posted Aug-31-2006 06:25 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by rbatriu:
Here autum is coming... so this autum/winter I'll give a try to this kind of training.

I'd like to know if you think that doing some short drills (80-100m) after the run can be bad for this training.

I love to do drills after a run, they make me feel better, and my legs seem to feel better to and to learn how to run fast.

---

You can always try, but that's not consistent with the approach.

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

IP: Logged

posted Aug-31-2006 06:35 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by crb81:
Anaerobic Threshold @ 162 (RQ = .86)

I still have questions concerning their definition of anaerobic threshold on these tests. My results said my AT was 166 (RQ=.81). I ran a very difficult 8 mile trail race this past Sunday. My average heart rate was 177 and was never below 170 after the first mile. Am I confusing LT with AT or are they interchangeable?

---

I think we had already talked about this, perhaps in email, but when
you say AT, are you referring to aerobic threshold or anaerobic threshold?
In Chuck's case, his tester used a .81 definition for aerobic threshold,
which is reasonable, and .86 for anaerobic threshold (which I find
extremely strange, but certainly not nearly as strange as using .81
for anaerobic threshold). Lactate threshold and anaerobic threshold (
assuming you use RQ = 1 for anaerobic threshold) are not the same,
but they should be pretty close for most people. LT is defined by a
certain rate of lactic acid accumulation in the muscles (which can only
directly be measured through blood lactate tests), whereas anaerobic
threshold is defined by a certain value of respiratory quotient (RQ),
which corresponds to a particular percentage of carb vs fat used for
energy. The reason RQ = 1 is a good value to use for anaerobic threshold is that no matter what the intensity of exercise, you are
always using some carbohydrate for energy, but beyond a certain
point of intensity (RQ = 1), you will use 100% carb (and hence no fat)
for energy. But, I presume some testers have their reasons ...
In short, however, the point where lactic acid begins "rapidly"
accumulating should be right nearby the intensity at which one
goes fully anaerobic, using all carb for fuel, mostly fast twitch
muscle fibers, etc. When using carb for fuel, the by-product is
lactic acid.

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

IP: Logged

posted Aug-31-2006 07:02 PM               

If it's not out there, I was thinking that it would be fairly easy to create an index of HR efficiency at different speeds that could be used a little more flexibly than the Maff test to gauge progress on the fly.

Something like: Avg.Speed(in MPH) / Avg.HR (BPM)

It could be adjusted to account for mileage, allowing 1 BPM per mile: Avg.Speed/(AvgHR-Distance in Miles).

You could multiply either by a constant to make the numbers easier to view.

Just a thought

IP: Logged

posted Aug-31-2006 08:11 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by copasetic1:
Has someone come up with a convenient way of quantifying performance with respect to Heart Rate (excluding structured tests like Jimmy just described)? These sorts of things, although probably not terribly important for training progress, are great sources of interest and motivation for people like me who geek out in the numbers.

If it's not out there, I was thinking that it would be fairly easy to create an index of HR efficiency at different speeds that could be used a little more flexibly than the Maff test to gauge progress on the fly.

Something like: Avg.Speed(in MPH) / Avg.HR (BPM)

It could be adjusted to account for mileage, allowing 1 BPM per mile: Avg.Speed/(AvgHR-Distance in Miles).

You could multiply either by a constant to make the numbers easier to view.

Just a thought

---

I've thought about this (yes I'm a geek). When attempting to find my lactate threshold, I ran a set of intervals at increasing pace and heart rate. This is basically a conconi test (I increased the interval distance though). You can see the graph you get at http://www.brianmac.demon.co.uk/coni.htm. It's not linear (otherwise you couldn't find your LT!) but a more complicated curve over a range of paces so to know whether you're better or not you have to compare to the baseline graph. You can't use a single metric like bpm/mph over a range of speeds because the graph isn't linear. You could think of some family of curves and create some sort of index based on "distance" from your base curve, but this isn't any better than saying I was 1 bpm better @8mm for instance.

Anyway, I then decided this was too much thinking and went for a run. You'll drive yourself crazy doing this day to day since weather, phase of the moon, whatever has a greater influence than your day-to-day improvement. Better I think to wait long enough between tests and conduct them in a structured way. Or better yet, race! (This Ed Whitlock, LSD + frequent racing method sounds like a lot of fun.)

Greg

IP: Logged

posted Aug-31-2006 08:18 PM               

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

IP: Logged

posted Aug-31-2006 11:57 PM            

I guess I will have to do some thinking and look into HRM's. And if I give it a go, I'll be sure to post here often!

