posted Oct-21-2006 09:09 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Docster:

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

---

I goofed and used 9.52 miles instead of 15k, so I'll amend my initial pace recommendation for the half marathon to 8:15. Since you haven't been running over half-marathon distances, you might stick to 170 in the middle miles as well to be conservative.

My max hr is 200 (I've seen 199 and 200 at the end of races).

Greg

IP: Logged

posted Oct-22-2006 03:15 PM               

IP: Logged

posted Oct-22-2006 03:54 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by roy c:
Hi
I have a race coming up on the 3rd of Dec
It is a hilly relay with 3 legs just under 9 miles (team of 3). My Maff is 132 and am now doing about 12:50 pace on the flat.
Ques: What sort of race should I aim for pace / HR wise?
Thanks
Roy

---

I've never done a 5K (3.1 miles), but they're suposed to be about 95% of maximum hr (probably reach that at the midway point). Sounds very painful to me!

IP: Logged

posted Oct-22-2006 04:35 PM               

I asked a basic question: What do you think of aerobic base-building and low-HR training, and how is the best way to build a base for someone like me?

His response: Training at low heart rates is a waste of time. Instead you want to spend most of your time in the 5-6 zone of "perceived intensity" with a lot of lactate threshold training.

Maybe Coop was assuming his client was like DK and already had a huge aerobic base. But for ordinary people??

Why is it that low-HR training is so rarely discussed in running pop culture? Why is it "experts" like Coop don't seem to know anything about it? Is low-HR training a fringe thing?

My observation of today's marathon as a spectator, not a participant: Those runner's who finished in, say, 3:30 or less looked good: Good form, good cadence, and they looked good afterwards. The slower runners, on average, didn't look nearly as well trained, and had poorer form and looked ragged at the finish (last year I was one of those slow finishers -- 5:00 was my time). Offhand I would say that half the runners, the slow half, are aerobically under-developed. Yes, they've trained enough to finish, but finishing and finishing well are two different things. So why is it that half the runners are not as well trained as they could be? If low-HR training is the way to develop an aerobic base, why don't more runners train that way? Why is this approach not widely popular? The fundamentals of low-HR training are pretty basic (capillary and mitochrondial development etc) and should apply to everyone.

IP: Logged

posted Oct-22-2006 04:56 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by gregw:
I've never done a 5K (3.1 miles), but they're suposed to be about 95% of maximum hr (probably reach that at the midway point). Sounds very painful to me!

---

Sorry
My fault I put that wrong. It's a relay marathon, so just under 9 mile each man.
Roy

IP: Logged

posted Oct-22-2006 05:35 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ad Nihilum:
After today's Chicago Marathon I visited the Endurance 50 "Dean Karnazes" event. I spent a few minutes talking to DK's coach, "Coop," of Carmichael Training Systems (they are the group that trained Lance Armstrong -- I don't know about Coop's background, but he works for a reputable company).

I asked a basic question: What do you think of aerobic base-building and low-HR training, and how is the best way to build a base for someone like me?

His response: Training at low heart rates is a waste of time. Instead you want to spend most of your time in the 5-6 zone of "perceived intensity" with a lot of lactate threshold training.

Maybe Coop was assuming his client was like DK and already had a huge aerobic base. But for ordinary people??

Why is it that low-HR training is so rarely discussed in running pop culture? Why is it "experts" like Coop don't seem to know anything about it? Is low-HR training a fringe thing?

My observation of today's marathon as a spectator, not a participant: Those runner's who finished in, say, 3:30 or less looked good: Good form, good cadence, and they looked good afterwards. The slower runners, on average, didn't look nearly as well trained, and had poorer form and looked ragged at the finish (last year I was one of those slow finishers -- 5:00 was my time). Offhand I would say that half the runners, the slow half, are aerobically under-developed. Yes, they've trained enough to finish, but finishing and finishing well are two different things. So why is it that half the runners are not as well trained as they could be? If low-HR training is the way to develop an aerobic base, why don't more runners train that way? Why is this approach not widely popular? The fundamentals of low-HR training are pretty basic (capillary and mitochrondial development etc) and should apply to everyone.

