posted Oct-17-2006 08:24 PM               

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

IP: Logged

posted Oct-17-2006 08:56 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by leitnerj:
1. There have been a number of women very successful with this
approach, even who have posted here. There may have been a
higher level of frustration with some women just because, generally
speaking, women with poor aerobic conditioning might be on the
average slower than men with poor aerobic conditioning and given
that there seems to be a general concern about going any slower than
certain absolute paces, such as 8, 9, 10 minute miles, or whatever,
some women will have been less likely to stick with it.

2. On the one hand, I wouldn't pay attention to too much of Maffetone's
recommendations on shoes in general, but I will say that there does
seem to be a propensity for many to recommend orthotics, specialized
shoes, or other "crutches" to make up for what amount to be simple
training problems. As far as stability shoes go, I really don't see what
the big deal is.

---

1) Well I hope to post some real improvements here!

2) If it's not broken.....

Thanks for the reply
Chris

IP: Logged

posted Oct-17-2006 09:04 PM            

Seems its my turn as I was able to run 3 tenths of a mile faster than my normal maf runs at the same heart rate. Maybe it was because the treadmill room was 1 degree cooler than normal, or maybe I got a gift.

IP: Logged

posted Oct-17-2006 09:09 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chris345:

2) If it's not broken.....

[/B]

---

Without a doubt, it's amazing how much damage one can do
to a good thing just by fixing it.

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

IP: Logged

posted Oct-18-2006 07:16 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by gregw:
3 days after a half, you'll probably be tired and it wll affect a MAF test. I do the same course during the week and notice that my pace/hr is worse on Mondays after a long run. One thing that has me perplexed is your race times and low heart rates (compared to MAF pace/hr). Were you racing those? What's your age? Do you know your max hr?

Greg

---

Age 35

didn't really race the A10, pushed the last couple miles but otherwise kept my HR at MAF

the Metric I raced but started very slow for the first 2-3 miles (like 10:30 pace), therefore the overall lower HR

Balt. HALF I raced pretty much from the start although the first couple miles were slower due to the crowd.

I'll post my splits/HR for each race later.....

had a VO2max test done a couple months ago but it was not a max effort test. HR hit 178 I believe and I've seen 182-183 before.

IP: Logged

posted Oct-18-2006 08:59 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by chuckp88:
Age 35

didn't really race the A10, pushed the last couple miles but otherwise kept my HR at MAF

the Metric I raced but started very slow for the first 2-3 miles (like 10:30 pace), therefore the overall lower HR

Balt. HALF I raced pretty much from the start although the first couple miles were slower due to the crowd.

I'll post my splits/HR for each race later.....

had a VO2max test done a couple months ago but it was not a max effort test. HR hit 178 I believe and I've seen 182-183 before.

---

I think you might fall into the low heart rate category and should probably be using a lower MAF. I'm 35 also and averaged 182 bpm at a half marathon, so it stands to reason we probably shouldn't be using the same training hr. With 145 at 8:30 pace, you'd be training at faster than HM pace! Jesse's FAQ recommends using Hadd's guidelines for lower hrs. Hadd suggests using <135 for Max = 183. Since your HM hr is relatively low for a max of 183, you might even consider lower, but your HM heart rate might just indicate a low (for now) lactate threshold so 135 is a place to start.

Greg

IP: Logged

posted Oct-18-2006 12:09 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by gregw:
I think you might fall into the low heart rate category and should probably be using a lower MAF. I'm 35 also and averaged 182 bpm at a half marathon, so it stands to reason we probably shouldn't be using the same training hr. With 145 at 8:30 pace, you'd be training at faster than HM pace! Jesse's FAQ recommends using Hadd's guidelines for lower hrs. Hadd suggests using <135 for Max = 183. Since your HM hr is relatively low for a max of 183, you might even consider lower, but your HM heart rate might just indicate a low (for now) lactate threshold so 135 is a place to start.

