posted Sep-09-2006 04:13 PM               

LAP 1 5:48
LAP 2 5:49
LAP 3 5:59
LAP 4 6:12
LAP 5 6:15
LAP 6 6:35
LAP 7 6:44
LAP 8 6:46

previous test

LAP 1 5:45
LAP 2 6:06
LAP 3 6:22
LAP 4 6:54
LAP 5 7:05
LAP 6 7:36
LAP 7 7:56
LAP 8 7:50

IP: Logged

posted Sep-09-2006 04:39 PM               

Jesse,

I've changed my race plan and will be attempting the whole 100K insted of 50M's. My average pace/HR today was 8:40/124. Two weeks ago my 30M averaged 9:35/127 but it was really hot. My race will be in the 40's-50's for temp. I was thinking 9:00 pace would be the goal for 50M, what do you think about 100K? Doing b2b 20M this weekend and hopefully a 35M in two weeks, which will give me a three week taper period. Thanks in advance for any thoughts!

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

IP: Logged

posted Sep-09-2006 07:58 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by gregw:
Jimmy,

Thanks for the reply. During the 6/3 test, a cold front blew through and it went from 69F/65F dew pt at the start to 64F/55F at the end! Looking at my HRM program, my average hr for the 5 splits was 144, 144, 145, 145, 145 so I got an extra bpm in the later splits also. Not sure what you mean, since I'm not using MAF as a ceiling on my long runs anymore. I start out that way, but can't maintain pace and stay under MAF despite starting very slowly (average MAF-15 for first 5 miles or so). Last strict Maff long run I could find was 7/9 when I ran 16.5 at 11:02 pace and 138 bpm average. Last mile and a half or so of that run was 12:18/144 with the HRM beeping at me all the time. I think that's when I decided I wasn't going to be able to increase my long run distance at Maff (at least not in the summer) without completely crawling. Both went well. 8k was 39:05 (average hr 186) which is very slow compared my 10K of 47:21 in February, but this was a hilly race on a mid-July evening. I was less than 30 seconds behind a friend of mine who finished 4 minutes ahead of me at a 10-miler (1:19:25/182 bpm) in April so I consider it an improvement. At the 10-miler, a late August warm and hilly affair, I finished in 1:18:33 (183)-- a new PR, almost a minute ahead of the friend who finished 4 mins ahead of me in April, and 2 seconds in front of martinjames
I'm running the Army 10-miler 3 weeks before MCM. I'm debating whether to run a 20-mile race five weeks out. The plan would be to run 10 or more miles easy (like below MAF) and then do the last 10 or less at marathon pace. I haven't decided though -- I'm not sure I'm that disciplined and I'm nursing plantar fasciitis.

---

Your most excellent 1:18 indicates you have the speed to break 4:00. All comes down to your level of endurance. I like your plan to do the 20 miler with the last 10 @ MRP 5 weeks out. If you use your HRM, you'll be able to see how high your HR is getting by mile 20 at that speed. If it's still down around or below 86% HRR (89% MHR) or so then I think that pace might just do for you. Though it must be said that I'm basing this on my own tempo runs 2-3 weeks out from the past two all-out marathons, and some observation of heart rate in the last marathon. I was at 86% by mile 18. I was at 89% at mile 20 and after a bit of mental slowing, I finished strong with my quickest mile and a 95% HRR (96% MHR). Sort of like doing a 10k in the last 10k of the marathon as far as heart rate goes. I was only 2:00 off my PR, and every bit in line with what my MAF and tempo runs mentioned above were indicating.

Go for it, Greg. 3:38 is possible, definitely sub 4:00. Unless of course it's your first marathon. Is it? My aplogies if you've mentioned how many you've run already.

--Jimmy

Current MAF Training
My Running World

IP: Logged

posted Sep-09-2006 08:01 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by aharmer:
Ahhh, the cool weather is here! This morning's run was 50 degrees and overcast for an entire 20 mile run. My pace actually started slower than I expected for this temp, but leveled off very quickly and basically held for the entire run. The final three miles are uphill so I lost some time there, but what a nice change of pace from doing long runs in the summer heat.

Jesse,

I've changed my race plan and will be attempting the whole 100K insted of 50M's. My average pace/HR today was 8:40/124. Two weeks ago my 30M averaged 9:35/127 but it was really hot. My race will be in the 40's-50's for temp. I was thinking 9:00 pace would be the goal for 50M, what do you think about 100K? Doing b2b 20M this weekend and hopefully a 35M in two weeks, which will give me a three week taper period. Thanks in advance for any thoughts!

