| Author |
Topic: Low HR training/base-building ala Maffetone/Mark Allen |
aharmer
Cool Runner |
 posted Jul-19-2006 03:22 PM
   
Sara,If you're unable to get into the FAQ section feel free to shoot me an email from my profile. Start with your first batch of questions and we'll go from there. ------------------
My Profile
IP: Logged |
johnlvs2run
Cool Runner |
posted Jul-19-2006 04:24 PM
The page locked up when I went there too so gave up on it.I am interested to hear about Mark Allen's training. If there is a simplified version or web page somewhere about his training, please do let me know. ------------------
Henry Rono in Training
http://run-down.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=25194#25194 my profile
http://interwovendesign.com/kick/userdisplay.php3?username=johnlvs2run
IP: Logged |
leitnerj
Cool Runner |
posted Jul-19-2006 06:00 PM
My guess is that the msn space site must have been down when
you tried.Hopefully you can get to it now. If not, try typing the address
directly into your browser: http://spaces.msn.com/members/formationflier/ If neither works, let me know and maybe I'll find another
place to put it. I need to do some updates to it anyway. ------------------
MyRunningLog
MyStuff
Low Heart Rate Training FAQ
My marathons and ultras
My races and reports
IP: Logged |
leitnerj
Cool Runner |
posted Jul-19-2006 06:01 PM
I've also cross-posted the FAQ here:http://www.myjjk.com/viewtopic.php?t=1519 It doesn't have a lot of the nice formats and such, but you
can get most of the info there. ------------------
MyRunningLog
MyStuff
Low Heart Rate Training FAQ
My marathons and ultras
My races and reports
IP: Logged |
johnlvs2run
Cool Runner |
posted Jul-19-2006 07:03 PM
Thanks. This link is what I was looking for.http://www.markallenonline.com/heartrate.asp It all sounds good except the formula would be better based on percentage of heart rate reserve. 
------------------
Henry Rono in Training
http://run-down.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=25194#25194 my profile
http://interwovendesign.com/kick/userdisplay.php3?username=johnlvs2run
IP: Logged |
leitnerj
Cool Runner |
posted Jul-19-2006 09:13 PM
quote:
Originally posted by johnlvs2run:
It all sounds good except the formula would be better based on percentage of heart rate reserve.
For some people, but definitely not for me! Many have been
successful with it, but HRR is a somewhat opposite approach
from Maffetone/Mark Allen's. It's more consistent with a
Pfitzinger approach, which has you leaning more towards the
more aggressive side. For example, using HRR, if your resting
heart rate is running high due to illness, overtraining, etc., it
would tell you to run at a higher heart rate. That's definitely
not what the Maffetone and Mark Allen approaches would say.
Also, for me, 70% HRR is about 80% HRmax, about less than
10 beats under my anaerobic threshold. Nonetheless, a lot
of people do very well with more aggressive running. I'm a
true lazy lollygagger! My best success has been with low
effort training. I think for most of the people who have very
poor aerobic conditioning, the lower the target the better. ------------------
MyRunningLog
MyStuff
Low Heart Rate Training FAQ
My marathons and ultras
My races and reports
IP: Logged |
johnlvs2run
Cool Runner |
posted Jul-19-2006 09:44 PM
Sorry but you have lost me. Why would you train more intensely if you were sick or overtrained? I see more flexibility in HRR than in MAF. With HRR you pick the intensity that you want to run at, based on your OWN range of heart rates. With MAF there is a specific range for everyone, even though max heart rates vary greatly, from mid 150's to over 200. So if someone has a max of 200 then you have them train at up to a 140 HR. If someone else has a max of 150, you have them train up to a 140 HR. Why is that better than HRR?? ------------------
Henry Rono in Training
http://run-down.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=25194#25194 my profile
http://interwovendesign.com/kick/userdisplay.php3?username=johnlvs2run
IP: Logged |
johnlvs2run
Cool Runner |
posted Jul-19-2006 09:48 PM
Additionally, the great majority of my training is at a heart rate of 103 to 107, which is around 47% of my HRR.What is the lowest HR you train at? ------------------
Henry Rono in Training
http://run-down.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=25194#25194 my profile
http://interwovendesign.com/kick/userdisplay.php3?username=johnlvs2run
IP: Logged |
passinthru
Cool Runner |
posted Jul-19-2006 10:02 PM
If I had time to read thru the gazillion posts in this thread I could probably find out what I want to know. I apoligize for being too lazy. (and I'm supposed to be working)
Anyway, I have been MAF training for 2 months, preparing for a marathon in October. My weekly long runs are getting longer, alternating 2 hours and 3 hours, and I am starting to think about the proper use of energy gels.