Greg

---

after the marthon I think I'll do a maxHR test at the track. although my VO2max test indicated aerobic threshold at 143 and an lactate threshold of 162. I think the LT may be a little low, more like 165???

but I definitely know that I cannot hold 170+ like Jesse and some others that have a high maxHR.

IP: Logged

posted Oct-18-2006 02:45 PM               

In your VO2 test were they actually taking blood samples during the test to determine your lactate threshold? THey did not in my test. I wish they would have because from what I understand that's the only way to find your true LT.

IP: Logged

posted Oct-18-2006 06:22 PM            

I lost some speed at the outset (I think), but it's come back and more lately with some speedwork.

IP: Logged

posted Oct-18-2006 07:44 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by aharmer:
Chuck,

In your VO2 test were they actually taking blood samples during the test to determine your lactate threshold? THey did not in my test. I wish they would have because from what I understand that's the only way to find your true LT.

---

no blood samples........I assume it's just a good "guess" but still better than nothing.......but I will say that if I get to 165-170 I can't hold it for more than 4-5 minutes so 162 it probably pretty close.

IP: Logged

posted Oct-18-2006 07:50 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by martinjames:
Knowing your max HR is invaluable. I crashed and burned in my first stab at MAFF. Turns out that my MAFF number was really 85% of my max HR. I shifted to the Hadd-based formula and backed of to <75% and found that I could increase my mileage w/o injury.

I lost some speed at the outset (I think), but it's come back and more lately with some speedwork.

---

I don't think my MAF (145) is off too much because I've seen significant improvement over the past 4 months. Before I begin the next cycle of MAF I'll do a maxHR test and adjust if necessary. I really want to do a big base building period this winter!!!

IP: Logged

posted Oct-18-2006 08:01 PM               

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

[This message has been edited by landofvanilla (edited Oct-18-2006).]

IP: Logged

posted Oct-19-2006 11:43 AM               

I realized that I was a perfect candidate for MAF training. My fastest 5K was around 23:00 and my most recent marathon at 5 hours. I've never been able to understand why I was so slow. So I ran fast to try to get faster. Duh!

I'm in Week 9 of MAF training. I've been keeping my runs at or below MAF-5 (145-5=140) since I'm coming off an injury.

I run 5.5 hours per week (27-30 miles) and walk 4.5 hours per week (20-25 miles). My typical training run involves fast-walking, then running, then fast-walking. I keep my walking HR in the same MAF zone as my running HR. I plan on *slowly* adding to my training volume. I'd love to get up to 15-20 hours per week. Or more... what am I capable of?

My ultimate goals? Just being outside and running/walking as much as possible. Someday I'd love to do 50- and 100-mile events, and I'd love to run the Chicago Marathon in 3:30 -- but these races are just side-dishes for me. My daily runs/walks are their own reward.

Week 1: 12:30 min/mile at MAF-5
Week 9: 11:00 min/mile at MAF-5

Further, I can now run a 12:30 pace at MAF-20=125=65% MHR for me. This is an improvement of around 15 bpm at this pace in 9 weeks -- I never used to be able to run at 65% MHR.

Question 1: Everyone seems to talk about running volume in terms of miles per week. But since we all have greatly different paces, this is not helpful. What is a really good volume in terms of time?

Question 2: The reason I fast-walk nearly as much as I run is because I think it greatly contributes to aerobic development. It may not be as "good" as running, but it's still good. Right? Plus I love being outdoors and walking lets me effectively double my outdoor time. And it gives me a great warmup-cooldown.

Question 3: The 180-age formula is a generic approximation. The vo2max test precisely determines an individual's true MAF. So why is having a vo2max test not strongly encouraged? Is it the cost? If we're all spending months and years of our lives training at MAF, it seems a wise investment to have the most accurate MAF available. I plan on having my vo2max tested in a few months; I live a few miles from UIC and they offer the test for $200-ish.

Question 4: Jesse, can you elaborate (either in a post or to my email) on what you mean by orthotics being prescribed to correct what is a simple training error? A longer discussion of this belongs in a different thread, but it's something I'm quite interested in since my sports doc gave me custom orthotics last year and now I can't run without them, much to my dismay.

