posted Jun-22-2006 09:02 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by anya345:
HOw are you suppose to follow this thread? I just don't get it.

---

The way I did it was start at page 1, go to page 2, then 3 etc.

------------------
PR your next marathon guaranteed!!
e-Gel

IP: Logged

posted Jun-23-2006 11:09 AM               

IP: Logged

posted Jun-23-2006 11:15 AM            

Thursday
AM 8 @ around 8:10, 71F and 94% humidity, HR 96,

IP: Logged

posted Jun-23-2006 11:41 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by blakester:
Any of you experienced MAFFers gone completly from this type training directly into a 10K race without any tempos or speedwork leading up to the race? I'm still not that fast with my pace, 13ish /mile using this and staying at my MAFF of 135, so how do I know how hard to push it on race day.

---

I had one friend who did that, and she was quite surprised at how well she ran for the 10K w/o doing the speedwork and tempo runs that most people use.

Others have told me that they feel like they are running in molasses the first race or two, but then things pick up a bunch.

On Race Day, I personally would run like I normally do. Pick a reasonable goal pace and hold that pace from the getgo. The few times I've tried racing with an HRM have been disasters because I spent too much time worrying about the HRM instead of how I was feeling. Your HR will already be up because of the excitement of the race.

IP: Logged

posted Jun-23-2006 03:50 PM               

I noticed how much higher you HR was in the races, as compared to your long runs. My question is this: When your running in your 160s to 170s is that still aerobic for you? I only ask because one of the things I'm wondering is how I should run races, once I start. I

IP: Logged

posted Jun-23-2006 08:24 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by blakester:
Any of you experienced MAFFers gone completly from this type training directly into a 10K race without any tempos or speedwork leading up to the race? I'm still not that fast with my pace, 13ish /mile using this and staying at my MAFF of 135, so how do I know how hard to push it on race day.

---

That's exactly what I did. Everyone is unique in this regard. In
fact, the first time I tried this, I ran at strictly low HR for 8 weeks,
nothing faster than even a 10 minute mile, then I ran a 1 mile
race in 5:36, over a 30 second PR.

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

MyStuff

Low Heart Rate Training FAQ

[This message has been edited by leitnerj (edited Jun-23-2006).]

IP: Logged

posted Jun-23-2006 08:34 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by maceospops:
Jessie,

I noticed how much higher you HR was in the races, as compared to your long runs. My question is this: When your running in your 160s to 170s is that still aerobic for you? I only ask because one of the things I'm wondering is how I should run races, once I start. I

---

Well, an activity is always aerobic only to a degree - it's not an on/off
type of characteristic. My anaerobic threshold is around 177, so to that
extent, anything below that is "not anaerobic" (which would mean I'm
still using some fat for fuel). I can tell you this - after putting in a lot
of mileage at very low heart rates, I have gotten to the point where I
am "more aerobic" even at higher heart rates (which I define by having a
lower respriratory quotient, and hence use more fat for fuel) than I
was able to before this form of training and further more, nowadays,
I can sustain a run at a pretty high heart rate for a very long time without
my heart rate diving through the roof, much better than I used to be able
to.

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

MyStuff

Low Heart Rate Training FAQ

IP: Logged

posted Jun-24-2006 12:06 AM            

I did exactly that. 3 months at Maf - 5. Then raced a 10 k.

Ran at an average of 30 beats higher than maf for the first 9k then as fast as I could go for the last k. Result 18 minute PR.

Granted it was off a very slow previous record.

IP: Logged

posted Jun-24-2006 09:03 AM               

IP: Logged

posted Jun-24-2006 09:25 AM            

On this 10k thing, as a matter of interest, after 13 weeks of relatively low HR running (around 140) I ran a 10k track LT trial (April 7) as part of an overall 7.2 mile run. I did a 9:24 warmup mile & then ran the following 1600 splits:

1 - 8:40
2 - 8:33
3 - 8:25
4 - 8:18
5 - 8:18
6 - 2:04 (400 m)
7 - 8:13

Total time was 52:31, which beat my best previous 10k by almost 2 and a half minutes. (Remember, this was an LT run, not at 10k race pace, which in theory should be faster.) During the run my HR slowly increased to 164 over the final two or three miles. The first half felt easy, whereas the second half felt like I was on the edge of LT pace....almost hyperventilation over the last 1600. My MHR is 184.

