| Author |
Topic: Low HR training/base-building ala Maffetone/Mark Allen |
jjwaverly42
Cool Runner |
 posted Mar-21-2006 10:25 PM
   
quote:
Originally posted by junkmiles:
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
Thanks for the info. Hopefully the new transmitters will work with my watch. I like the watch part. It was a good rant. --Jimmy Coolrunning profiles:
My Running World
My Maffetone Low-HR Training Experiment
IP: Logged |
Serious Runner
Cool Runner |
posted Mar-22-2006 09:08 AM
Well, I'm in the market for a new HRM. While cruising along at swift :-) 9-minute pace, the HRM was showing 142. It then spiked to 239 and would never go back down. I didn't see Cheyl Tiegs or Cindy Crawford laying around in a bikini, so there wasn't a sound reason for the spike. I took my pulse manually, and it was already back down to 96 although the monitor was still showing 239.Time to do a little online shopping. BTW, I have the Maffetone book, Training for Endurance, with me at work today.
IP: Logged |
PerfesserR
Cool Runner |
posted Mar-22-2006 09:33 AM
quote:
Originally posted by Serious Runner:
Well, I'm in the market for a new HRM. While cruising along at swift :-) 9-minute pace, the HRM was showing 142. It then spiked to 239 and would never go back down. I didn't see Cheyl Tiegs or Cindy Crawford laying around in a bikini, so there wasn't a sound reason for the spike. I took my pulse manually, and it was already back down to 96 although the monitor was still showing 239.
Is that the Timex? I've gotten that 240 HR indication a couple of times, but not lately.
IP: Logged |
10smom62
Member |
posted Mar-22-2006 09:38 AM
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. 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
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. 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 Cash Thanks for taking the tme to understand and answer my orginal question. I assumed this being a low heart rate trainging thread that it would be understood that I was looking for a comparison of slow running versus faster running and how much fat is burned. Thanks for the info
IP: Logged |
10smom62
Member |
posted Mar-22-2006 10:29 AM
Lindygreg,Your quote:
"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."
Through my extensive reading on the subject of fat burning, I have learned that if one actually eats more good fats and lower carb intake then one will actually "trick" the body into burning fat more efficiently. I agree that I don't know how this translate into exercise and running as I have never read any information on the positive side of using only fat stores to run. In fact, for me my legs don't seem to feel near as dead when I actually focus on adding more carbs before and during my runs.
I have seen from reading the post that the Maffetone method encourages no carbs at least 3 hours before running. I ask my original question about stores of fat with the above stated knowledge and thought that like for those who run on glucose and run out of glucose stores and the need to replenish, I thought it maybe the same for runners who run on fat for fuel. I have never really heard the concept before of running on fat fuel instead of glucose fuel and it looks like Maffeton is one of a few that explain the concept. That is why I eagerly await my copy of his book. I am hoping the book will explain in more detail how to run on fat fuel without getting that “heavy leg feeling”; which would be awesome and allow runners like me to take advantage of burning excess fat.
[This message has been edited by 10smom62 (edited Mar-22-2006).]
IP: Logged |
Bob Albright
Cool Runner |
posted Mar-22-2006 11:05 AM
I have read through the Thread and Maf's paper, I must say I am not convinced.What Maf. does not substintiate is his claim that adding anarobic training impairs arobic training. I need some proof here to really buy into that theory. Granted I have not read his books, maybe there is a study out there. I believe in running slow on long runs, recovery runs and base runs. I believe arobic level training should make up the lions share of your training. However I believe to become more efficient as a runner you need to add, anarobic training and speed work. It's been proven out over the long haul. It;s like a balanced diet and I equate this program to the Atkins diet. It may work for a while but it is not the total answer.
IP: Logged |
DanMoriarity
Cool Runner |
posted Mar-22-2006 11:33 AM
quote:
Originally posted by Bob Albright:
I have read through the Thread and Maf's paper, I must say I am not convinced.What Maf. does not substintiate is his claim that adding anarobic training impairs arobic training. I need some proof here to really buy into that theory. Granted I have not read his books, maybe there is a study out there. I believe in running slow on long runs, recovery runs and base runs. I believe arobic level training should make up the lions share of your training. However I believe to become more efficient as a runner you need to add, anarobic training and speed work. It's been proven out over the long haul. It;s like a balanced diet and I equate this program to the Atkins diet. It may work for a while but it is not the total answer.
