posted Mar-20-2006 04:30 PM            

I have spent the last three hours reading through parts of the old thread, Jesse's faq and this new thread. Thanks so much Jesse for all the time you have dedicated to helping us understand this method.

I have a question about fat-burning: 1st I assume runners like jesse and others that have been doing this method and racing well as a result of this method have very low body fat %. My question is at some point you run out of fat reserves right? So are you eating alot of fat calories to make up for that?

Also for someone like me who needs to lose about 25lbs and 10% body fat; should I be able to lose the weight fast if I stick to below MAF and continue to increase miliage?

------------------

IP: Logged

posted Mar-20-2006 04:37 PM            

I'm just getting to the 15 mile/week level (non-HR monitor running) and have decided that this method is how I want to build my base miles. There are so many choices in monitors ...can you suggest an inexpensive one ... I'm guessing one that had a signal when I was below a certain rate and above a certain rate is all I'd need, right? If it also worked with my treadmill (Proform Frontrunner), that would be a bonus. Thanks if you can advise. Thomas

[This message has been edited by Tommytwolegs (edited Mar-20-2006).]

IP: Logged

posted Mar-20-2006 04:53 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by 10smom62:
HI,

I have spent the last three hours reading through parts of the old thread, Jesse's faq and this new thread. Thanks so much Jesse for all the time you have dedicated to helping us understand this method.

I have a question about fat-burning: 1st I assume runners like jesse and others that have been doing this method and racing well as a result of this method have very low body fat %. My question is at some point you run out of fat reserves right? So are you eating alot of fat calories to make up for that?

Also for someone like me who needs to lose about 25lbs and 10% body fat; should I be able to lose the weight fast if I stick to below MAF and continue to increase miliage?

---

1 lb. of body fat = 3500 calories.
running burns aprox 100 calories per mile
If your body weight is 120 lbs, and you have 10% fat
then you have 12 lbs. of fat.

this equals 42,000 calories or 420 miles

You'll NEVER run out of fat reserves in a race.

The other fuel is glycogen

Your body stores aprox 2000 calories or 20 miles (general figure).

That's why it's better to use more fat than glycogen for fuel

The only way to lose weight is to burn more calories than you eat. There is no otherway to do it. Doesn't matter what you eat, doesn't matter how far you run. If you eat more claories than you burn--you gain. If you eat less--you lose.

--Jimmy

My Running World
My Maffetone Low-HR Training Experiment

[This message has been edited by jjwaverly42 (edited Mar-20-2006).]

IP: Logged

posted Mar-20-2006 05:18 PM            

IP: Logged

posted Mar-20-2006 05:57 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by 10smom62:
I guess what i meant by fat reserves are for those who don't need to burn anymore fat and are at a low body fat %. Where do they get the fat to burn? I am sure Jesse if probably well below 10% body fat by now. Does he eat a higher fat diet to make up for the continuing loss of body fat?

---

My example above was for a 10% body fat person.

If it was 5%, then cut it all in half. A 120 lb person with 5% percent body fat is still going to have 24,000 calories to burn (240 miles).

If you eat fat it doesn't get stored as fat. Unused calories get stored as fat.

Using fat as fuel, which is what this MAF training is all about, means that you are using more fat than glycogen in the fuel mix, thus you are able to go faster for longer distances.

It has nothing to do with eating fat.

BTW, 5% body fat is very rare, and I've read that it wouldn't be very healthy.

I urge you to read the book this training comes from. Also, you might try researching how the body works in terms of calories, fat diegestion, and how the body makes fat.

Education is a good thing, no?

--Jimmy

Coolrunning profiles:
My Running World
My Maffetone Low-HR Training Experiment

IP: Logged

posted Mar-20-2006 06:10 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Serious Runner:
Interesting thread. I had to quit reading the other one when it got too long, but I'll finish it some day.

Things I've noticed over the years while experimenting off/on with HRM training:

1. The heat in Texas makes it hard to keep the HR down. Most people suggest slowing, but unless you run at night, you can't keep the HR down. That has probably caused me to drop HRM training more than anything else.

2. The HR in the morning is lower than in the evening. It takes longer to get to the appropriate HR, and it feels like I'm working harder to get there.

3. I did Hadd-type training and kept my HR below 150 for about 8 weeks one year. My long run increased to 2 hours without any problem, and 60-minute runs were a breeze. My pace went from 8:30/mile to 7:30/mile. I ran a tough 5K at the end of the phase and hit 18:20; my fastest in the previous 3 years and I have yet to reach that again.