---

good choice - I think you're ready. You don't have to make a
major pace adjustment going from the 50 to 100k, but I'll even
go so far as to say that you shouldn't even worry about a pace
target. Your heart rate monitor will be a great tool to guide you.
In training, it tells me when I'm going too fast. In race it tells
me when I'm going too slow or too fast. If you've ever heard
the expression about ultras "start out slow, then ease off," it
tells the whole story. You now know a lot about your heart
rate and you can use it to keep the right zone for the entire
race. Then you just have to worry about taking in nutrition
(i.e., eat!) Don't eat and you'll pay the price. You won't
really run out of calories, you'll just start fizzling out, period.
Find a pace probably a bit higher than MAF that you feel
like you can hold on to forever. Take note of the heart rate
and stay within +/- 10 of it. It's highly likely that later in the
race, you'll have trouble even keeping your heart rate that
high. That's what happens to me anyway. The fatigue
breaks me down well before the aerobic system gives way.
I think you'll really be surprised. I think the course you're
doing isn't terribly hilly, so that will remove that major
factor (although if you're on a good part of the grandma's
course, there is a gradual down, which could nibble away
at your quads, so you want to be careful not to overstride).
In my opinion this type of training gives you such a perfect
formula for ultras, but you still have to run a few to learn
exactly how it works for yourself.

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

IP: Logged

posted Sep-09-2006 09:14 PM               

Thanks for the words of advice, they're pretty close to what I assumed to be the case. It's funny...as you know, Grandma's course is just rolling hills but overall pretty flat. The final 20 miles of this race is the first 20 of Grandma's. North of Two Harbors the story is a bit different. The race starts at about 1400' and descends to about 800' at 12 miles. It then rises back to 1400' by about 25 miles, and descends down to about 650' at 40 miles.

For most ultra runners this elevation data is laughable. I expect quite a challenge due to the fact that I do 90% of my training on an old railroad bed which is completely flat. I'm going to play it conservative and clip along at 125 HR for as long as possible. I'm sure there will be a point that I'll need to run at higher HR's, and as you said, probably have a hard time holding 125 later on as leg fatigue sets in.

IP: Logged

posted Sep-09-2006 09:54 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by jjwaverly42:
[QUOTE]
Go for it, Greg. 3:38 is possible, definitely sub 4:00. Unless of course it's your first marathon. Is it? My aplogies if you've mentioned how many you've run already.

---

I've run three.
- Oct 05 4:49 death march - no HRM
- Mar 06 4:16 I went out too fast (9:00 min/mi for first twenty and death march for the last 4 miles) on a day that was too hot for me to break 4 (it got to mid-70s on Mar 12 -- 19 degrees above average) -- 172 bpm average
- May 06 4:00:03 gun time (no chip but my watch was 3:59:56) -- no wall, perfect weather (50's) and good pacing using heart rate -- 172 bpm average

Cleanly breaking 4 is my "I'd be disappointed" min goal. MCM is an easier course than the one in May and I think I'm in considerably better shape than I was then (plus I only need 4 seconds!). 3:49 would be nice round number measure of revenge on last year's 4:49.

If I do the 20-miler, I'll probably run marathon heart rate over the last 10 and see what the pace is. My marathon heart rate was 170-175 over miles 10-20 in May. My max is 200 so I was at ~88% at miles 20 -- 89% at 20 was a good guess!

Thanks for the help and encouragement.

Greg

IP: Logged

posted Sep-10-2006 01:32 AM               

My question isn't about MAF training, but I wanted to ask leitn and all of you a question about glycogen, since you guys seem to know a lot about the technical parts of running.

I have been on a diet for the past month, and at the same time have started running and training for a marathon. I have lost 16 lbs. so far. I eat 2000 calories a day, and my body requires about 2600 calories per day [160 lb male here, who's 5'10" and does a decent amount of walking around campus each day.] And also, I run about 4 miles a day (other than my long run days. And I don't usually include my running into my required calorie intake for that day... meaning just because I ran 4 miles, I don't eat 400 more calories to compensate for it.) Thus, most days my calorie deficit is somewhere around 1000 calories.

So... everyone talks about bonking because of running out of glycogen. But does my body even have much glycogen to burn during runs? I feel like it really shouldn't have much calories to store, after being on a diet for this long and running almost everyday. [also, I forgot to mention I always run on an empty stomach, since I usually just wake up and run.]