Question 5: Resting heart rate. How exactly is this defined? If I'm sitting at my desk, it's 50-55 bpm. If I'm laying down, it's 48-50. If I'm asleep, it's 42-48 (recently wore my Polar S625X at night). Is there a standard people go by?

[This message has been edited by Ad Nihilum (edited Oct-19-2006).]

IP: Logged

posted Oct-19-2006 04:27 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ad Nihilum:

Question 1: Everyone seems to talk about running volume in terms of miles per week. But since we all have greatly different paces, this is not helpful. What is a really good volume in terms of time?

Question 2: The reason I fast-walk nearly as much as I run is because I think it greatly contributes to aerobic development. It may not be as "good" as running, but it's still good. Right? Plus I love being outdoors and walking lets me effectively double my outdoor time. And it gives me a great warmup-cooldown.

Question 3: The 180-age formula is a generic approximation. The vo2max test precisely determines an individual's true MAF. So why is having a vo2max test not strongly encouraged? Is it the cost? If we're all spending months and years of our lives training at MAF, it seems a wise investment to have the most accurate MAF available. I plan on having my vo2max tested in a few months; I live a few miles from UIC and they offer the test for $200-ish.

Question 4: Jesse, can you elaborate (either in a post or to my email) on what you mean by orthotics being prescribed to correct what is a simple training error? A longer discussion of this belongs in a different thread, but it's something I'm quite interested in since my sports doc gave me custom orthotics last year and now I can't run without them, much to my dismay.

Question 5: Resting heart rate. How exactly is this defined? If I'm sitting at my desk, it's 50-55 bpm. If I'm laying down, it's 48-50. If I'm asleep, it's 42-48 (recently wore my Polar S625X at night). Is there a standard people go by?

[This message has been edited by Ad Nihilum (edited Oct-19-2006).]

---

Q1: sorry, even the mileage numbers are just rough guesses anyway,
a time estimate would be even moreso!

Q2: I think you're right - I think fast-walking will be a great contributor
to aerobic volume. I knew one guy who spent a year fast walking,
trained for 6 weeks for a marathon, then ran it in around 3:15. He
did put in a lot of walking mileage.

Q3:
1. I don't think it's really necessary unless you have no idea that
you might have a very low max heart rate. If you don't have a low
max heart rate, it's not going to give you much.
2. Many people wouldn't want to dish out the $100-$200.
3. Many companies that administer the tests don't do them
quite right and/or don't give you the data that you need. Many
tests that people have had don't bring the test all the way to
failure, may not even go to fully anaerobic, don't provide
respiratory quotients, don't go to actual vo2max, etc. They'll
frequently provide training zones that do not involve the very
low zones the Maffetone or Mark Allen formulas provide.
A vo2max test, if administered ideally (and if all the right data
are provided) will be very useful to make an assessment of
progress, if taken before and after your training period. I've
had two vo2max tests, but I don't use any of the data for
training purposes.

Q4: Please don't take my comment the wrong way. I'm sure
that most people who are prescribed orthotics are prescribed
them for the right reasons. However, I know some people
who have been prescribed orthotics to help overcome overtraining
injuries that simply could have been corrected by good training
habits (i.e., running at least some runs at any easy recovery
pace, not doing speedwork 4 days a week, etc)

Q5: The lowest heart rate you will ever see over a day.

Sounds like you're a great candidate and making some nice
progress!