---

Welcome to Coolrunning ADNi,

....So why is it that half the runners are not as well trained as they could be?

time , desire, just doing it on a lark

>>>. If low-HR training is the way to develop an aerobic base, why don't more runners train that way? Why is this approach not widely popular? <<<

I think think the overwhelming majority of runners and coaches have never really given this approach a real good try. They equate low HR training with "train slow makes you slow"--when this training has nothing to do with running slow, but running faster and faster in a sweet spot aerobic zone, until you reach your potential. I was skeptical, but was tired enough of battling injuries that I was willing to do anything. I stuck with it, and after about 30 weeks, I was running nearly as fast as I use to in training, but with a heart rate that equated to about 65-72% of my max heart rate. Now, I'm even faster. I gave it a good try, it worked for me. I began adding speedy stuff and racing after that, and now add it after a base period of 12 or so weeks in the winter and a 10 weeker in the summer. I keep getting faster every year. It is not a waste of time for me. This training is NOT about running slow.

>>>>>>>>>The fundamentals of low-HR training are pretty basic (capillary and mitochrondial development etc) and should apply to everyone.<<<<<<<

I think it is folly for ayone to say that what works for them will work for everyone. Bill Rodgers did not train the same way as Frank Shorter. Joan Benoit Samuelson was the best on 80-100 miles per week and hard racing at all distances. One can only say what works for one's self. This approach worked for me. Might work for you, might not. I believe that beliefs play a large part in all that we do and accomplish. Maybe that is all we are really dealing with on some level. Whay do I know anyway. I am just a running fool.

IP: Logged

posted Oct-22-2006 07:18 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ad Nihilum:

Maybe Coop was assuming his client was like DK and already had a huge aerobic base. But for ordinary people??

---

I think you're right. Here's a quote from Joe Henderson book on long slow distance "Arthur Lydiard, the highly regarded New Zealand coach, claims the first step to enjoying running is getting
perfectly fit. And the first step in getting perfectly fit is
learning to go long -- to hell with speed."

I think "getting perfectly fit" is the essence of what is helping people in this thread. The main difference between the front and the back of the pack is miles and cheeseburgers, not whether or not they do intervals. Top coaches are probably concerned with the differences between the guys in front, not between the front and the middle.

IP: Logged

posted Oct-22-2006 07:35 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by roy c:
Sorry
My fault I put that wrong. It's a relay marathon, so just under 9 mile each man.
Roy

---

I ran a 10-miler at 92% max hr, but I think it can probably range from 85-95%. If you don't have any other race results for other distance to go by, I'll give you the sage advice to run as hard as you think you can maintain for 9 miles At least you'll have a data point for next time!

Greg

[This message has been edited by gregw (edited Oct-22-2006).]

IP: Logged

posted Oct-22-2006 08:25 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ad Nihilum:

I asked a basic question: What do you think of aerobic base-building and low-HR training, and how is the best way to build a base for someone like me?

His response: Training at low heart rates is a waste of time. Instead you want to spend most of your time in the 5-6 zone of "perceived intensity" with a lot of lactate threshold training.

Maybe Coop was assuming his client was like DK and already had a huge aerobic base. But for ordinary people??

Why is it that low-HR training is so rarely discussed in running pop culture? Why is it "experts" like Coop don't seem to know anything about it? Is low-HR training a fringe thing?

