posted Nov-06-2006 10:31 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by gregw:
This is probably not real. HRMs often give goofy results in the first few minutes before you break a sweat and the electrodes make good contact.

Welcome to maff where the living is slow...

Greg

---

Well, I just finished my first marathon (MCM) after 5 months of MAF, I did some speedwork the last 4 weeks or so but other than that, strictly MAF. While I saw significant improvements at MAF hr, the marathon did not go so well. Although previous race results did go well.

Metric Marathon @ 9:04 pace/150HR
Balt. HALF @ 8:48 pace/157HR

At mile 21 I was done......and shuffled in to a 4:50 marathon (avgHR 146), thought 4:10-4:20 was reasonable. I believe it was a muscular endurance issue since my HR remained low. avgHR for most of the marathon was around 150-155, the last 5 miles was in the 130's due to a lot of walking.

Anyway, I'm going to do a couple shorter races(10K) in the next month before starting the next episode of MAF. Hope to build a "huge" base for another marathon, 50K and IM next summer.

Question:
The week before the marathon I ran a 5 miler with a friend (has done 10 marathons, so fairly fit), we ran easy until the last 1/2 mile and then pretty much all out the last 100-200 yards.

My avgHR - 146, my maxHR - 176
His avgHR - 167, his maxHR - 196

does this indicate that I should lower my MAF??? certainly my maxHR is not as high.......I have seen 180, that's about it! I ran most of the last 5 months at 145 (180-35), alot of runs averaging low 140's.......thoughts?

Chuck

IP: Logged

posted Nov-06-2006 10:46 AM            

MAF isn't based on what your HR is. It's based on 180 minus age with some mitigating factors that add or subtract 5 points here and there. MAF makes training easier and you recover well but it won't you a better marathoner if you don't do the miles. I am 59 so my MAF would be 121 but I rarely train that low. I just know how the process works. If you commit to it (I tried it for about 6 months some years back) you should stick with the formula. My max even at 59 is about 195 (measured in a race late last year) and I use the heart rate reserve method but if I was doing MAF I would probably train at 121 + 5 that MAF allows for some one my age (over 55) plus my racing and training are going well so I get another 5 points there.

Wow! I get to train at 131.

I talked to Maffetone at a race once and he went through it all with me at that time. Nice guy. It was about 8 years ago. I had stumbled onto this article on the web.

http://www.rrca.org/resources/articles/slowdown.html

IP: Logged

posted Nov-06-2006 01:06 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sun Raider:
Chuck,

MAF isn't based on what your HR is. It's based on 180 minus age with some mitigating factors that add or subtract 5 points here and there. MAF makes training easier and you recover well but it won't you a better marathoner if you don't do the miles. I am 59 so my MAF would be 121 but I rarely train that low. I just know how the process works. If you commit to it (I tried it for about 6 months some years back) you should stick with the formula. My max even at 59 is about 195 (measured in a race late last year) and I use the heart rate reserve method but if I was doing MAF I would probably train at 121 + 5 that MAF allows for some one my age (over 55) plus my racing and training are going well so I get another 5 points there.

Wow! I get to train at 131.

I talked to Maffetone at a race once and he went through it all with me at that time. Nice guy. It was about 8 years ago. I had stumbled onto this article on the web.

http://www.rrca.org/resources/articles/slowdown.html

---

Yes, I understand that MAF is 180-age but there has also been talk of lowering your MAF is your maxHR is "lower than normal"........I guess I'm wondering if my maxHR is lower than normal. I hear a lot of folks mentioning that their maxHR is 195+.....mine certainly is not.

I like training at 145, but maybe lowering it a bit will help. I guess it's really a matter of trial & error.......

MAF definitely helped me build mileage for my first marathon! and I did put in the miles.

IP: Logged

posted Nov-06-2006 03:48 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by chuckp88:
Yes, I understand that MAF is 180-age but there has also been talk of lowering your MAF is your maxHR is "lower than normal"........I guess I'm wondering if my maxHR is lower than normal. I hear a lot of folks mentioning that their maxHR is 195+.....mine certainly is not.

I like training at 145, but maybe lowering it a bit will help. I guess it's really a matter of trial & error.......

MAF definitely helped me build mileage for my first marathon! and I did put in the miles.

---

The advice in Jesse's FAQ is

quote:

---

15. My max heart rate is very low – should I use a lower MAF heart rate?

Quite possibly. It’s always safer to stay on the low end. If you know that you have a very low max heart rate, I'd recommend you take a look at the Hadd article,
section 6, to select a low heart rate target.

