvement. You obviously have found something that works well for you and I wouldn't change if I were you.

Good luck with your running,

IP: Logged

posted Apr-23-2006 05:25 AM               

I would be interested in how Dr Phil's formula was developed. Do you know?

Tigger,
Maffetone believed that 220-age was a generic and arbitrary formula. He said that equation fit only 35% of individuals based on his testing. He wanted a formula that might consider physiologic age as well as chronologic.He feels that the 180 formula considers both. He came up with it by measuring the respirarory quotient of athletes in the lab. That is the ratio of fat to sugar used for fuel during activity. More of this info can be found on page 37 of "Trainig for Endurance". Of course you are right that it doesn't apply to 100% of individuals. It is a more conservative method. One thing about it is the ability to avoid overuse injuries. That was an issue I dealt with out of my own ignorance the past three years before finding this method. I have tweaked it and am currently useing Hadd for an upcoming race but will go back to Maf for more base building this summer. Read his book. It is not an end all to training, just a tool to use.

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

IP: Logged

posted Apr-23-2006 06:52 AM            

I guess I'm left with only one question. If it's Lydiard based then why not simply use Lydiard training for base building? This is a pretty good interpretation.

http://www.bunnhill.com/BobHodge/Special/LydiardInterpreted.htm

IP: Logged

posted Apr-23-2006 08:57 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by tigger:
Thanks for the information. I will get the book. I fully understand the statistical nature of 220 minus age. On the surface, the 180 minus age is even worse, as it does not appear to consider MHR or heart reserve, which are the physiological indicator (albeit not totally accurate either) for how hard one is working. As leitnerj has pointed out the formula doesn't work for people on the higher or lower end of the age spectrum, nor does it work well for people on the high or low end of MHR. In other words it excludes a fair number of people.

I guess I'm left with only one question. If it's Lydiard based then why not simply use Lydiard training for base building? This is a pretty good interpretation.

http://www.bunnhill.com/BobHodge/Special/LydiardInterpreted.htm

---

You CAN use Lydiard for base-building. Go for it. Come on over to the heart rate training thread I just started and tell us all about it. The people here posting in this thread are experimenting with Maffetone. The subject of this thread is Maffetone Low Hr-training. You are obviously a big believer in Lydiard, why don't you start a thread about it where people can discuss it, post their progress, and support each other? This thread is for the same purpose.

--Jimmy

My Running World

IP: Logged

posted Apr-23-2006 01:45 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by tigger:
As leitnerj has pointed out the formula doesn't work for people on the higher or lower end of the age spectrum, nor does it work well for people on the high or low end of MHR. In other words it excludes a fair number of people.

---

Not quite correct. If you have a high max heart rate, the formula
is fine. My max heart rate is over 210 and I do most of my running
at 10 or more beats below Maffetone's formula (i.e., most of my
running, other than in races, is generally at 139 or less), which
amounts to less than 65% max heart rate and < 60% heart rate reserve.

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

MyStuff

Low Heart Rate Training FAQ

IP: Logged

posted Apr-23-2006 02:02 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by jjwaverly42:

You CAN use Lydiard for base-building. Go for it. Come on over to the heart rate training thread I just started and tell us all about it. The people here posting in this thread are experimenting with Maffetone. The subject of this thread is Maffetone Low Hr-training. You are obviously a big believer in Lydiard, why don't you start a thread about it where people can discuss it, post their progress, and support each other? This thread is for the same purpose.

--Jimmy

My Running World

---

I agree. The good thing about Lydiard is that there is much open
to interpretation. One can look at Maffetone, Mittleman, Joe
Henderson, Hadd, or any of the others (even Jack Daniels to
a degree) as some interpretation of Lydiard. Lydiard training
does need a dedicated
thread, or two, in order to accommodate all of the different approaches
that would fit the Lydiard umbrella. On the other hand, Maffetone
and Mark Allen, in base building phase, really rely on following some
specific rules strictly. If you don't believe in those rules, by all means,
you should make your own program, track your progress and go with
it. In the confines of this thread, I discuss the results that I have
seen with mostly strict following of the method and I will certainly
indicate whether some variant or another contradicts the method.
Nonetheless, it is nice to see specific results that people have
obtained using the method directly and variants thereof.

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

MyStuff

Low Heart Rate Training FAQ

IP: Logged

posted Apr-24-2006 08:50 AM            

I'm a 29 year old male and I do work out a lot, so I'm not sure why my heart rate is so out of control. I don't have time to patiently wait for my ability to improve over the next six months, which would be ideal. That said, I don't want to just start doing speed training and have my heart rate racing. Does anyone have any tips on what's the best thing to do in these five weeks? I'd like to be running sub eight minute miles by the fifth week. Thanks in advance for any tips.
JD

IP: Logged

posted Apr-24-2006 10:01 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by leitnerj:
Nonetheless, it is nice to see specific results that people have
obtained using the method directly and variants thereof.