I've been able to run 10-milers fine [haven't gotten above that yet, we'll see how longer ones go.] But I was just wondering if you think I probably burn more fat than glycogen than the regular person, because of my diet. Or if I even have glycogen stored because of the diet.

[This message has been edited by mikeymike777 (edited Sep-10-2006).]

IP: Logged

posted Sep-10-2006 07:36 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by mikeymike777:
Hey guys,

My question isn't about MAF training, but I wanted to ask leitn and all of you a question about glycogen, since you guys seem to know a lot about the technical parts of running.

I have been on a diet for the past month, and at the same time have started running and training for a marathon. I have lost 16 lbs. so far. I eat 2000 calories a day, and my body requires about 2600 calories per day [160 lb male here, who's 5'10" and does a decent amount of walking around campus each day.] And also, I run about 4 miles a day (other than my long run days. And I don't usually include my running into my required calorie intake for that day... meaning just because I ran 4 miles, I don't eat 400 more calories to compensate for it.) Thus, most days my calorie deficit is somewhere around 1000 calories.

So... everyone talks about bonking because of running out of glycogen. But does my body even have much glycogen to burn during runs? I feel like it really shouldn't have much calories to store, after being on a diet for this long and running almost everyday. [also, I forgot to mention I always run on an empty stomach, since I usually just wake up and run.]

I've been able to run 10-milers fine [haven't gotten above that yet, we'll see how longer ones go.] But I was just wondering if you think I probably burn more fat than glycogen than the regular person, because of my diet. Or if I even have glycogen stored because of the diet.

[This message has been edited by mikeymike777 (edited Sep-10-2006).]

---

Hi Mikeymike-

Very few, if any, of us are physiologists here, so you need to
understand that caveat. Now, with that said, the amount of fat
vs glycogen you use in a run is a function of fitness and intensity,
that's it - not your daily diet, at least not to my knowledge. Almost
no matter how much your calorie deficit, you will have plenty of
glycogen to get you through 10 miles and more. Your diet may
start to make a difference when you get to 16, 18, or 20 miles
and what you'll probably find out is that you will need to run at
a lower intensity. However, if you're already running at low enough
intensity, then you'll be fine even through a marathon. If you
really, really want to know, you should go for a vo2max test and
find out what your respiratory quotient is at your entire range of
level of effort (i.e., heart rate) and that will tell a big piece of the
story.

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

IP: Logged

posted Sep-10-2006 09:32 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by leitnerj:
It sounds like I have missed something that Jimmy and aharmer
have caught. So, towards the end of your runs, your heart rate
has been drifting over MAF by sometimes quite a bit? I know that
I went through a phase where I just wasn't keeping close track
and my aerobic system slowly fizzled out during that period. It
took me a couple of months to rebuild. It's funny because your
results are similar to a friend of mine at work who I've got doing
this because he's got no choice due to some achilles heal problems
he has been plagued with (which have gone away when he keeps
his heart rate low). He cannot record splits on his watch either
and he just eyeballs the HR monitor periodically. I'll occasionally
run with him when we are on travel to the same location and I'll
ask him his heart rate 5-10 miles into a run on a hill and it's
almost always 10-25 beats high. Since I can't analyze all of
your splits from training runs the last few months, I have no
way to tell what's going on and I just assumed that you were
keeping everything strictly below MAF. If you haven't, then
that tells very much of a story. This stuff just doesn't work
half way, it's pretty much all or nothing, at least during the
primary phase.

---

Jesse,
It seems as if I am being told that my bad day is cause I have not been doing the training correctly. In a post above it ws stated that maf was "all or nothing". During the 9 months of mafing I have seen tremendous progress. In the past Jimmy, you and others have talked about thowing in speed or running a race to see where one is at in the maf scheme of thing. I have run over 1,400 miles since I started with maf and over 80% plus have been at or below the maf heart rate. When I stated that my heart rate creeped up to 150 it was only in August that his had started. Since everyone is an experiment of one I was looking for some insight. I feel as if I was dumped upon because maf is "all or nothing". I do know that maf has been very beneficial because I have never run such high mileage w\o before. Someone posted above that they did intervals as their marathon became closer. That does not sound like "all or nothing" to me. Since being introduced to maf it has been a postitive thing. Since I am not doing it correctly I will take what I have learned and move on to the marathon. BQ may not be in the cards this time but a PR is very reachable.
Thanks for everything, kcy

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

IP: Logged

posted Sep-10-2006 01:40 PM            

I know KYC and, in fact, introduced KYC to MAF training about 9 or 10 months ago (you can read few of my posts if you go way back to the archives). For 8 months he stuck to the MAF training to a tee. He has watched his times go down from 14 + min. miles on his 4-mile treadmill test down to a hair under 9 minutes. What's more, I've seen his charts and even more impressive has been his radical decrease in heartrate drift.