---

That's actually more than a little bit funny. I had a book from
Lance Armstrong on his training methods for cycling that I had
checked out from the library a few years back. He said very
explicitly in that book that for the first some number of weeks,
I think about 8-12, one should do all cycling in what he called
zone 1, which was somewhere around 55-60% of max heart rate-
I just remember that for me it was about 5 beats below the
MAF-5 I was starting to run at. Aside from the fact that I cut
about an hour off of my marathon time in about a year's time,
if you're interested, you should read through the links at the
beginning of the FAQ from Mark Allen, Maffetone, and even
Pfitzinger on basebuilding. There's no fringe here; this has been
done for 20 years or more successfully. Mark Allen moved himself
from 6th place or lower in the ironman to 5 straight victories after
following this approach. Low HR training alone is not going to
win anyone an Olympic medal, but it can be a significant element
of any training program and many people will see the fairly good
results that I've obtained (I finish most races in the top 10%
nowadays, which I'm happy with) even without any aggressive
training, just mileage and races. I used to do a lot of speedwork
and LT training and it got me nowhere. I'm sure that if I went at
it again, it would probably be more productive this time around,
but given that I'm happy with my results without, I see no reason
to beat myself up. I'm sorry but it's become clear that one who
is qualified to make a winner out of a top endurance athlete is not
necessarily qualified to take a 90th percentile runner and make
him a 30th percentile runner, or make a 50th percentile runner into
a 10th percentile runner.

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

IP: Logged

posted Oct-22-2006 09:27 PM            

IP: Logged

posted Oct-22-2006 11:19 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ad Nihilum:
After today's Chicago Marathon I visited the Endurance 50 "Dean Karnazes" event. I spent a few minutes talking to DK's coach, "Coop," of Carmichael Training Systems (they are the group that trained Lance Armstrong -- I don't know about Coop's background, but he works for a reputable company).

I asked a basic question: What do you think of aerobic base-building and low-HR training, and how is the best way to build a base for someone like me?

His response: Training at low heart rates is a waste of time. Instead you want to spend most of your time in the 5-6 zone of "perceived intensity" with a lot of lactate threshold training.

Maybe Coop was assuming his client was like DK and already had a huge aerobic base. But for ordinary people??

Why is it that low-HR training is so rarely discussed in running pop culture? Why is it "experts" like Coop don't seem to know anything about it? Is low-HR training a fringe thing?

My observation of today's marathon as a spectator, not a participant: Those runner's who finished in, say, 3:30 or less looked good: Good form, good cadence, and they looked good afterwards. The slower runners, on average, didn't look nearly as well trained, and had poorer form and looked ragged at the finish (last year I was one of those slow finishers -- 5:00 was my time). Offhand I would say that half the runners, the slow half, are aerobically under-developed. Yes, they've trained enough to finish, but finishing and finishing well are two different things. So why is it that half the runners are not as well trained as they could be? If low-HR training is the way to develop an aerobic base, why don't more runners train that way? Why is this approach not widely popular? The fundamentals of low-HR training are pretty basic (capillary and mitochrondial development etc) and should apply to everyone.

---

If this stuff is such a waste of time as Karno's new coach put it, why is it working for me? How can I be getting faster in my races after a base period of all under MAF training? I ran some pretty slow paces this year. Although, I did improve and am currently running much faster in training. My experiments with this training this year have shown me that it indeeds works the way Allen and Maffetone have said it would. It turns you into an aerobic machine. Though it will probably take me ten years to reach my potential, I know this training is the foundation of it all.

Why any coach or runner would take a stance against this training and pidgeonhole and say that it makes you slow is beyond me. Especially if they have never truly experimented with the method. You know, really committed to it for a period of time, thus being able to rule it out as bunk.

Now, if this method is a waste of time, then theoretically if I spend 12 weeks running under my MAF, then go run a race, I should be severely undertrained. Slower. Less fit. Yet, I ran some decent races this year after periods of this training (2 nice PR's), and the year isn't over yet. Something is happening. How can my paces at 141 bpm and below be getting faster, if theoretically I am gaining no fitness, getting slower?

Maybe, I'd be fitter and faster if I ran hard all the time, maybe, but I think I'd also be injured a lot more often. I'm 45 years old, not light as a bird (okay, compared to Meb, I'm a hippo) and I'd like to reach my potential before I die, but I'd like to also get there without major forced down time. NOt to say, i don't get any minor boo boos. But I never get them when I'm training under MAF, only when I'm racing. Knock on wood.