I very much agree. Maffetone frequently asserts that anaerobic training impairs your aerobic ability without (that I've seen) offering much evidence to back it up. My experience indicates the opposite, although I will say that if you're doing too much anaerobic training you may be too tired to do a sufficient quantity and/or quality of aerobic work.
IP: Logged |
10smom62
Member |
posted Mar-22-2006 12:01 PM
found this thread on Maffatone. thought othere might like to read. the main guy posting (Paul) actually trained with Maffetone himself. He seems to think that from his experience and from what he learned from Maffetone, that a few weeks of MAF training is sufficient if you already have base miliage built. http://www.websitetoolbox.com/tool/post/thee/vpost?id=798051
IP: Logged |
brianmcg123
Cool Runner |
posted Mar-22-2006 12:09 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Bob Albright:
I have read through the Thread and Maf's paper, I must say I am not convinced.What Maf. does not substintiate is his claim that adding anarobic training impairs arobic training. I need some proof here to really buy into that theory. Granted I have not read his books, maybe there is a study out there. I believe in running slow on long runs, recovery runs and base runs. I believe arobic level training should make up the lions share of your training. However I believe to become more efficient as a runner you need to add, anarobic training and speed work. It's been proven out over the long haul. It;s like a balanced diet and I equate this program to the Atkins diet. It may work for a while but it is not the total answer.
So, what you are basically saying is that you agree with Maffetone then? I'm confused, isn't that exactly what Maffetone states. At least he has in every article I have read. Everything he has written basically states that this is a base building type of running to be done for 10-12 weeks, maybe twice a year and then in preparation for races you would begin to incorporate anaerobic training. Maybe I'm missing something. Brian ------------------
Everyone is a runner, they just don't know it yet.
IP: Logged |
jjwaverly42
Cool Runner |
posted Mar-22-2006 01:11 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Bob Albright:
I have read through the Thread and Maf's paper, I must say I am not convinced.What Maf. does not substintiate is his claim that adding anarobic training impairs arobic training. I need some proof here to really buy into that theory. Granted I have not read his books, maybe there is a study out there. I believe in running slow on long runs, recovery runs and base runs. I believe arobic level training should make up the lions share of your training. However I believe to become more efficient as a runner you need to add, anarobic training and speed work. It's been proven out over the long haul. It;s like a balanced diet and I equate this program to the Atkins diet. It may work for a while but it is not the total answer.
Maffetone's approach is often misunderstood. He highly recommends a period of base training at a lower HR, but also adds anaerobic work at a certain point. Not only is it not a one speed training, it is also not a one HR training. My experience already is that--though slower than before at first-- my training times are getting faster. I intend to include faster miles when I feel my base has been built. His approach is not meant to be a year-round running only under one particular heart-rate. Our esteemed Maffetone experimenter, Jesse, has not run all his miles under his MAF, nor has he ever said to anyone to keep all your training miles always under your MAF. Pretty much all the self-proclaimed experts (i.e. Pfitzinger, Higdon, Lydiard) recommend a period of training where your miles are all aerobic, with no anaerobic work. The general time is 12 weeks. There are differences in the parameters of the aerobic zone, but the idea is the same. No speedwork, just aerobic. Maffetone's parameters for base-training are on the lower end of the aerobic zone (aproximately 65-75% MHR--for me, my Maffetone zone is about 65%-71% MHR). I believe this insures that you are staying aerobic and just working the fat-burning , aerobic fibers. That's the idea--to build the aerobic system--THEN build the anaerobic. A few excerpts from the book "Training For Endurance". You have to read the whole chapter to get the full view, but these excerpts illustrate his thinking and show that he doesn't exclude anaerobic training, but includes it. From Training For Endurance Chapter 12 "Anaerobic Training" by Dr. Phillip Maffetone ©2000: Once you have built sufficient aerobic base, your body may be ready to add anaerobic work... ...the main purpose is to build fast-twitch muscle fibers ...anaerobic workout can be risky and frequently the cause of overtraining, injuriies, fatigue, and poor performance. ...keep it simple, keep it short
...my favorite recommendation for anaerobic workouts is fartlek...