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

IP: Logged

posted Oct-21-2006 11:21 AM            

- Apr 2, I ran the Cherry Blossom 10-miler in 1:19:25
- Apr 16, last long run 23 miles in 4:07, 150bpm average
- mcmillan predicted a 3:42 marathon based on 10-miler (I knew better than this)
- May 7, ran 4:00:03 marathon with a 172 bpm average

- Oct 1, ran a half marathon in 1:40:02, 182 bpm average
- Oct 8, last long run 23 miles in 4:09, 140 bpm avg (same route as 4/16)
- I did an experiment today to see how fast 170 bpm was on my local 0.1-mile track. Forty degrees outside. I did my usual route of about 8.5 miles at MAF (140 bpm average) to warm up, did about three laps to get cruising at 170 bpm, and then did 3.5 miles taking splits every half mile. This is what I got 3:54/169, 3:52/168, 3:52/170, 3:56/169, 3:56/170, 3:57/170, 3:58/170

What could I run at MCM on 29 Oct?

One thing I'm pretty sure of is that I'm going to pass a lot of people with my bib #9000-something starting corral (based on my 3:59 predicted time when I registered). Only 3400 broke 4 hours last year (in both waves). How can I have 9000 people lined up ahead of me? Of course I'm not saying they won't pass me back if I go out too fast!

Thanks,
Greg

IP: Logged

posted Oct-21-2006 02:19 PM               

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

IP: Logged

posted Oct-21-2006 02:49 PM            

I hear you on big races. I wouldn't have run this except my uncle wanted to run it and then he bailed on me! Lower potomac river run is more my speed.

Thanks again,
Greg

IP: Logged

posted Oct-21-2006 04:56 PM            

McMillan's calculator puts you right at 3:30 based on your last half marathon. (which I'm sure you know already)

Beyond that, I can't offer much for experience, unfortunately. Just make sure you have a good RR for us!

On a personal note...today I ran my first 15K ever...I've been training using MAF since late July with the exception of a few 5K's and one 10K in the last 3 months or so, and just a bit of tempo work. (a few miles every other week) I'm not a good MAF test given that I quit smoking only a few months ago (thankfully I wasn't a heavy smoker for the past few years, for whatever that's worth) and that I'm still losing weight, which will obviously help with overall pace and times.

I started running in mid-May, 06. Weight was ~240. (6'2") Weight today: 204. I quit smoking for good in July. Goal weight: 190 by mid-Feb, when I run my first marathon!

I run at least half of my miles with my wife, who trains at about an 11:30 pace (although this is getting faster even when I monitor her HR) . The rest of my training is done at 10:00 to 10:15, give or take. (145 HR) My HR when training with my wife is around 125.

My Garmin measured the track at 9.5 miles, instead of 9.3. Others had similar numbers. Is this normal for GPS devices to be long? Other measurements I've taken with it have been dead on, and very consistent.

Max heart rate that I've managed (during a 10K) was 199. I use 200 for easy computations. I'm hoping to have a VO2 max test done (I'm making sure they will test for AT and such as well) in December. Thanks Jesse for your insight on what constitutes a beneficial VO2 test!

Here are the numbers from the 15K:

Lap (Mile)
Split Time
Total Time
Elevation change (according to Garmin data using Sportstracks software)
Avg. HR
% of MAX (based off 200)

1 8:08 8:08 -59 165 (83%)
2 8:10 16:18 +62 171 (86%)
3 8:01 24:20 -54 170 (85%)
4 8:07 32:28 +38 173 (86%)
5 7:47 40:15 -37 173 (87%)
6 7:46 48:02 0 174 (87%)
7 7:59 56:01 +50 176 (88%)
8 7:54 1:03:56 -14 176 (88%)
9 7:19 1:11:15 -18 185 (93%)
.52 6:45 1:14:47 +23 193 (97%)

Given this was the longest race I've ever participated in, and based on my previous 10K race a few weeks ago (49:17) I had an inner goal of 1:15. Anything under 1:17 would have been fine. I was pushing hard the last .5 miles I tell ya. (almost all uphill) It reminds me of high school and running 800's....god those hurt, as much as I loved that distance back then. I stuck with golf the other 3 years of high school, though.

My HR before the race was higher than normal (lack of sleep probably), but didn't seem out of line during the race based on my past data.

Questions and observations:

1. Did I pace this ok, or should I have started a bit faster focusing on more even splits? I believe given my HR that I ran a fairly smart race (for me, anyway ).