---

Yes, results are not only gratifying but they demonstrate the correctness of the inputs. You have achieved impressive results but I wonder how much better they would be if you were a little less conservative.

IP: Logged

posted Apr-24-2006 11:07 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by tigger:
Yes, results are not only gratifying but they demonstrate the correctness of the inputs. You have achieved impressive results but I wonder how much better they would be if you were a little less conservative.

---

How impressive are yours? Just curious--I don't mean to flame you or anything. I am curious to see if this Lydiard would be good for me. I would hardly call Leitnerj conservative. I think he ran a triple marathon last year, and it seems like he runs a marathon every other week. Leitnerj lays all his info out for all to see, so we know he's real-- which really helps for motivation during these extremely slow paces times. I was wondering if we can see yours. How well your progressing. Your PR's. How much mileage you put in per week. Also, the hert rate zones that Lydiard uses. I'm figuring you use a heart rate monitor since this is a thread for that.

If you could, please lay it all out. It would help me and maybe some others to decide better.

IP: Logged

posted Apr-24-2006 01:50 PM            

quote:

---

The problem I have is that when I run my heart rate shoots up to the 180-190 area - even when I'm running 10 minute miles.
JD[/B]

---

I do not have any info that will help because I believe that it takes a while to build a good aerobic base. Someone in this thread might be able to provide you with some information that will help.
kcy

------------------
My Running Page

IP: Logged

posted Apr-24-2006 02:44 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by tigger:
I appreciate you not being rude, however I can be quite nasty if need be so let's not go there.

I disagree on MHR. It is commonly used by most running coaches and physiologists to define training zones. After all, it is one of two variables (the other is stroke volume) that defines how much blood is available for oxygen transport.

I still maintain that Lydiard is correct in his assessment of training ranges for optimal aerobic improvement. You obviously have found something that works well for you and I wouldn't change if I were you.

Good luck with your running,

---

Tigger I think we see eye to eye on the Lydiard approach but didn't we both agree that one should run EASY to get to peak mileage. I think that would be a good time for one to try MAF training.

I started out on a strict MAF diet because I wanted to get to peak mileage saftly, as it says in hodges article. 11 weeks of MAF for me brought many benifits but increased pace was not one of them. I did however get to peak mileage safetly, so mission accomplished. I started real BASE training about 4 or 5 weeks ago following lydiard's method with stronger aerobic efforts only I gauge my efforts with a HRM. I use %% of max HR and not HRR like Molvar suggest. My pace really took off in the 4 weeks and my improvement has been great.

I guess my point being that I don't think MAF was a waste for me at all. I made me a stronger leaner runner all while I increased my miles. Could I have increased my miles running at the higher efforts? I doubt it. (for me)

In previous post I mention others (pftiz, Daniels) just to be a reflection of the Lydiard method but I don't think that MAFFETONE is. Read into it more and you will see his system is based on different ideas and principles. For me, I think Lydiard system is best for marathon and shorter distances while Maffetone will probley work wonders for the ultra marathoner. Lydiard doesn't stress using fat for fuel which seems to be the basis of Maffetone's method. This is just what I have gathered.

IP: Logged

posted Apr-24-2006 06:09 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sparrowface:

How impressive are yours? Just curious--I don't mean to flame you or anything. I am curious to see if this Lydiard would be good for me. I would hardly call Leitnerj conservative. I think he ran a triple marathon last year, and it seems like he runs a marathon every other week. Leitnerj lays all his info out for all to see, so we know he's real-- which really helps for motivation during these extremely slow paces times. I was wondering if we can see yours. How well your progressing. Your PR's. How much mileage you put in per week. Also, the hert rate zones that Lydiard uses. I'm figuring you use a heart rate monitor since this is a thread for that.

If you could, please lay it all out. It would help me and maybe some others to decide better.

---

As I said several posts ago, just do a search for the Lydiard thread or the one titled "Richard99" for my results this year. It's all there. Briefly, the most noteable result over the past 4 months is a new PR (by 1.75 minutes) at 10k (the final 10k of a 7 mile threshold run (based on HR) with the first mile at warmup. Note this was a threshold run, which is normally around 15k pace, so a real 10k race time would have been substantially better.

I should clarify. I don't think leitnerj is conservative. It's the maf training regime that I think is conservative. If I trained on maf I would be at 125 hr. I normally run close to 140.