I have been watching his experiment carefully, not only because I have a vested interest in it since I introduced MAF training to him, but, in part, because my MAF experiment was a complete bust. I slowed down radically when I ran consistently--even religiously--at under MAF. I did'nt cheat, waddling and walking outside for many months while my MAF tests kept getting slower and slower. Actually, I got slower at every heartrate I later discovered when I got back to faster HR training, but KYC has done most of his runs on a treadmill (unlike me), has warmed up by starting out at @115 bpm and gradually over a few miles brought his HR up to just a few beats under MAF (unlike me who got fast up to MAF HR and then didn;t go over) and then completed his next 5-10 miles with his HR ending at his MAF HR.

He did run one half-marathon when his MAF test was @11 min. a while back, but until recently, his HR has never risen above his MAF HR. HIs time at that half-mar, by the way, was 1:53--or about 11 or 12 minutes slower than he ran the half a year earlier, before I set him on the MAF path.

So, unlike me, it looked like the experiment was working. His MAF tests came down 5.5 minutes! If he had cheated, then I want to know how, specifially, he cheated to gain such amazing results! I want to cheat too, so that I can bring my MAF times down 5.5 minutes!!

Sarcasm aside, after 8 months he did run a couple runs where he started out below MAF but whether it was social enjoyment, a need to test his gains at higher HR or whatever, he finished a couple times with a relatively high HR. Despite doing this a few times, and only after about 8 months of rigorous-faithful MAF training, his MAF tests have continued to improve.

So...

THE REAL QUESTION IS WHY HAVEN'T HIS TWO RACE TIMES IMPROVED TOO? This is a guy who has doubled his mileage, probably tripled his training time and watched his MAF tests plummet.

The only reasonable answer I have, and will continue to hold, until somebody with more experience/wisdom than I says something intelligent, is that MAF training does not guarentee race improvements--even after 8 months of faithful training and marked improvement. For some folks (I believe for the vast majority) conventional wisdom/training is probably better. Training and developing all systems through base building, interval training, VO2 max, etc...is more apt to bring race times down (in the 1600 m through the marathon) than MAF training alone. I have certainly found this to be true for me. Of course, ultra-marathons and triathons where the MAF training is really race specific are probably the exceptions where MAF training may be the best way to go.

If all this about KCY's training is true, and I'm pretty sure it is, is there another good explanation for his slower race times?

Something I've missed?

Thanks everyone.

GForce!

IP: Logged

posted Sep-10-2006 02:54 PM               

I can only speak for myself, but I don't think anybody was personally attacking your friend. I'm impressed by your loyalty however.

I have an opinion related to your question, I'll let you judge whether it is "intelligent" or not. I would not expect Maff training to significantly improve my half-marathon time. Low HR aerobic training will cause numerous changes within the body of a runner, but in my opinion, it all starts and ends with fuel consumption.

Running at low intensity allows you to burn a higher percentage of fat and lower percentage of glycogen. As your aerobic system improves, you are able to burn a similar mixture of fat/glycogen at higher speeds. With that being said, remember how much glycogen is stored within the average body. Between your muscles, liver and blood the average body stores about 2000kcal worth of glycogen. The average runner burns about 100 per hour. Thus, many runners hit the wall at about 20 miles as their glycogen stores become depleted. This happens because many people run marathons above their anaerobic threshold from the very beginning of the race, and burn almost 100% glycogen from the start.

In a half-marathon almost everybody runs the entire race above their anaerobic threshold. They burn 100% glycogen for the entire race, but that's not the problem because they only go through about 2/3 of their glycogen stores in a 13 mile race. The limiting factors are more focused on VO2 and lactate clearance.

In my opinion (remember only opinion), Maff style training will not improve your HM times for the aforementioned reasons. Low intensity aerobic runs should be a part of every training program, but the HM hopeful would definitely want to incorporate more AT level runs in order to improve VO2 and lactate clearance rates.

If kcy had pre and post Maff marathon times to compare, I believe he would see significant improvement. But a program primarily based on improving the fuel ratio may not provide much improvement in a race that doesn't require an altered fuel ratio.

This is what I believe to be accurate, others may chime in and prove otherwise. Good luck!