..consider Mike Pigg's 1994 season--one of his best. He won most of his races and finished high up in most of the rest. He did not do any anaerobic work until mid-September, when most of his races were completed. ...When anaerobic training is included into your schedule, there are a few basic rules to follow: --Including races, do not exceed 2-3 anaerobic workouts per week --for many athletes, one anaerobic workout per week is sufficient --most athletes will reach anaerobic benefits after 3-4 weeks of anaerobic work
*****
Lastly, I'd just like to say that this is an experiment for me. I'm giving it a solid 16-24 weeks to see what happens. Being a runner of only 3 years, I figure it might be a good investment in the future. If it doesn't work, and all my race times go into abyss, then I know it doesn't work for me. If the opposite happens, and I did it without banging the crap out of my legs, but instead building my legs in way that keeps them healthier, and my immune system strong, then I've discovered a rock-solid part of my personal training method.
Good luck with your training! --Jimmy My Running World
My Maffetone Low-HR Training Experiment
IP: Logged |
Serious Runner
Cool Runner |
posted Mar-22-2006 03:59 PM
quote:
Originally posted by PerfesserR:
Is that the Timex? I've gotten that 240 HR indication a couple of times, but not lately.
Yes, it is a timex. I've gotten it the last 4 runs at about the 4 mile mark, and it doesn't stop. It happened after changing the batteries in the unit. It seems to work fine up to that point. It then shows a HR of about 160, then 180, 193, and 232 before hitting 240. I'm trying to decide whether to get another timex (had this one for 3 years) or get something else. Any suggestions would be appreciated.
IP: Logged |
Serious Runner
Cool Runner |
posted Mar-22-2006 04:08 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Bob Albright:
I have read through the Thread and Maf's paper, I must say I am not convinced.What Maf. does not substintiate is his claim that adding anarobic training impairs arobic training. I need some proof here to really buy into that theory. Granted I have not read his books, maybe there is a study out there.
Even Lydiard said that once you go over into anaerobic training, you start to backslide on the aerobic side of the equation. However, I will grant that you voice some of the concerns that I have. I've also looked into Parker's "HR Training for the Compleat Idiot." He says that you can probably improve greatly by alternately days under 70% with days at 85%. That's basically easy days intermixed with tempo runs. That sounds interesting. My biggest concern with Maffetone is that it seems to take a while to see improvement. Of course, it took more than a day to get this out of shape...
IP: Logged |
indygreg
Member |
posted Mar-22-2006 04:38 PM
I have had really good success on Parker's plan. I run 5 days a week. 2 (wed and Sat) ar hard - I have to have segments over 85%. The other 3 are easy - never over 70%His % are max - rest * % + resting. So, for me . . max 191 - 52 resting = 139 * .7 = 97.3 + 52 = 149.3
So, my limit on easy runs are 149. I also like his explanations of why this all works . . .
I think this plan is very effective, and it is fun as it has variety. Indy
IP: Logged |
PerfesserR
Cool Runner |
posted Mar-22-2006 08:28 PM
quote:
Originally posted by DanMoriarity:
I very much agree. Maffetone frequently asserts that anaerobic training impairs your aerobic ability without (that I've seen) offering much evidence to back it up. My experience indicates the opposite, although I will say that if you're doing too much anaerobic training you may be too tired to do a sufficient quantity and/or quality of aerobic work.
That is exactly my reservation about it. I understand the science behind the LHR training. It has solid research to back it up. But the part that says any anerobic training will impair, or even reverse, your aerobic training is not supported by any solid science, as far as I can tell. Why would anaerobic training on alternate days or even at the end of a LHR run erase any benefit that you had already achieved? Just so long as you don't reduce your LHR training to make time for speedwork, of course.
The other aspect of this is that I have discovered that it is not possible to do LHR training on trail runs, the rapid changes in terrain make it impossible to keep your heart rate in a particular zone. And since I am training for trail races, I have no intention of abandoning trail runs.
So, for now, my plan is to do about 90% of my training at MAF but continue to do my trail runs at a comfortable (but above MAF) pace. I'll let you know how it works out.
IP: Logged |
Cashmason
Cool Runner |
posted Mar-22-2006 08:48 PM
Serious, do you use any type of gel to improve the reception from your HR monitor? Something like Buh Bump or Axiom?