IP: Logged

posted Apr-24-2006 06:40 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by jdl10128:
I've read most of the posts above and I have a question specific to my situation - I've got about 5 weeks to maximize my aerobic fitness. I have not been running a lot for the past several months, but I have been doing aerobic exercise (eliptical, bike, etc.). The problem I have is that when I run my heart rate shoots up to the 180-190 area - even when I'm running 10 minute miles.

I'm a 29 year old male and I do work out a lot, so I'm not sure why my heart rate is so out of control. I don't have time to patiently wait for my ability to improve over the next six months, which would be ideal. That said, I don't want to just start doing speed training and have my heart rate racing. Does anyone have any tips on what's the best thing to do in these five weeks? I'd like to be running sub eight minute miles by the fifth week. Thanks in advance for any tips.
JD

---

Hi JD - I'd suggest you don't get fixated on any kind of short-term
improvement. It's just not likely to happen. This type of method
is what I would call strategic and not tactical and, in fact, many
have seen that they have gone backwards in order to eventually
go forwards. If you have a race, time trial, or something similar
coming up in 5 weeks, this is not the time to try something
dramatically new. It's not unusual for people to be quite fast
and in quite good shape to have screaming high heart rates when
they run. We've had many examples here. If you're talking about
going from 10 minute miles to sub-8s in 5 weeks, that would be
quite an accomplishment and I would imagine there are 500 readers
here who would love the same secret. Nonetheless, I would ask
you the following questions to determine how realistic of a goal you
have:
1. how long do you need to *sustain* a sub-8 mile?
2. how fast can you run one single mile, all-out as if in
a race?
3. have you run any 2 mile, 5k, or 10k races that you have times
for?
4. how fast can you run a 400 all-out (one lap around the track)?

Answer these and we'll see where to take you.

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

MyStuff

Low Heart Rate Training FAQ

[This message has been edited by leitnerj (edited Apr-24-2006).]

IP: Logged

posted Apr-24-2006 08:02 PM               

Before I post my paces, time etc here are some thoughts I have had lately about my training and this plan.

1) I have been able to train without injury. Occassional soreness but mainly comes with longer runs or shoes going bad.

2) I have been able to build my mileage from ~ 20 MPW up to a high last week of 56 MPW. Hell I never thought I would get up to 40 MPW. This is not to say that I could not have done this without MAF - I will never know. But I do know that I was originally running at fast pace and was worn out after 6 miles. I always trained anaerobically.

3) I have not been able to lose the weight I want 170 - 165. I seriously wonder if this has to due with slower training. I run a lot and think I should have dropped the mini-roll by now.

4) My resting HR is now in the low 40's/high 30's upon waking.

5) I recently added in a tempo run once a week or two just for kicks and to see if it helps. I can't know for how much this has helped me during races but wanted to make note that I do these runs (5 miles @ 5k pace).

6) I am new to running with a purpose and racing for time. Like I said, i used to run each time with the goal of beating my previous best - run as fast as possible every run, period. I am saying this because perhaps my lack of running understanding made my improvement seem better than other people's experience. I know Jimmy who posts here BQd doing other programs and I am not close to that point yet. So perhaps his training plan pre-MAF was more effective than MAF.

Summary
The program itself has enabled me to run more than I thought I ever could in a day, in week, and in a month. My HR is low. I am injury free. My pace is much faster and my PRs are improving. I feel like I could run for much further than my 16.4 I have maxed at thus far. It has taken some time but I think being patient enabled me to enjoy running and continue with it through the winter.

When I started this plan I was running a 10:40 pace on my 6.1 course @ 145 MAF HR.

* Last week I was able to run the same course at 8:50 pace and that was feeling crappy.
* I ran 11.2 miles at 8:57 pace 145 HR the next day
* and then 8.6 at 8:45 pace the following day.

Even on days with strong spring wind I am not disappointed with my times.

Races
Even though I run slow I have had some decent race times. I run at 165-180 HR when racing. Again, this is my first year training and racing. I have run a couple 1/2 s previously but with minimal (< 20 MPW) training.

This year times:

5k 22:36 (7:17/mile) Feb 2006
10k 47:34 (7:39/mile, ill) Mar 2006
15k 1:11:58 (7:44/mile), 10k split 46:22 - Apr 2006

Yesterday I ran a training 13.1 miles @ 145 HR in 2:03 and I was a bit weary and dealing with strong winds. Last year I ran the 1/2 marathon race as fast as possible in 2:01. I cannot wait to run the 1/2 in 2 weeks here in Indy.

So I will continue training like this for the time being. I seem to get results even if slow. For me, if I can shave 15-20 minutes off my 1/2 marathon time in 6 months, the training has worked. There is more to training than times too - I cannot say (knock on wood) how nice it has been to run without overtraining and injury. I am even ~ 5-10 pounds heavier than ideal and I am very pleased with my times.