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

IP: Logged

posted Sep-10-2006 04:30 PM            

quote:

---

THE REAL QUESTION IS WHY HAVEN'T HIS TWO RACE TIMES IMPROVED TOO?

---

I would have guessed anybody doubling their mileage (as long as it's not from 100 mpw to 200!) would see improvement, maff or no maff. I would have also expected higher speed at MAF hr (or any heart rate for that matter) to translate to a faster half marathon because it should mean a faster pace at lactate threshold heart rate -- if lactate treshold hasn't changed.

We have 2 possibilities (maybe)

1. race conditions, execution caused the difference (wx, terrain, illness, same level of effort, even pacing, etc.)
2. pace at lactate threshold heart rate is lower

It's too bad we don't have better data for the first question. We don't know heart rate splits for the first races and the last race we have the heart rate at the split but not the average, so it's hard to say whether it's a spike, etc.

On the second question. There are two possibilities: 1) LT heart rate is lower or 2) LT heart rate hasn't decreased, but pace at LT heart rate has. The first is a good possibility if kcy were doing lots of intervals, tempo runs etc. before his previous HMs. The second possibility would imply reduced (effective) VO2max. Bringing up another three possibilities: 2a) reduced stroke volume from detraining (no intervals, etc.) or 2b) more weight or 2c) lower efficiency.

2b is easy to eliminate. KCY, what did you weigh before each race?

Greg

IP: Logged

posted Sep-10-2006 07:20 PM            

I was less concerned my friend was being attacked as dismissed. I figure we learn something from anyone who is training faithfully at low hr, and I know my friend has. In light of this, I figured there was probably an explanation or two for his slower half-mar times.

I think KCY's main concern has been where to go from here. Should he lower his race goal from trying to bq to just go for a pr based on his half-marathon time? Should he add interval training, marathon pace and speed work to the mix this final few weeks in hopes of bringing his marathon time down for Chicago? Should he run Chicago with an eye on running another marathon a couple months later to bq after he has continued to build an even better MAF base?

So with these questions swimming around his head, I think he was looking for information to help him decide what to do next.

I appreciate your ideas. They seem well thought out and I suspect at least one of them is right on the money. I like the idea that he has lowered his VO2 max or at least slowed down at that level. That would make sense. I also like the idea that his marathon race pace will, unlike the half, be run below his LT. This should give him hope of running a little better than the half might indicate. I also wondered myself if his running economy at faster paces has deteriorated a bit from running slow all these months. I rode my bike next to him in that half and heard a lot of loud pounding as his shoes slapped the ground.

One final question...

If KCY averaged a 169 hr at his half-marathon, what might be a reasonable avg hr for the marathon? 8-12 beats lower?

I thought I might encourage him to keep an eye on his hr monitor the first half of the race so he doesn't go out too fast and has something left in the end.

Thanks again.

GForce1

IP: Logged

posted Sep-10-2006 07:32 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by GForce1:
>"KYC, I agree with Jesse. You haven't been doing MAF training, and therefore can't really say if it worked for you or not."<

I know KYC and, in fact, introduced KYC to MAF training about 9 or 10 months ago (you can read few of my posts if you go way back to the archives). For 8 months he stuck to the MAF training to a tee. He has watched his times go down from 14 + min. miles on his 4-mile treadmill test down to a hair under 9 minutes. What's more, I've seen his charts and even more impressive has been his radical decrease in heartrate drift.

I have been watching his experiment carefully, not only because I have a vested interest in it since I introduced MAF training to him, but, in part, because my MAF experiment was a complete bust. I slowed down radically when I ran consistently--even religiously--at under MAF. I did'nt cheat, waddling and walking outside for many months while my MAF tests kept getting slower and slower. Actually, I got slower at every heartrate I later discovered when I got back to faster HR training, but KYC has done most of his runs on a treadmill (unlike me), has warmed up by starting out at @115 bpm and gradually over a few miles brought his HR up to just a few beats under MAF (unlike me who got fast up to MAF HR and then didn;t go over) and then completed his next 5-10 miles with his HR ending at his MAF HR.

He did run one half-marathon when his MAF test was @11 min. a while back, but until recently, his HR has never risen above his MAF HR. HIs time at that half-mar, by the way, was 1:53--or about 11 or 12 minutes slower than he ran the half a year earlier, before I set him on the MAF path.

So, unlike me, it looked like the experiment was working. His MAF tests came down 5.5 minutes! If he had cheated, then I want to know how, specifially, he cheated to gain such amazing results! I want to cheat too, so that I can bring my MAF times down 5.5 minutes!!