First, how should gels be used during training?
Second, how should gels be used during the marathon?
Third, Right now, I don't eat anything before a training run - should that be different on the morning of the marathon?I could have posted this as a separate thread but I wanted the opinion of the MAF training group. Come November, I hope to share with you my experience with MAF training. So far, it looks like it will be good news!
IP: Logged |
leitnerj
Cool Runner |
posted Jul-19-2006 10:14 PM
quote:
Originally posted by johnlvs2run:
Additionally, the great majority of my training is at a heart rate of 103 to 107, which is around 47% of my HRR.What is the lowest HR you train at?
Yes, if you use a HRR below 50%, there's no doubt, that's
a very conservatively low approach, much lower than the
max that Allen or Maffetone would recommend! However,
most recommendations for HRR are 70% or greater (I've seen some
at 65%). If you fix your HRR max %, then the higher
your resting heart rate is that day, the higher your target
heart rate that day will be. Nonetheless, if you keep below
50%, you're going to be lower than pretty much all recommendations!
------------------
MyRunningLog
MyStuff
Low Heart Rate Training FAQ
My marathons and ultras
My races and reports
IP: Logged |
leitnerj
Cool Runner |
posted Jul-19-2006 10:28 PM
quote:
Originally posted by johnlvs2run:
What is the lowest HR you train at?
Sometimes as low as 110-115. Generally I train around
139, which is 10 below the MAF value. My max is 210 or more. So, my lowest HRR would be (110-40)/(210-40) = 41%. My
typical HRR would be (139-40)/(210-40) = 58%.
If I were to take the common suggestion and use 70%, I would
be at 159 if my RHR were at my typical 40. If my RHR were
running high, say 55, then I would be running at 164. However, your approach is a bit different, i.e., not by strict
percentages. You're well-conditioned and you know exactly what's
going on with you! Most of the folks here do not, so they would
generally grasp on to one of the common 70-75% suggestions
and use more of a high HR approach. Now, my belief is that if you want to go by percentages of
particular heart rates, rather than by using Maffetone's formula,
you'd really want to use %AT or %LT values, because those
fully account for fitness and they don't make use of the
"arbitrary" collection of heart beats between AT or LT and
the max heart rate. Just my opinions, mind you, I'm certainly
no expert.
------------------
MyRunningLog
MyStuff
Low Heart Rate Training FAQ
My marathons and ultras
My races and reports
IP: Logged |
Cashmason
Cool Runner |
posted Jul-19-2006 11:00 PM
Passinthru, gels should be used in training the same way you plan to use them on race day.Never do anything new on race day. I seldom use gels during training except to get used to them, but when I do, I start using them at 45 minutes in and then about every 45 minutes thereafter. Obviously has to be at least a 90 minute run.
IP: Logged |
johnlvs2run
Cool Runner |
posted Jul-19-2006 11:52 PM
quote:
Originally posted by leitnerj:
[B] Sometimes as low as 110-115. Generally I train around
139, which is 10 below the MAF value. My max is 210 or more.
Okay now if someone had a max of 150 and trained at 139, they would be running at too high of intensity. quote:
However, your approach is a bit different, i.e., not by strict
percentages. You're well-conditioned and you know exactly what's
going on with you! Most of the folks here do not, so they would
generally grasp on to one of the common 70-75% suggestions
and use more of a high HR approach.
Let's say for example you were running for three hours a day. Would you run the entire three hours at 139 heart rate? quote:
Now, my belief is that if you want to go by percentages of
particular heart rates, rather than by using Maffetone's formula,
you'd really want to use %AT or %LT values because those
fully account for fitness and they don't make use of the
"arbitrary" collection of heart beats between AT or LT and
the max heart rate.