I used to get squirely numbers like you are getting. They mostly went away and I get much better data using the gel.
I got Axiom from my local bicycle shop, a small bottle for about 8 dollars. But it lasts a long time. I know Leitnerj uses Buh-Bump for the same reason. Water or water and soap used to give me good readings from the monitor but after a few months I started getting readings like 180 to 240 while running at a 15 minute per mile pace in the first few minutes of my runs. I knew unless I was about to have a heart attack, those numbers couldnt be right. The gel makes the data much better for me. Good Luck.
Cash.
IP: Logged |
Serious Runner
Cool Runner |
posted Mar-22-2006 08:55 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Cashmason:
Serious, do you use any type of gel to improve the reception from your HR monitor? Something like Buh Bump or Axiom?
I used to get squirely numbers like you are getting. They mostly went away and I get much better data using the gel.
I'm getting the squirrelly numbers about 4-5 miles into the run when I'm good and sweaty. It'd be okay if the monitor flashed 240 for a couple of seconds, but I left it alone the other day, and it was still showing 240 10 minutes later. I also noticed a little rust on the battery, so I'm thinking that my sweat had gotten into the battery compartment at some point.
IP: Logged |
leitnerj
Cool Runner |
posted Mar-22-2006 09:09 PM
The only thing I'm really qualified to talk about in this context is
my results and the results of those who have given me data. When
I first tried this approach, I was basically following Hadd's basebuilding
phase, where I did it for about 8 weeks. (At the time (in 2004) I was
stuck at basically a 4 hour marathon and I had reached my extreme
frustration when I finished a marathon in 4:23 in ideal weather conditions
on an easy course. I had followed Pfitzinger's 55 mpw program to the
letter, but clearly I wasn't ready for it. I was also constantly plagued
by one pain or injury after another, constantly saying how my body
wasn't made to take 50 miles of running per week)
After my 8 weeks of low HR
training, I saw pace improvements of around 45 sec/mile, but my short
distance race times improved (1M: 6:1X -> 5:36, 5k: 21:XX -> 20:39,
10k: 48:XX -> 45:21). After the 8 weeks, I started mixing in races
once a week or so (2M, 5ks, 10ks) as we have a weekly race series
around here. On weeks when I didn't race, I would do a tempo run.
I tried to stick with the low HR stuff, but my pace became slower
when I started to race a lot and it became harder to run at low HR.
However, I generally kept my pace under control for long runs, which
was a new concept for me. Clearly some of the improvements stuck
with me because I finally broke the 4 hr barrier later that year, running
3:54 (Oct 04). I did a 50 miler a month later in 10:34 (Nov 04). Fast
forward to Feb 05 when I had a vo2max test and about one week later
slipped on the ice running, landing on my knee, injuring myself (no
running for 3 months, no cycling for 2 months). My aspiration was to
run the Tahoe Triple Marathon in October, which I had signed up for
in January. Well, once I started running again in May, it was slow
moving for me because I found that I had to take it really easy to
avoid aggravating the remnants of my injury. Perfect time for MAFing.
This time, I decided to stay strictly low for as long as possible, until
plateauing. My first pace at MAF was about 17min/mi (3.7 mph on
the treadmill). It wasn't too long to get to about 12-13 on the treadmill.
After 5 months, my treadmill pace at MAF-5 hit a peak of 7:18/mile,
which was actually about what my tempo pace had been several
months earlier. My long run average pace on runs with very large
hills hit about 8:40/mile. I found that with this type of training, I was
also able to run 20 milers on 2, 3, or more days straight without a
problem. Furthermore, I found that I could go for a 50 mile bike ride
immediately after a 20 mile run. And most of all, no longer did I need
carbs during long runs or even races. That was nice to eliminate that
strict dependence. In October, I ran the Lake Tahoe Triple Marathon
(6200-7300 ft elevation variations) in 4:03, 3:58, 4:03 - about the same
paces I had been running easy "one-day" marathons at sea level. I
started to wonder whether I had more capacity now than I really knew.