Sarcasm aside, after 8 months he did run a couple runs where he started out below MAF but whether it was social enjoyment, a need to test his gains at higher HR or whatever, he finished a couple times with a relatively high HR. Despite doing this a few times, and only after about 8 months of rigorous-faithful MAF training, his MAF tests have continued to improve.

So...

THE REAL QUESTION IS WHY HAVEN'T HIS TWO RACE TIMES IMPROVED TOO? This is a guy who has doubled his mileage, probably tripled his training time and watched his MAF tests plummet.

The only reasonable answer I have, and will continue to hold, until somebody with more experience/wisdom than I says something intelligent, is that MAF training does not guarentee race improvements--even after 8 months of faithful training and marked improvement. For some folks (I believe for the vast majority) conventional wisdom/training is probably better. Training and developing all systems through base building, interval training, VO2 max, etc...is more apt to bring race times down (in the 1600 m through the marathon) than MAF training alone. I have certainly found this to be true for me. Of course, ultra-marathons and triathons where the MAF training is really race specific are probably the exceptions where MAF training may be the best way to go.

If all this about KCY's training is true, and I'm pretty sure it is, is there another good explanation for his slower race times?

Something I've missed?

Thanks everyone.

GForce!

---

HEy Gforce,

My opinion was based on KYC's following post:

quote:

---

Originally posted by kcy1998:
ahammer,
You are not missing anything. My maf test has been done on a TM @ a 08:57 pace. On Saturday I run w\ some friends outside @ a 09:30 pace.Taking into consideration the summer temps and humidity this is why my HR maxes out at 155 near the end of a 16 mile run. Technically then I have not been running all of my runs @ 135 since January.
kcy

---

KYC indicates he has not done all of his runs under MAF since January.
That's about 6-7 months of no MAF training. Long enough for your aerobic base to diminish. That's not to say he didn't do a period of pure MAF training beforehand. Still 6-7 months since then. My point being that he can't blame his slower race time on MAF training, because he hadn't been doing it for 6-7 months by his own admission.

I addressed certain possibilities of why KYC slowed down from last year's race. The first was maybe he just had a bad day. I also believe from looking at his splits that he slowed down when he could have maintained a faster pace--mental. I'm not sure if he did any tempo runs, which are necessary at some point after a period of aerobic base training and before a goal race. MAF isn't supposed to be an all--the--time thing with no racing or miles that might be considered "speedy." The MAF book itself talks about bringing in faster miles after a certain point. For me, a 12-16 in the winter, followed by adding some tempo and races, and at least another 8 before fall season, followed by doing some tempo and races works really well for me. The races need to be no longer than a 2-8 weeks out from the base training. Not 6-7 months. Did KYC do that? According to him, no. So that could have been a reason. He didn't bring a solid aerobic base into the half marathon.

It's all guess work. The important thing is to not make a big deal out of one race and keep at it, whatever training you or KYC plans to do. Doesn't matter to me. Me, I experiment, and make my conclusions on a training method based on how I do in the races along with mitigating factors like heat, amount of rest, weight, etc. I found that MAF was a great way to create a solid aerobic base. I didn't think it was working, but when I did my big spring/summer races, I was pleasantly surprised. Making a nice 10-mile PR, and running two spring marathons carrying a bunch of "grief induced" fat and on little rest. This time around I'm experimenting with going lower in %MHR or how much under MAF I use as a ceiling HR (about MAF-11 or 65% MHR on most runs, and MAF-6 or 69% MHR on long-runs), along with raising volume. Might not work at all.

Well, anyway, there's my rebuttal to your proxy--like post.

Good luck!

--Jimmy

Coolrunning profiles:
Current MAF Training
My Running World

MAF training source:
Training for Endurance by Phil Maffetone

IP: Logged

posted Sep-10-2006 08:24 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by GForce1:
One final question...

If KCY averaged a 169 hr at his half-marathon, what might be a reasonable avg hr for the marathon? 8-12 beats lower?

I thought I might encourage him to keep an eye on his hr monitor the first half of the race so he doesn't go out too fast and has something left in the end.

Thanks again.

GForce1

---

http://www.teamoregon.com/publications/wizard.php is a calculator for this. If you have a race with average heart rate (like the 169 for the HM) it does pretty well. It's right on the money for my marathon heart rate when I put in my 183 bpm average for 10 miles. It predicted 172 for the marathon, which is what I ran both spring marathons at. (Pay less attention to predicted marathon times unless you have endurance to spare -- I finished 20 minutes slower than it would predict.) With race heart rate data, I think it should extrapolate from HM to marathon pretty well. However, depending on one's training, the risk of glycogen depletion might be more of a factor and it might be necessary to run at a slower than predicted heart rate to improve "fuel efficiency" and avoid the wall.