Maybe, but I don't pay any attention to AT or LT or any of that but rather by experience and results at different intensities. For example twice a week or so I go from 70 to 83 percent of HRR. The other days I am 70% and below, but usually around 50 to 65 percent or so, for endurance and to make sure of recovering.Now if I didn't go up to 83 percent twice a week, then I could see running at 70% every day, but I feel the variety does me some good. Likewise this is mentioned in the link of Mark Allen athough he does it in different periods, four months of low heart rates then a couple months of high intensity, etc. I like the philosophy of MAF, just think that runners with max of 200 vs 150 would have a different training range, and MAF doesn't seem to account for this. ------------------
Henry Rono in Training
http://run-down.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=25194#25194 my profile
http://interwovendesign.com/kick/userdisplay.php3?username=johnlvs2run
IP: Logged |
leitnerj
Cool Runner |
posted Jul-20-2006 05:35 AM
quote:
Originally posted by johnlvs2run:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by leitnerj:
[B] Sometimes as low as 110-115. Generally I train around
139, which is 10 below the MAF value. My max is 210 or more.
Okay now if someone had a max of 150 and trained at 139, they would be running at too high of intensity. quote:
However, your approach is a bit different, i.e., not by strict
percentages. You're well-conditioned and you know exactly what's
going on with you! Most of the folks here do not, so they would
generally grasp on to one of the common 70-75% suggestions
and use more of a high HR approach.
Let's say for example you were running for three hours a day. Would you run the entire three hours at 139 heart rate? quote:
Now, my belief is that if you want to go by percentages of
particular heart rates, rather than by using Maffetone's formula,
you'd really want to use %AT or %LT values because those
fully account for fitness and they don't make use of the
"arbitrary" collection of heart beats between AT or LT and
the max heart rate.
Maybe, but I don't pay any attention to AT or LT or any of that but rather by experience and results at different intensities. For example twice a week or so I go from 70 to 83 percent of HRR. The other days I am 70% and below, but usually around 50 to 65 percent or so, for endurance and to make sure of recovering.Now if I didn't go up to 83 percent twice a week, then I could see running at 70% every day, but I feel the variety does me some good. Likewise this is mentioned in the link of Mark Allen athough he does it in different periods, four months of low heart rates then a couple months of high intensity, etc. I like the philosophy of MAF, just think that runners with max of 200 vs 150 would have a different training range, and MAF doesn't seem to account for this. [/QUOTE] I run most mileage at around 139 (except in races) no matter what.
All throughout the runs. On occasions in high heat that I'm not used
to, I'll let it climb a bit, particularly on hills, but not typically. You
can scurry through my running log and see basically every mile
and avg HR over the past year that I've been able to measure.
Some days I choose to run a bit lower, perhaps the Monday after
I did 2 20 milers in the heat or after a marathon or ultra. There's no
doubt that runners with a max of 200 vs 150 need different training
ranges. I actually cover that in the FAQ and aharmer is a great
example of someone who needs a much lower training HR than
MAF suggests. Specifically, people with very low max heart rates
should follow a suggestion more like Hadd (which is not based on
a specific % of max heart rate - I'm not exactly sure where he comes
up with it).
------------------
MyRunningLog
MyStuff
Low Heart Rate Training FAQ
My marathons and ultras
My races and reports
IP: Logged |
fredurie
Cool Runner |
posted Jul-20-2006 09:53 AM
Wednesday AM 12 @ around 6:40 (HR 120) 2 @ around 6:30, 1 @ 5:37
(HR 166) ,70F and 83% at the end. Thursday
AM 90 minutes slow, HR 76 for the first hour.
IP: Logged |
VikeKingDan
Member |
posted Jul-20-2006 11:13 AM
quote:
Originally posted by leitnerj:
However, your approach is a bit different, i.e., not by strict
percentages. You're well-conditioned and you know exactly what's
going on with you! Most of the folks here do not, so they would
generally grasp on to one of the common 70-75% suggestions
and use more of a high HR approach.
When AHarmer suggested this thread, I did some online research and quickly concluded there are a lot of site that don't get it. In my opinion, HRR is better than HRMax to basing training off; however, most site that seem to realized this also use conventional research and experience to suggest that 70-75% range. You can't do that. The old stuff was based off of HRMax, so you have to adjust it down for HRR. For example my MAF (180-39-5) is 139, which is about 76% of my HRMax, but just 65% of my HRR. If Aharmer has a max and resting HR of 175 and 35, respectively, his training at 125 is 64% HRR and 71% of his HRMax. So he's not "Maffetoning" but he is training similarily to me. Jesse is training at 58% HRR and 66% HRMax, so he's actually lower than Aharmer and I. People who publish websites aren't necessarily experts and many times don't really understand the science behind what they're quoting. I ran into the same thing when I was lifting and researching online. Regurgitation of information by people who knew the numbers, but didn't understand the underlying mechanisms, confuses newcomers. I'll bet Maffetone himself would say that he oversimplified it a little bit to help ward off the confusion. My point is, that HRR percentages could very well be the way to go, but that it's 60-65% or even lower. Maffetone could have me running too fast based on Jesse's numbers. Eventually, probably next spring, I might try to lower my target HR to Jesse-type numbers.