Chisholm

------------------
Me!

IP: Logged

posted Sep-01-2006 07:32 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by RacerRick69:
Did your Health Insurance pay for it?

---

I WISH! but got a group rate of $100 (usually $150)

IP: Logged

posted Sep-01-2006 07:51 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by leitnerj:
This is another of these vo2max testers that uses a very strange
definition for anaerobic threshold. Most define anaerobic threshold
as the point where RQ = 1 (the point where you hit 100% carb/0% fat).
The aerobic threshold is reasonable (65% fat/35% carb). It's a bit
funny to define anaerobic threshold as the point at which you just
start to use more carb than fat (52% carb/48% fat). Were you
provided your entire history of RQ over the entire test? Did you max
out your heart rate during your test or was it sub-maximum?
Specifically, did you go past your vo2max to the point where your
vo2 started to decrease as heart rate still increased?

---

go here to see results......
http://www.kodakgallery.com/chuckp88/main/vo2_max_test

the last line it appears that my VO2max did decrease as my HR increased......and where carb utilization went above fat is where he indicated AeT.

Did I hit my max??? I don't think so, I've seen 183 within the past couple years and I reached 177 in the test.......I've seen 177 on the bike within the past few weeks.

One thing that was interesting to me was the last MAF test I did I was running at 7.6mph @ 145HR.......during the test I hit 145 around 7mph. I felt like having the "mask" on contributed to that.

IP: Logged

posted Sep-01-2006 08:02 AM            

I've been doing MAF for about 7 weeks now. Just this week I stopped eating before runs as I've been reading about how running on an empty stomach will help your body learn to be more efficient at using fat for fuel. I run sometime between 3-4:00am and my last food intake prior to running is usually around 8:00pm the night before.

I've noticed this week that my HR goes up quicker and I'm not getting the "runner's high" that I always got before somewhere around 7 miles--where my HR would drop, breathing would even out and speed would increase. I'm still running a steady pace, but in general it's been more difficult to control my HR. I'm wondering if this is because I'm now running on an empty stomach and if this is something that will even out as my body becomes more efficient, or is this is just coincidence. I still drink a bottle of water before heading out, so I don't think it's dehydration.

Thanks for any insight!

IP: Logged

posted Sep-01-2006 08:30 AM               

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

IP: Logged

posted Sep-01-2006 09:56 AM               

quote:

---

gregw is right - you can't use a single scalar metric to cover it
because there are too many factors that have significant effects.

---

Sure. I agree completely. I'm not suggesting that you can distill a training progress into a single universal number. I was thinking specifically of a figure that could be calculated automatically in a spreadsheet-based training log which would be useful to gauge progress on average over time. The impact of other variables could be modelled out if one is so inclined or eyeballed if not. In either case, looking at such a number over 30 or 40 runs may be a useful way to check things out since more observations tend to smooth out the influence of other factors. It could be used in addition to more structured tests, which would still be influenced by day-to-day variations even if well-controlled.

Looking at this over a wide range of speeds would be problematic because you'd lose the linear form, but this should be less of a problem if it's used within the narrow range of HR and pace in base training.

I guess I'm mainly interested in creating a more continuous feedback system (even if warts are included) for my training and thought I'd bounce it around here.

Thanks!
James

IP: Logged

posted Sep-01-2006 11:13 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by copasetic1:
I was thinking specifically of a figure that could be calculated automatically in a spreadsheet-based training log which would be useful to gauge progress on average over time.

Thanks!
James

---

Though I keep more stats on myself than Major League Baseball does its players, I just keep it simple in terms of progress. If I'm running a 15-miler on the bike trail today at 12:00 pace, and 1 month from now I am running it at 10:00 pace. I've made progress at my training pace. I also use MAF test done on a TM at the same incline and same temps if possible. That's tough in the summer, as it is a bit warmer. Still, a good measure of progress. Then there is always the race times. If they're getting better, I'm making progress.

--Jimmy

Current MAF Training
My Running World

MAF training source:
Training for Endurance by Phil Maffetone

IP: Logged

posted Sep-01-2006 05:34 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by chuckp88:
go here to see results......
http://www.kodakgallery.com/chuckp88/main/vo2_max_test

the last line it appears that my VO2max did decrease as my HR increased......and where carb utilization went above fat is where he indicated AeT.

Did I hit my max??? I don't think so, I've seen 183 within the past couple years and I reached 177 in the test.......I've seen 177 on the bike within the past few weeks.