Okay - end of my discertation. I just know with this training in a year I will be talking about ultramrathons rather than marathons. I continue to drink the Kool-Aid

------------------
------------------
About Me ~~~ My Log ~~~Find a Race

IP: Logged

posted Apr-24-2006 08:12 PM               

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

MyStuff

Low Heart Rate Training FAQ

IP: Logged

posted Apr-24-2006 08:21 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by leitnerj:
Great results, hurry! Thank you for posting. You are another
great example of one who had some somewhat discouraging
results in the beginning that blossomed into something very
productive, and your race results are following suit. Now, just
one comment - you mention that you are doing 5 miles at
5k pace. If you are doing 5 miles, it's not 5k pace! It's
at least 5 mile pace (but that would be extreme). Do you mean
15k pace? Even 5x1mile at 5k pace (with recovery in between)
is a bit extreme even for aggressive speedwork!

---

Well, I wanted to do LT runs. I then read about doing 5 mile tempo runs. My most recent 5 mile tempo was as follows:

Sunday,
Apr 9, 2006

Temp: 53
Jump to this week Running
Tempo run
5:15 pm
> Edit or delete 5 mile Tempo
5 miles
36:52 (7m 22s/mile) Weight: 170
Avg. HR:
164
2006 Saucony Triumph - Pair 1
Planned to be a LT run (~7:45) but was getting good times with HR around 165. Kept running at around 165 to see times I could get. Could have pushed hard but tried to pace self for 5 miles.
Splits:
7:20
7:00
7:33
7:27
7:29

I guess I am a little confused based on what I have read re: what is effective LT pace and when is the appropriate time to run faster paces (440 repeats @ 5k pace?)

Wadda ya think?

------------------
------------------
About Me ~~~ My Log ~~~Find a Race

IP: Logged

posted Apr-24-2006 08:32 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by hurryinhoosier:
Well, I wanted to do LT runs. I then read about doing 5 mile tempo runs. My most recent 5 mile tempo was as follows:
[b]
Sunday,
Apr 9, 2006

Temp: 53
Jump to this week Running
Tempo run
5:15 pm
> Edit or delete 5 mile Tempo
5 miles
36:52 (7m 22s/mile) Weight: 170
Avg. HR:
164
2006 Saucony Triumph - Pair 1
Planned to be a LT run (~7:45) but was getting good times with HR around 165. Kept running at around 165 to see times I could get. Could have pushed hard but tried to pace self for 5 miles.
Splits:
7:20
7:00
7:33
7:27
7:29

I guess I am a little confused based on what I have read re: what is effective LT pace and when is the appropriate time to run faster paces (440 repeats @ 5k pace?)

Wadda ya think?

[/B]

---

LT pace would be between your 10k and half marathon pace - 15k
pace would be a good choice.
5k pace is, by definition, the pace at which you would run a 5k
at your absolute best. You would not be able to sustain it for any
distance longer than 5k. If your training is mostly for the marathon,
you really don't need to run anything faster than LT pace, at least
for a while, when you really have to hone your speed. It doesn't
provide much productive for marathon until you have peaked out
your marathon speed. LT, on the other hand, is directly applicable.
It looks like the pace you're using for tempo is probably fine, perhaps
slightly on the fast side. The heart rate should be just below the
heart rate where you start to feel very stressed. For me, tempo
pace is about 30 beats above (unadjusted) MAF, but it will be
different for everyone. Given that your pace is not going down
substantially throughout the run (i.e., heart rate is not climbing
rapidly), it means that you're probably just fine and not over your
LT value.

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

MyStuff

Low Heart Rate Training FAQ

IP: Logged

posted Apr-24-2006 10:05 PM            

------------------
My Running Page

IP: Logged

posted Apr-24-2006 11:21 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by hurryinhoosier:
Okay - I am just catching up on the last 7 pages or so. Been a while since I have posted but that I would add my thoughts and progress after completing my 6th Month of Maff training................................ I continue to drink the Kool-Aid

---

Congratulations on your progress. Building up to 56 miles per week from 20 is awesome. MAf training will surely help you to get that mileage up there a bit more safely. Your race times are looking good. Keep going!

--Jimmy

My Running World
Current Training

IP: Logged

posted Apr-24-2006 11:25 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by kcy1998:
I have posted here and been doing MAF since Jan09 of this year. I went from an initial MAF test of 4 miles @ a pace of 14:30 to a 8 mile run @ a pace of 10:54!

---

Yay!!!Kudos!!!! Don't stop! You'll kick the butt of your past self in your next marathon.

Good work.

--Jimmy

My Running World
Current Training

IP: Logged