Note that you can't run your average at mile one. Mile 15 was the first one to average over 172 for me. leitnerj has all his marathon splits in his running log if you want to see a typical heart rate profile. Of course if your body says something different than the monitor listen to the monitor, listen to your body.

Greg

IP: Logged

posted Sep-10-2006 08:35 PM            

Having talked to KCY, I have a distinct advantage. Written communication is too easy to misunderstand.

I think KCY meant that he ran one, single day recently when his heartrate went well above MAF and so, technically, he hasn't run "every" run since January under MAF. He has, except for an earlier half-marathon and that Saturday (and maybe one or two others in late August that he hasn't mentioned to me) run every run--equaling well over a 1000 miles--from January through mid-August at MAF or lower. I mean he's been rigorous about it. In fact, if you ask me, he's been nothing short of obsessive about it with graphs, charts, precise scales, and GPS downloads. I think, except for that Saturday, if his hr ever rose above MAF, he'd join OPUS DE and begin flogging himself! I'm serious.

In fact, I think maybe he'd benefit from a GA group, you know, greek's anonymous.

Of course, I'm relatively sure I'd qualify too--at least if I were bit smarter.

Thanks again Jimmy.

IP: Logged

posted Sep-10-2006 08:42 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by kcy1998:
Jesse,
It seems as if I am being told that my bad day is cause I have not been doing the training correctly. In a post above it ws stated that maf was "all or nothing". During the 9 months of mafing I have seen tremendous progress. In the past Jimmy, you and others have talked about thowing in speed or running a race to see where one is at in the maf scheme of thing. I have run over 1,400 miles since I started with maf and over 80% plus have been at or below the maf heart rate. When I stated that my heart rate creeped up to 150 it was only in August that his had started. Since everyone is an experiment of one I was looking for some insight. I feel as if I was dumped upon because maf is "all or nothing". I do know that maf has been very beneficial because I have never run such high mileage w\o before. Someone posted above that they did intervals as their marathon became closer. That does not sound like "all or nothing" to me. Since being introduced to maf it has been a postitive thing. Since I am not doing it correctly I will take what I have learned and move on to the marathon. BQ may not be in the cards this time but a PR is very reachable.
Thanks for everything, kcy

---

Ok, let me be clear. I can't look at your data, so I can't make
any real assessments. When I say "all or nothing" it doesn't
mean that you have to do all MAF all the time or you won't
see benefits. It means that when you are in a MAF base
building period, you need to be strict with the method, that's
all. Once again, since I don't have a detailed training log for
you, I'm just putting pieces together from what you've mentioned.
So, I think it's somewhat clear, but you can correct me - you
spent many months doing strict MAF training, rarely ever
going over the target heart rate. After that point, you spent a
month or so running where you were not strict, but you were
about 80% of the time. Does that sum it up well? At the time
you started to add some higher heart rates in, you had made
significant pace progress, right? Then you moved into the
mode of preparing for your half marathon. Now, of course, this is
mostly a guessing game at this point, sort of a "how do I
do better the next time?" thing. So your choices next time are
to carry strict MAF all the way up to race day, possibly sprinkling
in a few "fast finish" miles at the end of long runs, basically what
I did. Or, the more common approach, and that suggested by
Mark Allen is to wait until you've achieved a certain level of
progress and then move into quality phase. Now, the trick.
What is quality phase? How do I do it without messing up what
I've already done? How do I pinpoint the areas that really can
be fleshed out for improvement and really prepare myself for
the races I'll be doing? Important questions. Tough answers.
I suspect that the solution for you, should you choose the
latter option above is to focus on a better quality phase. Don't
just let your heart rate climb at the end of runs. It becomes a
pattern and it really doesn't focus on any specific target training
objective. I've gone through phases when I've done that and
not only did my aerobic base wither away, my paces got slower
at low heart rates, but I didn't get the least bit faster either. Ok,
so hopefully that's a bit more intelligent and clear of an answer.
Additionally, it is challenging to make judgment on what to do
without detailed training records (although, I'd hate to throw out
an edict that in order to be successful, one needs to be able
to record all splits!)

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

IP: Logged

posted Sep-10-2006 08:50 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by GForce1:

THE REAL QUESTION IS WHY HAVEN'T HIS TWO RACE TIMES IMPROVED TOO? This is a guy who has doubled his mileage, probably tripled his training time and watched his MAF tests plummet.