One thing that was interesting to me was the last MAF test I did I was running at 7.6mph @ 145HR.......during the test I hit 145 around 7mph. I felt like having the "mask" on contributed to that.

---

I'm beginning to see a pattern here. In all of the testers that use
an RQ of less than 1 for AT, (1) none maxed out the test and
(2) none showed the heart rate at every stage of the test. I
really don't understand this. It's pretty clear you did not max
out because you never hit an RQ of 1. And, although your
vo2 appeared to pick up and then dip down, it's not clear that
you did hit max because (1) I don't see what your HR was at
vo2max, (2) I don't see your HR at the stage just before
and just after vo2max, and (3) I don't see what the test
environment (incline and/or speed) at vo2max, just before,
and just after. Maybe there was some other indicator, but
if so, I don't see it. Clearly you didn't hit (or possibly even
come close to) max heart rate because that would happen
well after vo2max and well after RQ = 1. Oh well. At least
the test indicated that your aerobic threshold was right around
your MAF heart rate ...

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

IP: Logged

posted Sep-01-2006 05:40 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by OnlyWhnChasd:
I hope this isn't a dumb question, but here it goes...

I've been doing MAF for about 7 weeks now. Just this week I stopped eating before runs as I've been reading about how running on an empty stomach will help your body learn to be more efficient at using fat for fuel. I run sometime between 3-4:00am and my last food intake prior to running is usually around 8:00pm the night before.

I've noticed this week that my HR goes up quicker and I'm not getting the "runner's high" that I always got before somewhere around 7 miles--where my HR would drop, breathing would even out and speed would increase. I'm still running a steady pace, but in general it's been more difficult to control my HR. I'm wondering if this is because I'm now running on an empty stomach and if this is something that will even out as my body becomes more efficient, or is this is just coincidence. I still drink a bottle of water before heading out, so I don't think it's dehydration.

Thanks for any insight!

---

Doesn't sound like a dumb question to me, but I'm not sure I would
correlate the cause and effect. Keep in mind that the main thing to
avoid is carbs before run - there's no issue with proteins or fats.
If you're having more trouble controlling your heart rate and if there's
any connection to your lack of intake, dehydration would be the only
connection I can make, which has little to do with what you take before
and a lot to do with what you take during your run. What's your weight
comparison at the beginning and at the end of your runs?

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

IP: Logged

posted Sep-01-2006 05:41 PM            

I have been reading this thread for a few weeks and have been very interested in the information presented. I am 48 years old and hve completed 5 marathons with a best time of 4:02. My goal is break 4hrs but I have noticed that I almost always "bonk" at about 17 miles regardless of gels, carbohydrate drinks etc. I have also noticed that my heart rate goes from about 75 on the staring line to about 150 within the first mile of running at a 9 min/mile pace and then holds at that level for about 8 miles with a gradual increase to about 185 at mile 17 if I try to hold the 9min/mile pace. Then I "bonk". I have taken this to mean that I am aerobically unfit and have considered trying the MAF method. I bought the book and read it (and didn't learn anything that I hadn't already learned on this thread, and in fact I think this thread was way more balanced and illuminating). I have tried a few runs (5 miles) at my MAF HR which is 132 and I end up walking most of the time. This is very frustrating and I know that this seems to be the experience of most MAF beginners. I just cannot help thinking that using the Karvonen formula I might be able to keep running at a HR of about 150 and achieve the same result. Am I wrong?
Also, I am planning to run the St George marathon on Oct 7th 2006 which is in about 4 weeks. Is there any point in trying to train using the MAF method between now and then or should I simply run as I have been doing (which seems to be progressively wearing me out) and then seriously adopt a 12 week (or more) MAF based program.

Any help would be greatly appreciated.

Mike

IP: Logged

posted Sep-01-2006 05:52 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by crb81:
I think we had already talked about this, perhaps in email, but when
you say AT, are you referring to aerobic threshold or anaerobic threshold?
Anaerobic. But he also told me in a subsequent e-mail that RQ=.81 ocurred at HR-128 so who knows. I didn't mean to rehash my test. I plan on repeating test and want to be sure I get all the pertinent values before I leave so I can make some sense of them. I am just hoping to be able to have an idea of LT based on test results. That may not be possible. My thoughts were that it should be above 177 based on race efforts.
On the MAF results, mine has consistently been in the mid 9's now for a few weeks after spending all summer in the 10's.