4. The hardest part is checking your ego. I'm used to running closer to 7-minute miles as my absolute slowest. Of course, right now that's not happening due to a bunch of niggling injuries.

I need to pull my HRM out of the closet and start up again with the HRM training. My running has sucked the last couple of years, so it couldn't hurt to try again. However, the last time I used my HRM, it messed up and kept showing 240 bpm. To buy a new one, I'm going to have to convince my wife that I plan to use it 100%.

Question: How do you do a MAF test on the t-mill? It seems like you would be messing with the speed the entire time. In addition, I really sweat on a t-mill, so I would have problems with overheating along the way.

---

No doubt about the heat. Hopefully after several weeks of acclimation
you can get thing under control. MAF test on the TM is quite easy,
just stay a few beats under. It will level off and a reach a steady
state with a very low climb over the long term. In fact, pretty much
everything in my running log in the category of "treadmill run" is
basically a MAF test, but I generally target a lower HR.

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

MyStuff

Low Heart Rate Training FAQ

IP: Logged

posted Mar-20-2006 06:15 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by altonjohn:

I am looking for some advice as I continue to build. I will start to add a touch of speed in about 4 weeks (6 weeks to go) and a few progression and marathon pace runs. How long do your runs go? Should I run any longer than 21 miles in a run training my base even if I feel I have some more miles left in my legs?

Just to let you know, my main goal is to run a marathon. My secondary goal is to be able to run after finishing the marathon without having to take too much time off and loosing the base that I have been building. My (it would be nice) third goal is to run it in 210 minutes.

Thanks,
John

---

I'll give the simple answer. I don't think you need longer than 20, 21
miles or so. Even for 50 mile races. I have however derived a lot of
benefit from back-to-back long runs. You don't need to do what I do,
but you may see the same thing with, say, a 20, followed by a 13 miler
the next day. I always find that the day after a run of 10 miles or more,
my pace improves by 20-30 sec/mile at MAF (but I lose a bit of that
after a rest day, go figure). Running below MAF should help you be
able to get into back-to-back long run mode.

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

MyStuff

Low Heart Rate Training FAQ

IP: Logged

posted Mar-20-2006 06:20 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by 10smom62:
HI,

I have spent the last three hours reading through parts of the old thread, Jesse's faq and this new thread. Thanks so much Jesse for all the time you have dedicated to helping us understand this method.

I have a question about fat-burning: 1st I assume runners like jesse and others that have been doing this method and racing well as a result of this method have very low body fat %. My question is at some point you run out of fat reserves right? So are you eating alot of fat calories to make up for that?

Also for someone like me who needs to lose about 25lbs and 10% body fat; should I be able to lose the weight fast if I stick to below MAF and continue to increase miliage?

---

I have about 10% body fat nowadays, compared to about 20% about
2 years ago. I eat a ton of everything - fats, carbs, protein, not much
distinction, but I never claim to be a qualified person to give nutritional
advice! I don't think I've ever run out of fat reserves - I think they'll
almost last forever. I know that in my last 50 mile race in November,
I didn't run out of anything and I felt good through the end. I did eat
a number of things during the race however. I don't know, perhaps if
I didn't eat a lot, I would have a problem, but I'm not sure.

I can say this - no matter what method you are using, whether you
stay below MAF or not, if you don't increase your calorie intake and
you increase mileage, you will eventually lose weight. The only part
the MAF-running will do is that it will probably enable you to increase
your mileage in a benign way.

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

MyStuff

Low Heart Rate Training FAQ

IP: Logged

posted Mar-20-2006 06:23 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by 10smom62:
I guess what i meant by fat reserves are for those who don't need to burn anymore fat and are at a low body fat %. Where do they get the fat to burn? I am sure Jesse if probably well below 10% body fat by now. Does he eat a higher fat diet to make up for the continuing loss of body fat?

---

I doubt I'm below 10%, though I haven't been tested recently. I have a
good amount of excess muscle mass and I think I need at least some
amount of fat just to support it.

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

MyStuff

Low Heart Rate Training FAQ

IP: Logged

posted Mar-20-2006 06:27 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tommytwolegs:
I first posted this as a separate topic in "basic training", but deleted it since I think in here is more appropriate...