Three days later, I ran a 10k race, PR in 43:03, over 2 minutes
improvement. Three days after that I ran another marathon, new PR
3:47, where the temperature hit 78 degrees, when I hadn't really
run in a temperature over 30 in months. A few weeks later I was
back at the 50 mile race from a year before, but this time I ran it in
8:28, over 2 hours better. Still feeling good, I ran another marathon
the next weekend in 3:24, 23 minutes improved over the PR I just
set. That's when I really knew what this was doing for me. Still
no speed work. Other than the races, I had done three long runs
where I ran the last 3-4 miles at about MRP and that's all I did over
MAF. I ran one more 10k the following weekend and then decided
to take a break and cut back for a few weeks. I started back up in
January, slowly building back up, rebuilding the aerobic base which
had withered away from the combination of my rest period and
many races. Pace back to being around 11 min/mile. This time, I've
stayed strictly below MAF, not even doing fast-finish long runs. Although
I didn't feel like I was close to regaining fitness, I did my first marathon
of the year, taking it easy, in 3:34, on President's Day. Two weeks
later, I ran my second of the year in 3:19, a new PR. This was
special because it capped off 84 miles of running that week and I
had run a 20 mile training run the day before (below MAF, of course).
The next week, I ran another marathon, this time with temps that
hit 82 degrees. I was thrilled to finish happily in 3:29, about an
hour faster than I would have been at that temperature a year ago.
And, once again, I ran a 20 miler the day before. Remember, I am
the same person who, little over a year ago could barely run 50 miles
in a week. And the same one who couldn't get past a 4 hour
marathon. There's no special, magic, or talented "me" - it's just
training. That's all. Many people quote professionals and say
how they don't believe this or that or buy into this or that, and that's
fine. I simply put my data out, you can look at every shred of my
training log. You can even look at my last "major bomb" marathon,
back in March of 2004, which was what prompted me to start my
training log. I don't care if someone wants to MAF or not, but I do
want to provide my data to people to see if they feel they are in the
same boat I was in to help decide whether it's the best for them.
There's more than a small batch of runners out there who are pushing
themselves harder and harder and their times are getting worse.
And the advice they are generally given (like I was) is that you need
to push even harder.
------------------
MyRunningLog
MyStuff
Low Heart Rate Training FAQ
IP: Logged |
jjwaverly42
Cool Runner |
posted Mar-22-2006 09:39 PM
Great story, Jesse. Tell it again!
Inspires me to stick with it. Thanks for everything.--Jimmy My running world Maffetone Base Training Experiment
IP: Logged |
leitnerj
Cool Runner |
posted Mar-22-2006 09:45 PM
quote:
Originally posted by jjwaverly42:
Great story, Jesse. Tell it again!
Inspires me to stick with it. Thanks for everything.--Jimmy My running world Maffetone Base Training Experiment
Well, we've gone full circle then, because your threads
were my original inspiration, so thank you!
------------------
MyRunningLog
MyStuff
Low Heart Rate Training FAQ
IP: Logged |
PerfesserR
Cool Runner |
posted Mar-23-2006 08:01 AM
quote:
Originally posted by leitnerj:
...
I don't care if someone wants to MAF or not, but I do
want to provide my data to people to see if they feel they are in the
same boat I was in to help decide whether it's the best for them.
There's more than a small batch of runners out there who are pushing
themselves harder and harder and their times are getting worse.
And the advice they are generally given (like I was) is that you need
to push even harder.
I really appreciate your info, Jesse. My posts are not intended as criticism but just throwing some thoughts and questions out there for discussion. Trying to figure out how to live with the program, because like I said, I don't know if I can stick to it 100% with the trail runs and etc.
IP: Logged |
Bob Albright
Cool Runner |
posted Mar-23-2006 10:03 AM
quote:
Originally posted by brianmcg123:
So, what you are basically saying is that you agree with Maffetone then?I'm confused, isn't that exactly what Maffetone states. At least he has in every article I have read. Everything he has written basically states that this is a base building type of running to be done for 10-12 weeks, maybe twice a year and then in preparation for races you would begin to incorporate anaerobic training. Maybe I'm missing something. Brian
Hey Brian Yea I guess to a degree I do agree with Maf. But like I said I just don't buy into the claim that anarobic training inhibits or reverses arobic training. Maybe someone or a study can show me the light. For now I will contunue to believe as I alwaus have that the proper mix produces the best results. I also feel running as slow as Maf suggests has to effect running economy in a negative way. I see your point, it's only base training, this I agree with. Seems to me as though it is being talked about as more then that. I am not trying to tear down this method. It has really worked for some folks here and I find those stories really great to read and very inspiring. Just throwing out some thoughts. Take care, and good running.