---

Just a few tidbits - you really can't measure lactate threshold in a
vo2max test; you can only directly measure anaerobic threshold and
use standard methods to estimate lactate threshold. This is a good
time to bring up some things that I think are important to find out
before going for a vo2max test (questions to ask the tester):

1. Will this be a maximal or sub-maximal test? Will we take the
test all the way until absolute failure at max heart rate, hence
beyond vo2max and beyond RQ=1?

2. Do you provide all test data, including RQ, HR, and speed/incline
at every stage of the test?

3. How do you define aerobic threshold (or do you)?

4. How do you define anaerobic threshold?

5. Do you estimate lactate threshold (most will probably use
LT interchangeably with AT)?

The only really important ones are 1&2. The others are only important
for interpreting what they tell you after the test.

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

IP: Logged

posted Sep-01-2006 05:55 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by copasetic1:
I was thinking specifically of a figure that could be calculated automatically in a spreadsheet-based training log which would be useful to gauge progress on average over time. The impact of other variables could be modelled out if one is so inclined or eyeballed if not. In either case, looking at such a number over 30 or 40 runs may be a useful way to check things out since more observations tend to smooth out the influence of other factors. It could be used in addition to more structured tests, which would still be influenced by day-to-day variations even if well-controlled.

---

Would be nice. I've tried to come up with some, but with no success
as all have had significant flaws. I'm always happy to provide my
opinions on proposed metrics!

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

IP: Logged

posted Sep-01-2006 05:55 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by aeromike:
Hi

I have been reading this thread for a few weeks and have been very interested in the information presented. I am 48 years old and hve completed 5 marathons with a best time of 4:02. My goal is break 4hrs but I have noticed that I almost always "bonk" at about 17 miles regardless of gels, carbohydrate drinks etc. I have also noticed that my heart rate goes from about 75 on the staring line to about 150 within the first mile of running at a 9 min/mile pace and then holds at that level for about 8 miles with a gradual increase to about 185 at mile 17 if I try to hold the 9min/mile pace. Then I "bonk". I have taken this to mean that I am aerobically unfit and have considered trying the MAF method. I bought the book and read it (and didn't learn anything that I hadn't already learned on this thread, and in fact I think this thread was way more balanced and illuminating). I have tried a few runs (5 miles) at my MAF HR which is 132 and I end up walking most of the time. This is very frustrating and I know that this seems to be the experience of most MAF beginners. I just cannot help thinking that using the Karvonen formula I might be able to keep running at a HR of about 150 and achieve the same result. Am I wrong?
Also, I am planning to run the St George marathon on Oct 7th 2006 which is in about 4 weeks. Is there any point in trying to train using the MAF method between now and then or should I simply run as I have been doing (which seems to be progressively wearing me out) and then seriously adopt a 12 week (or more) MAF based program.

Any help would be greatly appreciated.

Mike

---

Hi Mike,

MAF training is not for the faint of heart for sure. When you first start it means more time on your feet, and running very slowly, and walking if needed.

Everything you've written indicates a lack of aerobic fitness. Especially if you're walking at 132 (which you should do if you do this program). I believe if you put in an extended period of low-HR training, you'll get the fitness you need to break 4 hours, and to stop the bonking at mile 17. With 4 weeks left, nothing much will happen, but it might help going into the marathon.

Working at those high heart rates won't help at all. Also, try not eating closer than three-four hours before the race, don't eat any carbs until 45 minutes intoo the race. Encourage fat-burning all you can.

--Jimmy

My running world

Current MAFTraining

IP: Logged

posted Sep-01-2006 06:00 PM               

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

IP: Logged

posted Sep-01-2006 06:14 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by aeromike:
Hi

I have been reading this thread for a few weeks and have been very interested in the information presented. I am 48 years old and hve completed 5 marathons with a best time of 4:02. My goal is break 4hrs but I have noticed that I almost always "bonk" at about 17 miles regardless of gels, carbohydrate drinks etc. I have also noticed that my heart rate goes from about 75 on the staring line to about 150 within the first mile of running at a 9 min/mile pace and then holds at that level for about 8 miles with a gradual increase to about 185 at mile 17 if I try to hold the 9min/mile pace. Then I "bonk". I have taken this to mean that I am aerobically unfit and have considered trying the MAF method. I bought the book and read it (and didn't learn anything that I hadn't already learned on this thread, and in fact I think this thread was way more balanced and illuminating). I have tried a few runs (5 miles) at my MAF HR which is 132 and I end up walking most of the time. This is very frustrating and I know that this seems to be the experience of most MAF beginners. I just cannot help thinking that using the Karvonen formula I might be able to keep running at a HR of about 150 and achieve the same result. Am I wrong?
Also, I am planning to run the St George marathon on Oct 7th 2006 which is in about 4 weeks. Is there any point in trying to train using the MAF method between now and then or should I simply run as I have been doing (which seems to be progressively wearing me out) and then seriously adopt a 12 week (or more) MAF based program.