---

and

quote:

---

22. Is there any way to use this approach with a more personalized formula for me?

Yes, but it may be costly and burdensome and you may not get a better bottom line training zone. You can have a vo2max test done, find the heart rate where your RQ (or RER) value is 0.78, which corresponds to 25% carb burn/75% fat burn and use that as your max training zone. Or you can use 80% of your anaerobic threshold heart rate. These should be close to the MAF values.

---

There seems to be so many exceptions to 180-age that there has to be a better way. This is probably not the way, but here's a stab:

Following the 80% of AT recommendation. I just tried to estimate LT for me by using http://www.teamoregon.com/publications/wizard.php and then looking for a race near one hour (some define LT as the pace you can run for about an hour). It predicted a 1:09 15K for me and heart rate of 185. 80% of 185 is 148. My MAF is 145 based on the 180-age formula. I seem to be a heart of the envelope case. (max hr >193)

With the info you gave I tried the calculator with your HM time/hr (since that's closest to an hour), interpolated a little between 10K and 15K and got a guess of 161 as your LT. Multiply by 0.8 and I get 129.

Hadd by the way recommends 135 if your max is 183 and 125 if your max is 173, so 129 doesn't seem way off. I'm guessing you were short of your max in your 5 mile run and are probably closer to 180 max. Race the 10K and sprint at the end and you'll get within 1-2 beats.

Greg

IP: Logged

posted Nov-06-2006 04:23 PM               

I like training at 145, but maybe lowering it a bit will help. I guess it's really a matter of trial & error.......

MAF definitely helped me build mileage for my first marathon! and I did put in the miles.

Most people's MAF is below 70% maxHR. I would think your MAF should be closer to 130.

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

IP: Logged

posted Nov-06-2006 05:44 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by gregw:
There seems to be so many exceptions to 180-age that there has to be a better way. This is probably not the way, but here's a stab:

Following the 80% of AT recommendation. I just tried to estimate LT for me by using http://www.teamoregon.com/publications/wizard.php and then looking for a race near one hour (some define LT as the pace you can run for about an hour). It predicted a 1:09 15K for me and heart rate of 185. 80% of 185 is 148. My MAF is 145 based on the 180-age formula. I seem to be a heart of the envelope case. (max hr >193)

With the info you gave I tried the calculator with your HM time/hr (since that's closest to an hour), interpolated a little between 10K and 15K and got a guess of 161 as your LT. Multiply by 0.8 and I get 129.

Hadd by the way recommends 135 if your max is 183 and 125 if your max is 173, so 129 doesn't seem way off. I'm guessing you were short of your max in your 5 mile run and are probably closer to 180 max. Race the 10K and sprint at the end and you'll get within 1-2 beats.

Greg

---

Greg, thanks!

interesting.....I had a vo2max test (submaximal) done awhile back and LT was 162........aerobic threshold was 143.

just trying to get the "most bang for my buck" during the next MAF period......I'll go with 130 for awhile and see what happens.

IP: Logged

posted Nov-06-2006 06:01 PM               

Chuck - no doubt, it may take a couple of rounds and various adjustments
until you hit just the right rhythm. I'm not sure what volume of speed
work you did, but I think you want to keep it no more than about 5%
of your overall volume, especially with a "newly built" aerobic base;
otherwise you may do more to wear down your endurance than the
positiive you get from building up speed.

Kris- congrats on the new 305!!!

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

IP: Logged

posted Nov-06-2006 06:17 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by chuckp88:
Greg, thanks!

interesting.....I had a vo2max test (submaximal) done awhile back and LT was 162........aerobic threshold was 143.

just trying to get the "most bang for my buck" during the next MAF period......I'll go with 130 for awhile and see what happens.

---

Definitely go lower. I almost died during first MAF experience using the 180-age formula. Turns out that my MAF # is like 88% max HR. Switching to the Hadd approach made a big difference. FWIW, using that approach (modified slightly by Pfitz in last 12 weeks) helped me run a pretty decent MCM -- cut 19 minutes from my April marathon and could have done more but for the crappy ass wind.

IP: Logged

posted Nov-06-2006 06:35 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by chuckp88:
Greg, thanks!

interesting.....I had a vo2max test (submaximal) done awhile back and LT was 162........aerobic threshold was 143.

just trying to get the "most bang for my buck" during the next MAF period......I'll go with 130 for awhile and see what happens.

---

definitely use 130 or less with an LT at 162.

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

IP: Logged

posted Nov-06-2006 07:46 PM            

[This message has been edited by bluecru (edited Nov-06-2006).]

IP: Logged

posted Nov-06-2006 08:59 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by leitnerj:
Chuck - no doubt, it may take a couple of rounds and various adjustments
until you hit just the right rhythm. I'm not sure what volume of speed
work you did, but I think you want to keep it no more than about 5%
of your overall volume, especially with a "newly built" aerobic base;
otherwise you may do more to wear down your endurance than the
positiive you get from building up speed.