I'm just getting to the 15 mile/week level (non-HR monitor running) and have decided that this method is how I want to build my base miles. There are so many choices in monitors ...can you suggest an inexpensive one ... I'm guessing one that had a signal when I was below a certain rate and above a certain rate is all I'd need, right? If it also worked with my treadmill (Proform Frontrunner), that would be a bonus. Thanks if you can advise. Thomas

[This message has been edited by Tommytwolegs (edited Mar-20-2006).]

---

I've been using a Nike Triax CV8, which was about $90 on ebay.
I like it because it works in the pool and it records 50 laps, including
avg HR for each lap. I also just bought a polar B1 at drugstore.com
for 39.99. It doesn't record laps or splits, but it does the job, it
works in the pool, and it is compatible with treadmills and other
cardio equipment, as well as with the Nike watch.

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

MyStuff

Low Heart Rate Training FAQ

IP: Logged

posted Mar-20-2006 06:38 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by jjwaverly42:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by 10smom62:
[b]HI,

I have spent the last three hours reading through parts of the old thread, Jesse's faq and this new thread. Thanks so much Jesse for all the time you have dedicated to helping us understand this method.

I have a question about fat-burning: 1st I assume runners like jesse and others that have been doing this method and racing well as a result of this method have very low body fat %. My question is at some point you run out of fat reserves right? So are you eating alot of fat calories to make up for that?

Also for someone like me who needs to lose about 25lbs and 10% body fat; should I be able to lose the weight fast if I stick to below MAF and continue to increase miliage?

---

1 lb. of body fat = 3500 calories.
running burns aprox 100 calories per mile
If your body weight is 120 lbs, and you have 10% fat
then you have 12 lbs. of fat.

this equals 42,000 calories or 420 miles

You'll NEVER run out of fat reserves in a race.

The other fuel is glycogen

Your body stores aprox 2000 calories or 20 miles (general figure).

That's why it's better to use more fat than glycogen for fuel

The only way to lose weight is to burn more calories than you eat. There is no otherway to do it. Doesn't matter what you eat, doesn't matter how far you run. If you eat more claories than you burn--you gain. If you eat less--you lose.

--Jimmy

My Running World
My Maffetone Low-HR Training Experiment

[This message has been edited by jjwaverly42 (edited Mar-20-2006).][/B][/QUOTE]

thanks for that analysis, Jimmy, I always forget about the
3500 calories = 1 lb. Now I can stop eating all that butter
before each race!

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

MyStuff

Low Heart Rate Training FAQ

IP: Logged

posted Mar-20-2006 06:51 PM            

you are getting a little bit snippy with your reponse. I am just asking for information. Believe me I am well read on low carb, low fat, high fat, and every other nutruion book out there. I just found this link so I have order the book. I was asking two different question but you insist on putting them into one question. my 2nd question had to do with metobolic rate due to low heart rate training ( I am sure you are familiar with that?) . I understand how calories work lol.... I was not asking about calories and diet. but thanks for trying.

IP: Logged

posted Mar-20-2006 06:58 PM            

IP: Logged

posted Mar-20-2006 07:08 PM            

IP: Logged

posted Mar-20-2006 07:27 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by 10smom62:
jj

you are getting a little bit snippy with your reponse. I am just asking for information. Believe me I am well read on low carb, low fat, high fat, and every other nutruion book out there. I just found this link so I have order the book. I was asking two different question but you insist on putting them into one question. my 2nd question had to do with metobolic rate due to low heart rate training ( I am sure you are familiar with that?) . I understand how calories work lol.... I was not asking about calories and diet. but thanks for trying.

---

Wasn't being snippy. That's your projection on my lifeless, emotionless text.

As far as your questions go, when someone asks:

quote:

---

Originally posted by 10smom62:
HI,

My question is at some point you run out of fat reserves right? So are you eating alot of fat calories to make up for that?

Also for someone like me who needs to lose about 25lbs and 10% body fat; should I be able to lose the weight fast if I stick to below MAF and continue to increase miliage?

---

That tells me you don't understand about fat metabolism, or how the body uses calories from fat, or that all it takes is burning more calories than you eat.

So, I answered your question the best way I know how, and urged you to get educated on these fine points. If that hit some kind of sore spot, I'm very sorry. I'm no flamer.

--Jimmy

Coolrunning profiles:
My Running World
My Maffetone Low-HR Training Experiment

IP: Logged

posted Mar-20-2006 08:00 PM            

You will burn more fat running faster, Maf makes you run slowly at first.

If you want to lose fat consistently at reduced chance of injury Maf is great.