IP: Logged |
CSuzette
Cool Runner |
posted Mar-23-2006 10:34 AM
quote:
Originally posted by Bob Albright:
Yea I guess to a degree I do agree with Maf. But like I said I just don't buy into the claim that anarobic training inhibits or reverses arobic training. Maybe someone or a study can show me the light. For now I will contunue to believe as I alwaus have that the proper mix produces the best results.
If you check out the physiology book that Lydiard used as his reference material you will see that it says the same thing. Anaerobic training kills capillary beds and does other bad things to the system. My sister graduated from CSU during the mid-1980s. CSU at least then was one of the premier exercise phsyiology schools. Her professors stressed that you should "never go anaerobic".
IP: Logged |
Serious Runner
Cool Runner |
posted Mar-23-2006 10:40 AM
Maybe this was discussed in the 65-page tome, but I have yet to see it.My concern is still the 180-age bit. Wouldn't that potentially still result in a range that may be wrong for a lot of people. For example, Arturo Barrios has a MaxHR of 160. At age 20, he would have been going all-out everyday to run 160 bpm. John Parker uses MaxHR and resting HR to determine the appropriate training level that is below 70% of HR Reserve. I think someone mentioned that resting HRs can vary. That's true, but wouldn't that be reflected in the effort level for that day? Just as with the 180-age? I guess the other issue is determining MaxHR. Short of being tested in a lab, it's fairly difficult to reach MaxHR. I've also been told that out-of-shape people have a more difficult time hitting MaxHR because their muscles aren't strong enough to get them there. Just something that I've been thinking about. I was really impressed by the results Jesse had with the program. As I might have mentioned earlier, using Maffetone, I saw my pace drop from 8:3x/mile to 7:2x/mile in about 7-8 weeks. I ran a decent 5K and then tried speed sessions to speed things up. I actually ran slower. 
IP: Logged |
jjwaverly42
Cool Runner |
posted Mar-23-2006 11:10 AM
quote:
Originally posted by Serious Runner:
Maybe this was discussed in the 65-page tome, but I have yet to see it.My concern is still the 180-age bit. Wouldn't that potentially still result in a range that may be wrong for a lot of people. For example, Arturo Barrios has a MaxHR of 160. At age 20, he would have been going all-out everyday to run 160 bpm. John Parker uses MaxHR and resting HR to determine the appropriate training level that is below 70% of HR Reserve. I think someone mentioned that resting HRs can vary. That's true, but wouldn't that be reflected in the effort level for that day? Just as with the 180-age? I guess the other issue is determining MaxHR. Short of being tested in a lab, it's fairly difficult to reach MaxHR. I've also been told that out-of-shape people have a more difficult time hitting MaxHR because their muscles aren't strong enough to get them there. Just something that I've been thinking about. I was really impressed by the results Jesse had with the program. As I might have mentioned earlier, using Maffetone, I saw my pace drop from 8:3x/mile to 7:2x/mile in about 7-8 weeks. I ran a decent 5K and then tried speed sessions to speed things up. I actually ran slower.
Definitely a hole in the system for people with low MHR. In the case of a 20 year-old with a 160 MHR, I think it could be ascertained rather quickly that the person should be using a percentage of MHR or HRR, as they would be gasping for air after 100 yards of running. I do believe Maffetone came to his formula through trial and error with the atheletes he worked with over the years. Probably for most people, his formula will put you down below the 70% HRR you mentioned. Mine is about 65% HRR or 71% MHR. Keeps me aerobic. That's the whole point. Probably every training system has holes in which certain runners fall through. They need something different or special. Congrats on your progress. --Jimmy My running world Maffetone Base Training Experiment
IP: Logged |
roy c
Cool Runner |
posted Mar-23-2006 02:26 PM
I am 48 been running for just over a year. Would I be right in saying I should be running at 122bpm and under to benifit from this MAF training or can I run a bit faster ie more bpm?
Roy
IP: Logged |
 |