IP: Logged |
altonjohn
Member |
posted Jul-20-2006 11:27 AM
Hi Jesse (or anyone else who also does triathlon),When swimming and biking, do you use the same Maff rate? I just started biking and swimming about 2 months ago after running a marathon using maff training. My training intensities are a lot harder to understand and control now with the new sports. My Maff is 150, but I find this is high on the bike so I started riding at 140. In the Mark Allen article he only mentions running below Maff even though he trained for Ironman. Does Maffetone have any guidelines for swimming or biking? Finally, how do you gauge your heart rate swimming? Do you stop and count your pulse? My HRM does not work in the water. Thanks,
John
IP: Logged |
StealthRunner
Cool Runner |
posted Jul-20-2006 01:36 PM
quote:
Originally posted by fredurie:
Wednesday AM 12 @ around 6:40 (HR 120) 2 @ around 6:30, 1 @ 5:37
(HR 166) ,70F and 83% at the end. Thursday
AM 90 minutes slow, HR 76 for the first hour.
And no tips or other suggestions? 
IP: Logged |
gregw
Cool Runner |
posted Jul-20-2006 04:46 PM
I have a race data point to add. After 10 weeks of maffing (and running consistently higher mileage that has me 4 pounds lighter), I ran an 8K last Saturday night. It was predictably hot and the course is hilly, so I wasn't surprised to be slow (16 sec/mile slower than a 10K I ran in February), but I was pleasantly surprised to finish less than 30 seconds behind a faster friend who was also running. He beat me by over 4 minutes at a 10-miler in April.I'm not sure you'd still call it maffing but I'm planning to continue shuffling around to keep the mileage up while throwing in some races between now and the marine corps marathon. I guess you could call it the Ed Whitlock plan (or maybe the Jesse Leitner plan!). Thanks for all your help and congratulations on the Vermont 89, Jesse. It takes a brave man to eat jalapenos and run 89 miles in the heat  Greg
IP: Logged |
VikeKingDan
Member |
posted Jul-20-2006 05:54 PM
quote:
Originally posted by altonjohn:
Hi Jesse (or anyone else who also does triathlon),When swimming and biking, do you use the same Maff rate? I just started biking and swimming about 2 months ago after running a marathon using maff training. My training intensities are a lot harder to understand and control now with the new sports. My Maff is 150, but I find this is high on the bike so I started riding at 140. In the Mark Allen article he only mentions running below Maff even though he trained for Ironman. Does Maffetone have any guidelines for swimming or biking? Finally, how do you gauge your heart rate swimming? Do you stop and count your pulse? My HRM does not work in the water. Thanks,
John
Jesse's FAQ #7 says you should work at your MAF or below when biking, etc. I actually like the bike for a break once in awhile because I do feel like it's a higher intensity to bike at my MAF than to run. Of course, our hearts are telling us we're wrong on that feeling
IP: Logged |
leitnerj
Cool Runner |
posted Jul-20-2006 07:37 PM
quote:
Originally posted by altonjohn:
Hi Jesse (or anyone else who also does triathlon),When swimming and biking, do you use the same Maff rate? I just started biking and swimming about 2 months ago after running a marathon using maff training. My training intensities are a lot harder to understand and control now with the new sports. My Maff is 150, but I find this is high on the bike so I started riding at 140. In the Mark Allen article he only mentions running below Maff even though he trained for Ironman. Does Maffetone have any guidelines for swimming or biking? Finally, how do you gauge your heart rate swimming? Do you stop and count your pulse? My HRM does not work in the water. Thanks,
John
Hey John - I do it all using the same MAF, which is what is
suggested by Maffetone and Mark Allen. Around here, the
hills are massive, so before I was extremely well-conditioned
on the bike, it was the most challenging discipline to control
my HR in. In either case, it really doesn't matter if you stay
well below, for any discipline. Mark Allen suggests to stay
between 80-100% of MAF.