The only reasonable answer I have, and will continue to hold, until somebody with more experience/wisdom than I says something intelligent, is that MAF training does not guarentee race improvements--even after 8 months of faithful training and marked improvement. For some folks (I believe for the vast majority) conventional wisdom/training is probably better. Training and developing all systems through base building, interval training, VO2 max, etc...is more apt to bring race times down (in the 1600 m through the marathon) than MAF training alone. I have certainly found this to be true for me. Of course, ultra-marathons and triathons where the MAF training is really race specific are probably the exceptions where MAF training may be the best way to go.

If all this about KCY's training is true, and I'm pretty sure it is, is there another good explanation for his slower race times?

---

While we've all learned this much individuality here and what one
does must be fine-tuned to his/her responses, the only way to
really tell is to look at training records. They tell a story. I've
had numerous periods where things didn't work. Fortunately, the
problems all stuck out like a sore thumb. I noticed that when I
would go for weeks just letting my heart rate climb, even by 10-20
beats *regularly* (not once or twice, here and there) for runs, my
base would decay. And there wasn't something good that made
up for it. Maybe that's the case here? I dunno. As I suggested
above, KCY may well have exhausted the basebuilding period,
but the quality phase may have been flawed. Or perhaps some
form of stimulation was missing having had such a high percentage
of mileage on the treadmill. Hills, heat, humidity, air resistance.

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

IP: Logged

posted Sep-10-2006 09:18 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by leitnerj:
While we've all learned this much individuality here and what one
does must be fine-tuned to his/her responses, the only way to
really tell is to look at training records. They tell a story. I've
had numerous periods where things didn't work. Fortunately, the
problems all stuck out like a sore thumb. I noticed that when I
would go for weeks just letting my heart rate climb, even by 10-20
beats *regularly* (not once or twice, here and there) for runs, my
base would decay. And there wasn't something good that made
up for it. Maybe that's the case here? I dunno. As I suggested
above, KCY may well have exhausted the basebuilding period,
but the quality phase may have been flawed. Or perhaps some
form of stimulation was missing having had such a high percentage
of mileage on the treadmill. Hills, heat, humidity, air resistance.

---

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

IP: Logged

posted Sep-11-2006 11:26 AM               

I used to do 3 mile runs, now I do 7 mile runs.

------------------
A journey of 1000 miles begins with one step

IP: Logged

posted Sep-11-2006 05:15 PM               

IP: Logged

posted Sep-11-2006 05:36 PM               

IP: Logged

posted Sep-11-2006 06:35 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by roy c:
My RHR has dropped but my pace hasn't got any better, yet. Is that normal. Only MAFFing a few weeks now.
Roy

---

well, your RHR may be improved partially because you're not overtraining,
and you may have been before. It may take more than a couple of months
to really see measurable progress (but it really shouldn't take that long).
Hopefully as the weather gets cooler, your pace picks up from that alone.
If not, then something's gone afoul.

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

IP: Logged

posted Sep-12-2006 06:28 AM               

IP: Logged

posted Sep-12-2006 08:02 AM            

I've read the thread (entirely) and have been watching it closely. About 6 weeks ago I bought an HRM (Garmin 305) and went to work using 180-35(age) for a target max heart rate of 145.

My mileage has increased almost 2 fold (up to 30-35 a week). I have gone above MAF, but only on a few nasty hills for the most part. On long runs, my average per mile has been 147 or so towards the end. Otherwise I've stuck with it.

Last Saturday I ran a 5K race. Now, the only other one I've ran was 6 weeks ago, so my history is skewed in that regards. I've also lost 7 pounds during that time. (currently at 211 lbs)

I PR'd by 2 minutes, down to 23:44. The course wasn't the same, but it was definitely no easier. (The top finishers ran both races, and their times were actually slower during this last race by a few seconds)

Did MAF training help me? Absolutely. If nothing else, I'm able to run more miles per week while losing several nagging injuries I had. (PF, some ITB flare ups, etc)

I plan on doing some strict MAF'ing next year, after my first marathon in February, health willing. However, I will still be doing the vast majority of my training using this method, and hopefully all of it. Now that it is cooling down, I have a feeling my long runs will be much easier to keep under maf. I was letting it creep up to +5 or +6. I do have a 10K, 15K, and HM in the next 2 months, so that will be my tempo work until the marathon in February.

Cheers.

IP: Logged