Tomorrow I will be running a 10k race & I hope to at least equal this LT time. I'll let you know how it goes.

IP: Logged

posted Jun-24-2006 10:16 AM               

------------------
My Profile

IP: Logged

posted Jun-24-2006 10:26 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by tigger:

I was reading Noakes' "Lore of Running" last night and went through his review of Mark Allen's career. Noakes says Allen only ran at low HR for the first 12 weeks of his training year. After that he introduced faster running work. Can anyone confirm that?

---

I do believe Mark Allen pretty much confirms that he follows up his base period with faster running in that famous article that Jesse lists. He goes back and forth. I think the very first time he tried it, he did it for a bit longer.

That's about right anyway. You can run under MAF all the time if you want, but at some point, if you're a racer, you have to start racing at the very least. I think if you're a beginner, it's VERY wise to do this for at least 6 months to a year, to let your body build up. If you're note, two 12 weeks periods a year of MAF pure aerobic base building is good--followed by two periods of LT, some anaerobic work, and racing. And that's from
Mr. Maffetone's mouth himself.

--Jimmy

Current Training
My Running World

IP: Logged

posted Jun-24-2006 10:51 AM               

I ran a 25k in May, but didn't do that run much fast than my Maff pace. Today I ran a 5k, first one in about 10 years. I ran that race 10 years ago in about 22:10 (+/-).

Today, with absolutely no speed work I ran 21:15. Its not as fast as I planned, but still a significant PR.

I also have a question. I'm 30 years old and my max heart rate today was 187. Back in late Jan I ran a heart rate test and hit 193. Could this Maff training lower my max heart rate, or did I just wimp out today?

IP: Logged

posted Jun-24-2006 11:52 AM            

Weather
5/13 - 56F temp/53F dew pt.
6/03 - 66F temp/60F dew pt.
6/24 - 70F temp/67F dew pt.

Warmup (a little over two miles)
5/13 - 21:04/131
6/03 - 22:49/131
6/24 - 22:13/133

5/13 6/3 6/24
Mile 1 09:18 09:59 09:53
Mile 2 09:32 10:02 10:01
Mile 3 09:35 09:57 09:54
Mile 4 09:45 09:59 10:09
Mile 5 09:52 10:05 10:19

- From 1/1 through 5/13 (pre-maffetone), I ran 805 miles (42 mpw).
- From 5/14 through 6/3, I ran 122 miles (41 mpw). I really feel like I was less fit at the second test then the first. I guess that's to be expected since my mpw were the same and I dropped intensity. (I was recovering from a marathon on 5/7 or I'd have run more.)
- From 6/4 through 6/24, I ran 154 miles (51 mpw). I'd say I was in about the same or slightly better shape than the second test. It felt muggier today.

I guess I'll just keep applying the mileage and hope I hit a turning point. I'm debating whether or not to run an 8K in 3 weeks.

[This message has been edited by gregw (edited Jun-24-2006).]

IP: Logged

posted Jun-24-2006 12:02 PM               

------------------
My Profile

IP: Logged

posted Jun-24-2006 12:56 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by gregw:
I ran another maffetone test today (and I'm not getting any faster!). The test was done identically to the last two (5/13 and 6/3). Warning lots of data...

Weather
5/13 - 56F temp/53F dew pt.
6/03 - 66F temp/60F dew pt.
6/24 - 70F temp/67F dew pt.

Warmup (a little over two miles)
5/13 - 21:04/131
6/03 - 22:49/131
6/24 - 22:13/133

5/13 6/3 6/24
Mile 1 09:18 09:59 09:53
Mile 2 09:32 10:02 10:01
Mile 3 09:35 09:57 09:54
Mile 4 09:45 09:59 10:09
Mile 5 09:52 10:05 10:19

- From 1/1 through 5/13 (pre-maffetone), I ran 805 miles (42 mpw).
- From 5/14 through 6/3, I ran 122 miles (41 mpw). I really feel like I was less fit at the second test then the first. I guess that's to be expected since my mpw were the same and I dropped intensity. (I was recovering from a marathon on 5/7 or I'd have run more.)
- From 6/4 through 6/24, I ran 154 miles (51 mpw). I'd say I was in about the same or slightly better shape than the second test. It felt muggier today.

I guess I'll just keep applying the mileage and hope I hit a turning point. I'm debating whether or not to run an 8K in 3 weeks.