------------------
MyRunningLog
MyStuff
Low Heart Rate Training FAQ
My marathons and ultras
My races and reports
IP: Logged |
leitnerj
Cool Runner |
posted Jul-20-2006 07:43 PM
quote:
Originally posted by VikeKingDan:
When AHarmer suggested this thread, I did some online research and quickly concluded there are a lot of site that don't get it. In my opinion, HRR is better than HRMax to basing training off; however, most site that seem to realized this also use conventional research and experience to suggest that 70-75% range. You can't do that. The old stuff was based off of HRMax, so you have to adjust it down for HRR. For example my MAF (180-39-5) is 139, which is about 76% of my HRMax, but just 65% of my HRR. If Aharmer has a max and resting HR of 175 and 35, respectively, his training at 125 is 64% HRR and 71% of his HRMax. So he's not "Maffetoning" but he is training similarily to me. Jesse is training at 58% HRR and 66% HRMax, so he's actually lower than Aharmer and I. People who publish websites aren't necessarily experts and many times don't really understand the science behind what they're quoting. I ran into the same thing when I was lifting and researching online. Regurgitation of information by people who knew the numbers, but didn't understand the underlying mechanisms, confuses newcomers. I'll bet Maffetone himself would say that he oversimplified it a little bit to help ward off the confusion. My point is, that HRR percentages could very well be the way to go, but that it's 60-65% or even lower. Maffetone could have me running too fast based on Jesse's numbers. Eventually, probably next spring, I might try to lower my target HR to Jesse-type numbers.
I agree, Dan. And, in fact, for the most part, the actual target
numbers are fairly arbitrary, as long as they are low enough!
------------------
MyRunningLog
MyStuff
Low Heart Rate Training FAQ
My marathons and ultras
My races and reports
IP: Logged |
leitnerj
Cool Runner |
posted Jul-20-2006 07:45 PM
quote:
Originally posted by gregw:
I have a race data point to add. After 10 weeks of maffing (and running consistently higher mileage that has me 4 pounds lighter), I ran an 8K last Saturday night. It was predictably hot and the course is hilly, so I wasn't surprised to be slow (16 sec/mile slower than a 10K I ran in February), but I was pleasantly surprised to finish less than 30 seconds behind a faster friend who was also running. He beat me by over 4 minutes at a 10-miler in April.I'm not sure you'd still call it maffing but I'm planning to continue shuffling around to keep the mileage up while throwing in some races between now and the marine corps marathon. I guess you could call it the Ed Whitlock plan (or maybe the Jesse Leitner plan!). Thanks for all your help and congratulations on the Vermont 89, Jesse. It takes a brave man to eat jalapenos and run 89 miles in the heat Greg
awesome, Greg, and thanks for the congrats. I have a sneaking
suspicion that you'll be zipping past me in one of the next few
area marathons, even if it is hot!
------------------
MyRunningLog
MyStuff
Low Heart Rate Training FAQ
My marathons and ultras
My races and reports
IP: Logged |
Mobius
Member |
posted Jul-21-2006 07:30 AM
Regarding adding miles (which I realize is a bit more generic that MAF)..After a slow build up over the last 3 months, I'm currently running about 20-22 miles a week. I run four days a week; presently that's at 8, 4, 6, 4. There's a pretty even split between outside (hot!) and treadmill. I swim (if you could call it that) on the other three days. To continue to add miles, should I be extending all the runs fairly evenly (eg. 10,5,7,5 or 12,6,8,6) or adding a 5th day, or just extending the long run? I'm not training for anything in particular right now. I plan to run a few more 5K's this fall, and late fall 10K if I can find one in the area. Perhaps, should all go well, a HM in the spring. Right now I just want a solid base. MAF has been going well for me so far so I think I'll stick with it until I stop seeing progress.
IP: Logged |
Relja
Member |
posted Jul-21-2006 08:36 AM
One question for experience MAF runners. What is your breath pattern at MAF pulse: 4 step inhale, 4 step exhale or maybe more or less or it doesn't matter?
Did someone read John Douillard(ex thriatlete) book about nasal breathing and deep inhale? He recommends as much steps inhale and exhale as possible. I think Douillard can breath in pattern 8 step inhale, 8 step exhale. And also recommends heart rate little lower than Maffetone.
IP: Logged |
 |