On the fringe? Probably. Though there have been some great athletes who have used this training for base periods.

If you take my running club as a study. I think I'm the only one who runs this way, and the club is pretty large. When it comes up in conversation, they look at me like I'm speaking Martian. They don't grok it. Yet, I think they are noticing my progress, and a few have to be wondering why the fat guy is getting so fast.

I think it's fringe. An our esteemed aerobic god, Jessuvius, is on the microfibers on the ends of the fringe, tilting the human race ever so slightly towards the unknown. :> )

--Jimmy

Current Marathon Training
My Running World

MAF training source:
Training for Endurance by Phil Maffetone

IP: Logged

posted Oct-23-2006 03:08 AM            

For the vast majority of us Maf works well. For me in 1 year its taken me from the bottom 7 percent to the top 33 percent at the same race on the same course. Thats enough proof for me.

IP: Logged

posted Oct-23-2006 05:53 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ad Nihilum:
Why is this approach not widely popular?

---

It is popular. Just because someone doesn't strap on a HRM doesn't mean their not building a base. Building a base is popular and their are different ways to go about it. Most beginners will go about it all wrong so a HRM will keep them in line. On the contrary I highly doubt a more experienced runner would even have a need for a HRM. I am starting to get a feel for my efforts already.

I think a lot of people will shunt HRM training due to the fact it takes lots of time, patience, and discipline. It took me 12 weeks of consistant running at low HR's to see any improvement. After 30 weeks low HR training my training pace improved as did my 5k time(PR'd by 4:00).

So if you can put your pride and ego to the side low HR training will work wonders.

IP: Logged

posted Oct-23-2006 09:41 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ad Nihilum:
After today's Chicago Marathon I visited the Endurance 50 "Dean Karnazes" event. I spent a few minutes talking to DK's coach, "Coop," of Carmichael Training Systems (they are the group that trained Lance Armstrong -- I don't know about Coop's background, but he works for a reputable company).

I asked a basic question: What do you think of aerobic base-building and low-HR training, and how is the best way to build a base for someone like me?

His response: Training at low heart rates is a waste of time. Instead you want to spend most of your time in the 5-6 zone of "perceived intensity" with a lot of lactate threshold training.

Maybe Coop was assuming his client was like DK and already had a huge aerobic base. But for ordinary people??

Why is it that low-HR training is so rarely discussed in running pop culture? Why is it "experts" like Coop don't seem to know anything about it? Is low-HR training a fringe thing?

My observation of today's marathon as a spectator, not a participant: Those runner's who finished in, say, 3:30 or less looked good: Good form, good cadence, and they looked good afterwards. The slower runners, on average, didn't look nearly as well trained, and had poorer form and looked ragged at the finish (last year I was one of those slow finishers -- 5:00 was my time). Offhand I would say that half the runners, the slow half, are aerobically under-developed. Yes, they've trained enough to finish, but finishing and finishing well are two different things. So why is it that half the runners are not as well trained as they could be? If low-HR training is the way to develop an aerobic base, why don't more runners train that way? Why is this approach not widely popular? The fundamentals of low-HR training are pretty basic (capillary and mitochrondial development etc) and should apply to everyone.

---

check out Dean's blog......http://enduranceis.typepad.com/

he ran Chicago in 3:28 with an avgHR of 122......he definitely has built a HUGE aerobic base. He's 35 years old, his MAF would be 145-150.

IP: Logged

posted Oct-23-2006 11:22 AM               

I would suppose that DK still needs to run in the MAF zone to maintain his aerobic base, and I *guess* many of his hours of running per week are indeed in that zone. That said, I've no doubt that lactate threshold training and speedwork could sharpen his base for racing.

DK has said in his blog that he's getting stronger as he's doing the E50 event. Given that he's running in the low aerobic zone, this would bolster the low-HR training argument.