Any help would be greatly appreciated.

Mike

---

Your story is basically the same as mine. I ran a marathon and swore to keep 9mm and make 4 hours. I was at 20 miles almost at 3:00:17 (9:01) only to blow up at mile 23. I went out too fast early and let my heart rate creep in the 180s (above LT) and then it was just a matter of time. It was hot as hell too.

Does the red line look familiar? The blue line is a marathon I ran 8 weeks laters. 4:00:03 officially (ugh), but 3:59:56 on my watch -- no chip timing. I only did slow running between the two (not MAF, but <150 -- my MAF is 145) the too. However, I don't think I was in any better shape for the second. The difference was 1) weather and 2) better pacing. You can't control 1, but you can control 2. I don't think switching to MAF will help now (but back off some if you're really worn out).

My advice is to run as even splits as possible or better slightly negative. Even 10 sec/mile makes a difference. Run no faster (not one second!) than 4 hour pace over the first 20 miles. If you have your heart rate data from you last marathon you can use that as a guide. In my graph, you can see the barely perceptible 2-3 bpm difference over the first half. That was the difference for me.

How many miles per week are you running? If you adopt MAF, the thing you gain is being able to run more miles without too much strain. I'm not sure what the conventional wisdom is here, but I don't believe lower hr while running the same mileage will result in improvement. Maybe there's a counterexample?

Good luck. I know how you feel. I'm hoping to get that 4 seconds off my back in another 8 weeks.

Greg

IP: Logged

posted Sep-01-2006 07:00 PM               

How exactly are the calories ingested during a run burned? Will the body immediately burn ingested calories and then return to the prior mix of fat and glycogen? Whenever they are burned, how efficiently are they burned? I would guess they aren't even as efficient as glycogen, otherwise you could continue forever by continually ingesting gels, food, etc.

Is this a simple issue that everybody understands but me? Hope not! Any answers appreciated.

IP: Logged

posted Sep-04-2006 02:45 AM               

I received an email from Mike who has been trying to post to the thread with the following question. As I am not a MAF advocate myself, can I leave this one to you guys to respond to him with his query.

Thanks,

Liam
Moderator here on Basic Training.

I have been reading this thread for a few weeks and have been very interested in the information presented. I am 48 years old and have completed 5 marathons with a best time of 4:02. My goal is to break 4hrs but I have noticed that I almost always "bonk" at about 17 miles regardless of gels, carbohydrate drinks etc. I have also noticed that my heart rate goes from about 75 on the starting line to about 150 within the first mile of running at a 9 min/mile pace and then holds at that level for about 8 miles with a gradual increase to about 185 at mile 17 if I try to hold the 9min/mile pace. Then I "bonk". I have taken this to mean that I am aerobically unfit and have considered trying the MAF method. I bought the book and read it (and didn't learn anything that I hadn't already learned on this thread, and in fact I think this thread was way more balanced and illuminating). I have tried a few runs (5 miles) at my MAF HR which is 132 and I end up walking most of the time. This is very frustrating and I know that this seems to be the experience of most MAF beginners. I just cannot help thinking that using the Karvonen formula I might be able to keep running at a HR of about 150 and achieve the same result. Am I wrong?

Also, I am planning to run the St George marathon on Oct 7th 2006 which is in about 4 weeks. Is there any point in trying to train using the MAF method between now and then or should I simply run as I have been doing (which seems to be progressively wearing me out) and then seriously adopt a 12 week (or more) MAF based program.

Any help would be greatly appreciated.

Mike

IP: Logged

posted Sep-04-2006 04:25 AM               

IP: Logged

posted Sep-04-2006 09:54 AM            

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

IP: Logged

posted Sep-04-2006 12:50 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by roy c:
Hi
Due to my working shifts, it's not often I can do long runs. So normally I would run 4-6 in the morning and try and fit in another 3 on my evening break.
I am at the minute averaging about 25 a week but this is on the increase, (20 in the last 3 days). Will I get the benifit from the training program with this sort of work outs.
Roy

---

probably so but as always, the more miles the merrier. I'm not sure
if breaking the runs apart has any effect, positive or negative on
the base-building progress.

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

IP: Logged