Maf uses a higher percentage of fat to fuel your running. However, running faster than Maf, up near your lactate threshold level, will burn more fat per minute of running, since you are burning more total fat and total calories at the faster pace.

Maf's slower pace will probably let you get in more miles thus letting you lose weight. And the slow pace of Maf is gentler on the body. But if you have limited time to run, running faster will be better for you.

Best wishes.

Cash

IP: Logged

posted Mar-20-2006 08:23 PM            

IP: Logged

posted Mar-20-2006 08:29 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cashmason:
If your goal is to lose fat FAST, Maf is NOT the answer.

You will burn more fat running faster, Maf makes you run slowly at first <cut>

However, running faster than Maf, up near your lactate threshold level, will burn more fat per minute of running, since you are burning more total fat and total calories at the faster pace.

Best wishes.

Cash

---

Found this article interesting. I had always heard walking 1 mile burns the same as running 1 mile. Looked this up when I saw your post and it supports your argument.

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

IP: Logged

posted Mar-20-2006 10:08 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by PerfesserR:
Jesse-
A question about racing, apologies if this has been covered already. You've had some great performances in your marathons since you have been using this method. During these races, how did you judge your pace, did you use perceived effort, time, or HRM, and if so, what was your target HR? On casual examination it looks like you ran your races at MHR minus 10 or so?
IOW when you have trained exclusively at MAF for many weeks, how do you judge your pace in a marathon or longer, when you are running well above that pace and do not have a lot of experience running at that exertion level (well, you have that experience by virtue of your experience, but not everyone trying this program will have). I think that part of the theory behind training at a "tempo" pace is not only accumulating the aerobic/anaeorbic training at that pace, but the experience of being able to judge your exertion level and how long you will be able to mainain that level. I believe in the mantra, "Train like you'll fight and fight like you trained" (replace "fight" with "race" for the purposes of this discussion). It seems counterintuitive to run 26.2 or more at a rate that you never train at. Also, I instinctively resist the thought of being a slave to a measuring device, whether it be stopwatch, HRM, GPS, or whatever, but so far I've come to realize that my HRM is a really good tool for training. Is it also as good a tool for racing?

---

I don't come anywhere close to max heart rate in most races, especially
marathons. My max is 210 and I'll generally start in the low 160s in a
marathons, working up into the low 170s. If I feel like a kick at the end,
I'll bring it to 180-185 or so. My lactate threshold is about
177, from my last vo2max test. My MAF HR is 144, but I generally
target around 139, at least early in the season. Shorter races I'll
run at higher heart rates accordingly. I wear my HR monitor during
races, but I mostly used perceived effort and use HR as a guide as
to how things are going. Most "experts" don't recommend HR monitors
in races, but I'm far from an expert and I think it's quite helpful for me.
I used to use it to keep myself under control in races and avoid early
burnout, but now I use it to keep my heart rate up at the end of long
races, when sometimes I'd be getting tired and letting my HR go
down lower than I need it to be. If you were to flip through my running
log over the past 5 weekends or so, you can see my slips and HRs
from the 3 marathons and one 10 mile race that I ran. If you flip back
to November, you can see the results of the marathons and even the
50 mile that I ran back then as well.

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

MyStuff

Low Heart Rate Training FAQ

IP: Logged

posted Mar-20-2006 10:56 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by 10smom62:
jj

you are getting a little bit snippy with your reponse. I am just asking for information. Believe me I am well read on low carb, low fat, high fat, and every other nutruion book out there. I just found this link so I have order the book. I was asking two different question but you insist on putting them into one question. my 2nd question had to do with metobolic rate due to low heart rate training ( I am sure you are familiar with that?) . I understand how calories work lol.... I was not asking about calories and diet. but thanks for trying.

---

10smom62,

The body will always retain a certain amount of fat and you never burn only fat when you run, even very lean runners will never run out of fat to burn. While a superbly trained runner can store roughly 100% more glycogen than a sedentary person they still don't store enough to cover marathon distance so they burn fat. You can be pretty sure that a world class elite marathoner has less than 10% body fat. No fat and you probably wouldn't be healthy enough to even run a marathon. There is always some fat stored in your body and more than enough to get you through a race. At low intensity you will burn proportionately more fat, but at higher intensity you will burn more absolute fat, just a lower proportion of total calories burned.

As you're probably aware, no one (no matter their % body fat) should be consuming more than 30% of their calories in fat and recent reports say low-fat diets are bunk, and generally not all that healthy. The mix of type of fat is what is important.