2. I have a HM in 2 weeks. I'm thinking of starting with about the same pace (8:05 to 8:10) and trying to hold that throughout. Reasonable? I have run 11, 13, and 15 miles for my long runs recently up to this point. The course is definitely not fast, but hey....I'll PR anyway.

3. I was racing today mainly focused on HR, and not time. I prefer this, as I'm becoming familiar with my comfort zones and such. In fact, it's much more important to me than knowing what my current pace is. I have this thread to thank for that....so THANK YOU everyone!! I have learned more from these boards (and this thread specifically) than I would have thought possible in such a short amount of time. Some day I will meet a few of you, hopefully. Drinks are on me!

Wow...sorry to ramble so much....hope everyone is still (mostly) awake.

Dana

IP: Logged

posted Oct-21-2006 05:42 PM            

Welcome to the fold and congratulations on your success so far!

You ran a nice race in the 15K. Pacing is an iterative thing and conservative is better than not. Your 15K mirror a 10-miler I ran a month before the half marathon. 7:51 average pace (hot and hilly) with the last two at 7:20. I used my average hot rate in that minus 3-4 bpm as a target for the half marathon and it worked great.

You didn't put your total time and average heart rate for the 15K, but eyeballing looks like 7:50 pace and 174. (The rest of this assumes my math was right.) If I got that right, then I think 8:05 to 8:10 is definitely a good place to start. After 3-4 miles you should be up to about 170. You could push it up to 172 or so here, fight to hold pace the last 3 miles or so and you should end up with the predicted 170 bpm average.

Greg

IP: Logged

posted Oct-21-2006 06:01 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Docster:

My Garmin measured the track at 9.5 miles, instead of 9.3. Others had similar numbers. Is this normal for GPS devices to be long? Other measurements I've taken with it have been dead on, and very consistent.

---

Sounds like a great experience. There's nothing like using heart
rate as a means to race because it equalizes everything and
normalizes to whatever the current situation is. I don't go into
races with time goals anymore - I just show up and race and
what happens happens. In either case, unless there was a lot
of tree coverage or other blockage, or your GPS wasn't fully initialized
before the start, it's most likely that you simply did not run right on
the measurement line for the course. GPS should measure most
every race course long.

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

IP: Logged

posted Oct-21-2006 06:42 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by gregw:
I apologize for another marathon pace prediction request, but there's a maffetone improvement story buried in here I hope :-) Basically it seems like I'm 10 bpm faster at a given pace than I was in the spring. I just don't know what that means for the marathon.

- Apr 2, I ran the Cherry Blossom 10-miler in 1:19:25
- Apr 16, last long run 23 miles in 4:07, 150bpm average
- mcmillan predicted a 3:42 marathon based on 10-miler (I knew better than this)
- May 7, ran 4:00:03 marathon with a 172 bpm average

- Oct 1, ran a half marathon in 1:40:02, 182 bpm average
- Oct 8, last long run 23 miles in 4:09, 140 bpm avg (same route as 4/16)
- I did an experiment today to see how fast 170 bpm was on my local 0.1-mile track. Forty degrees outside. I did my usual route of about 8.5 miles at MAF (140 bpm average) to warm up, did about three laps to get cruising at 170 bpm, and then did 3.5 miles taking splits every half mile. This is what I got 3:54/169, 3:52/168, 3:52/170, 3:56/169, 3:56/170, 3:57/170, 3:58/170

What could I run at MCM on 29 Oct?

One thing I'm pretty sure of is that I'm going to pass a lot of people with my bib #9000-something starting corral (based on my 3:59 predicted time when I registered). Only 3400 broke 4 hours last year (in both waves). How can I have 9000 people lined up ahead of me? Of course I'm not saying they won't pass me back if I go out too fast!

Thanks,
Greg

---

Hey Greg,

based on the track test and your half marathon, I would say 3:35ish is in the cards. Give or take. Depends on the weather you get, how slow the crowd keeps you in the beginning, and whether or not those "really in power" in our government want you to or not (those weren't vaccinations when we were kids, they were implants--aka brain orthotics!).