Regular people like us can pay Carmichael Training Systems a monthly fee for online/telephone coaching, and I was *considering* it, ... maybe ... but after my conversation with Coop, I think I'll just stick with Coach Jesse

IP: Logged

posted Oct-23-2006 05:55 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ad Nihilum:

Regular people like us can pay Carmichael Training Systems a monthly fee for online/telephone coaching, and I was *considering* it, ... maybe ... but after my conversation with Coop, I think I'll just stick with Coach Jesse

---

Ok, but I still can't help but emphasize that you get what you pay for!
(Perhaps you pay a lot for your internet connection, so maybe there
is hope!)

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

IP: Logged

posted Oct-23-2006 10:44 PM            

I have tried some low heart rate training and have had technical difficulties with the heart rate monitor that I bought, and won't be using one in the future. But I know that my heart rate is slow enough when I can keep my breathing dissassociated from my stride rate, from previously using a HRM.

My question is, in the interests of eventually building speed, if I should keep my stride length short, and fast while keeping my heart rate low?

I am currently working on base, before starting to train for my second marathon in April

IP: Logged

posted Oct-24-2006 08:22 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by running410s:
I have a question for the sages on this post.

I have tried some low heart rate training and have had technical difficulties with the heart rate monitor that I bought, and won't be using one in the future. But I know that my heart rate is slow enough when I can keep my breathing dissassociated from my stride rate, from previously using a HRM.

My question is, in the interests of eventually building speed, if I should keep my stride length short, and fast while keeping my heart rate low?

I am currently working on base, before starting to train for my second marathon in April

---

Get another heart rate monitor if you want to try this. You won't be able to rely on breathing as an indicator over time. I've found that as I've improved, I actually have to breathe harder for a given heart rate. In the spring I found that 5-5 breathing (five footfalls in, five footfalls out) was nearly, but not quite possible, while running under MAF. Now I find it's impossible to do 5-5 breathing at the same heart rate.

On form (stride length, etc.), I'd say to try and maintain your desired running form as best you can at low speeds.

Greg

IP: Logged

posted Oct-24-2006 11:26 AM            

quote:

---

I think perhaps the Maf method isn't going to make someone like Dean K faster, as he has pretty much maxed out his aerobic system. So Dean needs something else to beat Scott Jurek and Jorge Pacheco.

---

I'm not so sure, Cash! Remember the link on Jesse's blog to Mark Allen's story of how he used to run fast all the time, then cut back and ran some Maf miles...he had been struggling to run close to 5 minute miles, trying to do it for at least a little while even on his "slow" days...then he did Maffetone running for 4 months...the result? 5:20 minute miles while staying under his MAF HR.

http://www.duathlon.com/articles/1460

Amazing stuff. But he goes on to say that he then switched back to the "no pain, no gain" style of training for a while, until he wasn't seeing gains any more. Then he switched back to Maffetone until he wasn't seeing gains any more. Then he switched back to interval training etc. Then he switched again and again and again...and says that he's seen 15 YEARS of continuous improvement.

Heck, I can only hope to have 15 years of continuous injury-free running, much less continuous improvement!

The question that I have is: how hard should one train in those interval, "no pain no gain" segments? In complete contrast to Allen's story, Maffetone's book says that 10 second intervals that don't go beyond 90% of MHR, followed by 30 seconds of recovery, for about 30 minutes twice to three times a week (no more than every other run) is sufficient to improve beyond basic aerobic conditioning. As always when dealing with Maffetone, the immediate response from my mind is: "That's too easy!!"

Has anyone tried this? Have you seen improvements from doing this?

Cheers,

-Jason

IP: Logged

posted Oct-24-2006 02:32 PM            

Wondering what your wisdom would be for someone whose 5k and 1/2 marathon times match up pretty well (21:26 and 1:39:15).

This was accomplished on 40 miles per week. Would running below MAF and upping mileage produce additional gains? Or does the fact that my times agree pretty well mean I should do other forms of training?