Also, Jimmy is a nice guy and very helpful I don't think he was being snippy, its easy to misconstrue tone on these forums.

--jm

IP: Logged

posted Mar-21-2006 10:39 AM            

I recall, however, reading where the MAF test is supposed to start out at the MAF heartrate. You should be slowing down over the course of the test. If I remember correctly, if you get faster during the test, then you didn't warm up enough. That being said, shouldn't I be trying to hit my MAF rate within 400-600 meters of the test and then hold it while allowing the pace to slow down?

I strapped on the HRM last night and went out for 4 miles. It was painfully slow, and it was made worse by the fact that I forgot to turn on the beeper. That meant that I ran the first mile too fast, and I had to compensate at the end. On the other hand, I didn't have any of the stiffness and soreness that I usually have in the morning.

Furthermore, my monitor started flashing 240 on the last hill and wouldn't quit. After stopping, I checked my pulse and found it to be under 100 (I rested a minute), yet the monitor still showed 240. I thought that the company who changed the battery had screwed up, but when I took off the battery top on the strap, I saw moisture inside.

I sweat heavily and moisture must have gotten inside the unit. I let it dry out. I also remember that there used to be tape over the battery cover, and I bet that kept out moisture. I'm going to put some tape over the cover tonight and see if it works.

IP: Logged

posted Mar-21-2006 11:15 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Serious Runner:
MAF Test: Thanks for the reply on how to do one on a t-mill.

I recall, however, reading where the MAF test is supposed to start out at the MAF heartrate. You should be slowing down over the course of the test. If I remember correctly, if you get faster during the test, then you didn't warm up enough. That being said, shouldn't I be trying to hit my MAF rate within 400-600 meters of the test and then hold it while allowing the pace to slow down?

---

If you read the book, or any of the links to the Maffetone info, you'll see you're supposed to warm-up first. That's why I take two miles before I start the test, getting to my MAF by mile 3. Then, starting at mile 3, I do a 5-mile test (with warm-up=7 miles). You can do just 1 mile warm-up--or none if you want. The important thing is to do the test the same way everytime, under the same conditions

--Jimmy

Coolrunning profiles:
My Running World
My Maffetone Low-HR Training Experiment

[This message has been edited by jjwaverly42 (edited Mar-21-2006).]

IP: Logged

posted Mar-21-2006 12:49 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by jjwaverly42:
If you read the book, or any of the links to the Maffetone info, you'll see you're supposed to warm-up first. That's why I take two miles before I start the test, getting to my MAF by mile 3. Then, starting at mile 3, I do a 5-mile test (with warm-up=7 miles). You can do just 1 mile warm-up--or none if you want. The important thing is to do the test the same way everytime, under the same conditions

--Jimmy

---

Thanks for the clarification. I went brain-dead for a moment and didn't realize the first two miles were your warmup.

IP: Logged

posted Mar-21-2006 01:57 PM               

Polar HRM. Polar is the leader in HR monitoring. They are better than Timex, etc. I just replaced the batter on my cheststrap yesterday. Modern Polar straps are much more comfy (they are not all plastic on the front) and have replaceable batteries.

On running out of fat: As Parker, Jr. talked about in his HR training book - you are not going to run out of fat, even if you have very low body fat%

As far as eating fat - agree with others that there is some education that is missing. Any calorie that is extra can be stored as fat. Fat will be turned into fat. Carbs will be turned into fat. Protein will be turned into fat. That misunderstanding led many people to become fat in the early 90's when the low fat diet hit. People at the crap out of snackwells and low fat yogurt (both pure sugar) and were totally wondering why they got fat.

IP: Logged

posted Mar-21-2006 03:36 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by jjwaverly42:
By the way, one reason that Polar HR Monitors suck is that you can't replace the battery in the transmitter strap. You have to buy a new one.
The watch part was good, but I'm going back to Timex or something else where you can change the batteries yourself without having to replace the whole unit.

The transmitter didn't last anywhere near 2500 hours as advertised. Probably half that time.

Just a heads up.

Polar HR Monitors= 1 gu out of 5

--Jimmy

Coolrunning profiles:
My Running World
My Maffetone Low-HR Training Experiment

---

the new transmitters do allow for user battery change. The watches should be sent back to the factory, although you can have a jeweler do it, but it might not be water resistant anymore.

oh yeah, I haven't been doing any MAF running lately. [Had to make the obligatory MAF reference to stay on topic.]

--jm

IP: Logged