[This message has been edited by gregw (edited Jun-24-2006).]

---

There's nothing surprising about your results. I always say that
if you really want to gauge progress, you have to equalize the
environment (the easiest way is to run any "tests" on the
treadmill, zero incline). You've done just the opposite. First
test done at a dewpoint of 53 deg and last done at 67! That's
tremendous. I'm glad you actually recorded it. Just for reference,
at the end of last year, I was up to about a 8:40/mile at MAF-5
in cool weather on hills, and I ran a 3:24 marathon (albeit
somewhat conservatively). In recent weeks, my pace as been
more like a 10 minute mile and slower at MAF-5 and I ran a 3:17,
conservatively as well. My recent outdoor runs have been in
heat and humidity. I just did a treadmill run yesterday, below
MAF, average pace 7:38/mile. Don't even bother comparing
outdoor run results at different temperatures and dewpoints. It
really means almost nothing. And by the way, even if you don't
see a lot of improvement in your pace at MAF in heat, you will
get substantial improvement at higher heart rates (which is what
I've seen in both of my hot weather marathons this year).

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

MyStuff

Low Heart Rate Training FAQ

IP: Logged

posted Jun-24-2006 12:59 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by tigger:

I was reading Noakes' "Lore of Running" last night and went through his review of Mark Allen's career. Noakes says Allen only ran at low HR for the first 12 weeks of his training year. After that he introduced faster running work. Can anyone confirm that?

Tomorrow I will be running a 10k race & I hope to at least equal this LT time. I'll let you know how it goes.

---

I'd say Jimmy has it about right. If you read all of Mark Allen's
articles, he basically said he spent about the first year doing exclusively
low heart rate, starting at a pace of around 8:30/mile, and ending up
around 5:30/mile. After that, he got back to racing and probably
twice a year, he does between 8 and 12 weeks of exclusive low
before starting his hard workouts and racing. Good luck in your
10k.

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

MyStuff

Low Heart Rate Training FAQ

IP: Logged

posted Jun-24-2006 01:03 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by corland14:

I also have a question. I'm 30 years old and my max heart rate today was 187. Back in late Jan I ran a heart rate test and hit 193. Could this Maff training lower my max heart rate, or did I just wimp out today?

---

I'm quite sure you didn't lower your max heart rate. However, I can
say that (1) after a lot of aerobic base building, it does get much more
difficult to approach your max and (2) if you didn't warm up before your
5k for a substantial amount of time, possibly 5 miles or more, you may
not have been able to peak out anyway - it is critical to be fully warmed
up, which takes time. I rarely get anywhere close to my max anymore.
On the one hand I can ask "hey, did I lower my max heart rate?" but
on the other hand, I know very well, that I'm never in nearly as much
pain after a race as I used to be after every race. Possibly part of it
is wimping out.

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

MyStuff

Low Heart Rate Training FAQ

IP: Logged

posted Jun-24-2006 01:05 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by aharmer:
Compare your last test to your first...14 degrees higher and significantly higher dewpoint. That can make a world of difference in pace. Do you have access to a TM? That's the only way to truly assess your progress. I've even found that TM tests in the evening are slower than when I do them in the morning, so if possible do them all at the same time.

---

I have access to a treadmill at our gym at work. I knew doing the first test outside was a mistake when I did it, but the track is so close to my house and driving to work on a saturday didn't seem like much fun. I can shift my test to a mid-week morning before work. Should I do one this week or is that too much above MAF? (I'm at ~143-147 during the 5 mile test.)

I do think I fell off some between the first and second tests. I have some regular routes that have very repeatable results and was able to compare nearly identical weather conditions where my times were ~1:30 slower over 5 miles. Of course it's never that cool anymore so I can't compare anymore.

IP: Logged

posted Jun-24-2006 01:26 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by gregw:
I have access to a treadmill at our gym at work. I knew doing the first test outside was a mistake when I did it, but the track is so close to my house and driving to work on a saturday didn't seem like much fun. I can shift my test to a mid-week morning before work. Should I do one this week or is that too much above MAF? (I'm at ~143-147 during the 5 mile test.)

---

Is what too much above MAF? Your treadmill tests (or any tests)
should all be below MAF, so there should be nothing above MAF.
In either case, there's no point in testing every week. Track progress
every three weeks, but once again, if you're not equalized in the
environment, there's no point in testing anything.