Thanks

IP: Logged

posted Oct-24-2006 04:07 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by running410s:
I have a question for the sages on this post.

I have tried some low heart rate training and have had technical difficulties with the heart rate monitor that I bought, and won't be using one in the future. But I know that my heart rate is slow enough when I can keep my breathing dissassociated from my stride rate, from previously using a HRM.

My question is, in the interests of eventually building speed, if I should keep my stride length short, and fast while keeping my heart rate low?

I am currently working on base, before starting to train for my second marathon in April

---

I have an inexpensive Reebok HRM (<$45) and I was getting inconsistent readings. I was about to junk it, however, I tightened up the strap and made sure the contacts were wet (gels work great) and it works like it's supposed to. Try tightening it up before giving up on it.

IP: Logged

posted Oct-24-2006 06:05 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by purfledspruce:

The question that I have is: how hard should one train in those interval, "no pain no gain" segments? In complete contrast to Allen's story, Maffetone's book says that 10 second intervals that don't go beyond 90% of MHR, followed by 30 seconds of recovery, for about 30 minutes twice to three times a week (no more than every other run) is sufficient to improve beyond basic aerobic conditioning. As always when dealing with Maffetone, the immediate response from my mind is: "That's too easy!!"

---

For the most part, just mixing in some races should be sufficient.
Otherwise, I would probably follow the advice of McMillan or
Hadd if I were to add some "true" speed work at this point.

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

IP: Logged

posted Oct-24-2006 06:10 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by enigma21:
Hello forum,

Wondering what your wisdom would be for someone whose 5k and 1/2 marathon times match up pretty well (21:26 and 1:39:15).

This was accomplished on 40 miles per week. Would running below MAF and upping mileage produce additional gains? Or does the fact that my times agree pretty well mean I should do other forms of training?

Thanks

---

It's hard to say. You may find that you continue to improve on
your long distance times while your short distance times stay
the same or get slower. You may see some improvement all
around. I would employ this philosophy - if everything is going
the way you want it and you're not looking for a change, don't
change anything just to join the bandwagon. The litmus test
should really be whether any of the elements at the beginning of
the FAQ apply to you. A good one to answer this would be
aharmer, because I think his times correlated well, but I believe
he's just feeling better overall. The other element is that endurance
really comes into play in the marathon. You can get by races of
up to 18 miles or so with little fat-burning ability. However,
the marathon is a different story.

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

IP: Logged

posted Oct-24-2006 11:06 PM               

I am thinking y'all might be able to help me out. I have been checking out this low heart rate training - I've been doing all my runs over the past 2 weeks at 147 BPM or lower (I'm a 33 yo female).

That's been a struggle - this wasn't the first time I've tried to do this, but the first time I've persisted. My first LHR run of 7 mi was an avg 15:24/mile...as of this past Sunday, I did an 11mi run at a 13:50/mile avg. I'm seeing some quick improvements, which I'm attributing to correction of my stride, etc.

Also - I've had significant shin splint issues this year - my general leg pain has practically disappeared since I slowed down. Obviously I'm inclined to believe that just being able to run pain-free provides an improvement in my pace. For that lack of pain alone I'd run at a low HR forever! And I feel like I can!

Anyhow. I'm still feeling my way through this, but here's my question: I've done two treadmill runs - in both instances, my avg pace was around 16:00/mile. That's so different than what I've experienced on the road - any thoughts as to why I would see such a significant difference in pace?

From all I've read on this thread, everyone also provides tons of information - I may have given a) too much or b) not the right information. Despite that, any thoughts on my question are much appreciated!

Thanks much!

------------------
Noni

IP: Logged

posted Oct-25-2006 01:59 AM               

Another factor I've found affects TM performance is temperature and lack of wind. Many times TM's are in fairly warm locations with no wind to help with sweat evaporation. Place a fan in front of the TM and you'll see an immediate difference.

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

IP: Logged