What's the plan?

--Jimmy
My running world

Current Training

IP: Logged

posted Oct-21-2006 07:11 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by leitnerj:
Sounds like a great experience. There's nothing like using heart
rate as a means to race because it equalizes everything and
normalizes to whatever the current situation is. I don't go into
races with time goals anymore - I just show up and race and
what happens happens. In either case, unless there was a lot
of tree coverage or other blockage, or your GPS wasn't fully initialized
before the start, it's most likely that you simply did not run right on
the measurement line for the course. GPS should measure most
every race course long.

---

No blockage, buildings, etc. There was a bit of tree cover, but it was far from the almost full cover from the Greenway I usually run, and even then the Garmin tracks to the .25 mile markers very closely.

I'm not too worried about it, and I'm getting used to just watching my HR anyway. It was a fun race...amazing how fast 9.3 miles can go, I tell ya. (The exception being the last .5 miles....)

IP: Logged

posted Oct-21-2006 07:20 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by gregw:
Dana,
Dana,

Welcome to the fold and congratulations on your success so far!

You ran a nice race in the 15K. Pacing is an iterative thing and conservative is better than not. Your 15K mirror a 10-miler I ran a month before the half marathon. 7:51 average pace (hot and hilly) with the last two at 7:20. I used my average hot rate in that minus 3-4 bpm as a target for the half marathon and it worked great.

You didn't put your total time and average heart rate for the 15K, but eyeballing looks like 7:50 pace and 174. (The rest of this assumes my math was right.) If I got that right, then I think 8:05 to 8:10 is definitely a good place to start. After 3-4 miles you should be up to about 170. You could push it up to 172 or so here, fight to hold pace the last 3 miles or so and you should end up with the predicted 170 bpm average.

Greg

---

Hey Greg!

Ah yes...I omitted a few things (or implied them naturally since I was looking at all the data here...).

7:51 pace (Garmin distance...race distance was 8:03 pace, but I'm assuming the next race will be long as well, so the "pace" differential will remain relative) and chip time of 1:14:46 was recorded today. The winner had a 5:12 pace...man that guy is fast, and next year he will be in my age group. *lol*

What is your Max HR, Greg? Based on the numbers, I would guess 208 or so?

Over and out,

Dana

IP: Logged

posted Oct-21-2006 07:25 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by jjwaverly42:
based on the track test and your half marathon, I would say 3:35ish is in the cards. Give or take. Depends on the weather you get, how slow the crowd keeps you in the beginning, and whether or not those "really in power" in our government want you to or not (those weren't vaccinations when we were kids, they were implants--aka brain orthotics!).

What's the plan?

--Jimmy

---

If the weather's good and my tinfoil hat keeps the implant from being activated, my plan is start with the 3:40 pace group and stay with them until we're at the top of the only substantial hill in the race which comes at a little past mile 2. When we head back downhill, I'll go to running by heart rate and if my heart rate is low enough, I leave them behind and pray they don't catch me.

going taper nuts,
Greg

IP: Logged

posted Oct-21-2006 07:49 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by gregw:
If the weather's good and my tinfoil hat keeps the implant from being activated, my plan is start with the 3:40 pace group and stay with them until we're at the top of the only substantial hill in the race which comes at a little past mile 2. When we head back downhill, I'll go to running by heart rate and if my heart rate is low enough, I leave them behind and pray they don't catch me.

going taper nuts,
Greg

---

Good plan, except for the hat--tinfoil hats don't work, but I got a lot of dates when I wore mine. The only thing that works is to have the implant removed. I did, it looked like a little metal Henry Kissinger, though the doctor thought it looked like Elvis Costello. Since then, no more awful rashes and odors (that's because I could finally smell myself again).

Keep going! Good luck at MCM. You'll do great. Relax and have fun!

--Jimmy

My running world

Current Training

IP: Logged