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

MyStuff

Low Heart Rate Training FAQ

IP: Logged

posted Jun-24-2006 03:05 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by leitnerj:
Is what too much above MAF? Your treadmill tests (or any tests)
should all be below MAF, so there should be nothing above MAF.
In either case, there's no point in testing every week. Track progress
every three weeks, but once again, if you're not equalized in the
environment, there's no point in testing anything.

---

I can't run *exactly* @MAF. During the tests I set my alarm for 143-147 and end up averaging 145. This means half of the 5 miles is above MAF. For everyday runs I set it at 145 and only see that up hills, so my averages are ~137. A MAF test day is a considerably harder run for me.

How much you control conditions depends on what you're looking for. I wouldn't say there's "no point." "Equalized environment" is a relative term. How equalized does it have to be before there's a point?

I knew that I wasn't 30 sec/mi slower and to charge most of it to weather because I just wouldn't have lost that much fitness in three weeks. My times are similar between 2nd and 3rd test and the weather was worse, so I'm probably doing a little better. I learned something. I'm not trying to say I'm X secs/mile faster or slower.

IP: Logged

posted Jun-24-2006 03:13 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by gregw:
I can't run *exactly* @MAF. During the tests I set my alarm for 143-147 and end up averaging 145. This means half of the 5 miles is above MAF. For everyday runs I set it at 145 and only see that up hills, so my averages are ~137. A MAF test day is a considerably harder run for me.

How much you control conditions depends on what you're looking for. I wouldn't say there's "no point." "Equalized environment" is a relative term. How equalized does it have to be before there's a point?

I knew that I wasn't 30 sec/mi slower and to charge most of it to weather because I just wouldn't have lost that much fitness in three weeks. My times are similar between 2nd and 3rd test and the weather was worse, so I'm probably doing a little better. I learned something. I'm not trying to say I'm X secs/mile faster or slower.

---

You don't need to run *exactly* at MAF. Just run at a HR lower
than MAF. Quite simple actually. It's not different from a training
run if you are following the principles. The only way you'll really
equalize the environment would be to run on a treadmill, unless it's
fall or winter and the temperatures are consistently less than 60
deg. My pace outside is about 2 min/mile slower than it was a few
months ago, but yet I still was able to run my second best marathon
in 80 degree, high humidity weather. With all that said, it really doesn't
matter. You just have to keep in mind that a "test" is only of value
if the conditions are the same - otherwise, there are loads of caveats.
There's nothing that says you have to test yourself if you're eventually
going to race and see what has happened. Summer is the hardest time
to get into this and I think most everyone will find their paces picking
up extremely when the temps get cool again.

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

MyStuff

Low Heart Rate Training FAQ

IP: Logged

posted Jun-24-2006 07:03 PM               

IP: Logged

posted Jun-24-2006 09:40 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mike Behnke:
Yeah Jesse you are right on about the pace being about 2 min. per mile slower in the heat and humidity. Thursday I did a 14 miler in 86F with high humidity and the first 10 miles were all around 10:15-10:35 pace all right around Maff or Maff -5. Then the last 4 got progressively worse in the 11:20-12:20 pace at Maff or Maff +5!! Then today I did a 7 mile run in 73F with lower humidity and felt like I could fly! I hit 8:50 pace at Maff -5 for a couple of the miles and felt great. I'm really excited about my prospects for the San Francisco marathon next month, especially if the temps are in the mid 50's like they're supposed to be! Will keep you all informed!

---

San Francisco is always cool. Mark Twain was right. I remember
I had a conference last year in August in San Francisco. I had been
running paces here of 10-11 min/mile and when I got there, it was the
first time I was running faster than 9 min/mi at MAF, ever! I was
thrilled. So thrilled that I ran three runs of 18-22 miles during the
week I was there.

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

MyStuff
Low Heart Rate Training FAQ
My marathons and ultras
My races and reports

IP: Logged

posted Jun-25-2006 01:34 AM            

Tonight I ran for 1hr and 40 minutes on the treadmill at MAF HR, which was a little over 6 miles. My question is, if I can word it so you'll understand:

Will training at MAF HR and getting longer runs (time, not miles) prepare me for my race? I will be on my feet longer running at MAF, but the miles will be lower.

Thanks!

------------------
PR your next marathon guaranteed!!
e-Gel

IP: Logged