---

Volume of speed work was pretty low...only one set of 6-800's per week along with some fast finishes (last1/2 mile or so of most runs)......so maybe 4 miles total....but I guess on 30-35 miles per week that's a little more than 10%....hmmm. Wow, i thought i was doing too little.....guess not!

I'll probably be back to 11 min miles at 130HR.....oh well, it's only time!

IP: Logged

posted Nov-06-2006 10:31 PM               

Chuck - no doubt, it may take a couple of rounds and various adjustments
until you hit just the right rhythm. I'm not sure what volume of speed
work you did, but I think you want to keep it no more than about 5%
of your overall volume, especially with a "newly built" aerobic base;
otherwise you may do more to wear down your endurance than the
positiive you get from building up speed.

Kris- congrats on the new 305!!

_____________________________________________

What do you mean, "a torturous 50+ mile race that kicked my butt?" What happened, or was it just difficult? Did you post something to read about it yet??

WHOOPS>>> I just found it and read it, Jesse! It's really incredible, though, that you mentally hung in with a run like that! I don't know how you can strengthen ankles ever enough to be running on trails, leaves, and gravel like you did. YOU FINISHED, and that's TREMEMDOUS!! I'm amazed all that food was along the way.....what a banquet!

I'm looking at the Green Bay Marathon for spring. Anyone else have something in mind to run?.

In the meantime, it's back to Maff, and going lower this time. I'm suppose to be 138 (that's with a plus 5 for no injuries) and I'll try an stay at 128 plus a few.

The Garmin 305 is presently charging.....

Welcome home, Jesse!

[This message has been edited by Boston124 (edited Nov-06-2006).]

IP: Logged

posted Nov-07-2006 10:29 AM            

I have been doing Maffetone for 5 weeks, now, and running at a fairly low heart rate (80% of MHR) for a few months before that. I tried in the spring to run, but got a soft-tissue injury in my calf and then moved to Alexandria, and so I didn't get back to it for a few months.

Well, on my "long" run on the weekend, I had serious ITB syndrome pain. I had it 3 weeks ago, then weekend before last weekend I was fine, then last weekend it was horrible. I had to walk home. I haven't run since.

It's pretty bad, showing up around 4 miles in. I've had this problem before, but it didn't show up until 6 miles into a run in January of this year.

I have an appointment at a kinesiologist/chiropractor (sound familiar? Maffetone is a kinesiologist/chiropractor) day after tomorrow. I believe Maffetone when he says that we should try to find out what the cause of an injury is, not just treat the symptoms. ITB is usually treated by massage, self massage with a foam roller, and stretching--then, if that doesn't work, surgery.

I'm hoping that I'm simply running wrong. I have been trying to follow Chirunning for a couple of years now, and it's helped--in 2005 I could only run about a mile before one of my pains made me walk--but I must have some weak pelvic muscles or perhaps weak hamstrings or perhaps some other thing.

I'm totally bummed. When I started training at the Maffetone heart rate, it was really slow again--I had to average 16:30 miles including warmup and cooldown. The week before I had the problem, my average speed was 14:45. <strong>That's after only 4-5 weeks of training!</strong> Plus I could tell that I was getting into better shape. My warmup time was getting longer, and I could feel it happening--around 8-12 minutes into the run I would feel things get looser and my speed would pick up slightly.

Chirunning has taken care of every other injury that I had--sore ankle, sore hip. Maffetone had taken care of sore muscles and unpleasant running--I was really looking forward to getting to 10m/m runs, it would have felt like flying!

Hopefully my new kinesiologist will help. If anyone's interested, I'll post what he describes the root cause as, and what he suggests I do to not have this problem any more.

Anyhoo, happy running to all of you,

-Jason

IP: Logged

posted Nov-07-2006 10:34 AM               

1/2 marathon PR was run in May at 1:29:00. Average HR 158. This morning I was thinking that I'd never raced a 5K. I went out and did a time trial. Obviously these are never quite the same as a racing environment, but I ran it hard and while I'm sure there were a few seconds left in me, it was a very hard effort. I'm very confident of the course length in case you were wondering.

Time was 20:13. I thought around 20 minutes was where I should finish so this doesn't surprise me. What did surprise me was my avg HR of 160. I hit a max during the run of 173 at the very end.

With an assumed max of 176, I ran the 5K at 91% of max....but ran a 1/2 marathon at almost 90% of max.

I'm guessing two things are happening. First, running at low intensity levels for so long has made me soft. What I perceive to be a hard effort may seem like a breeze to others who train for and race 5K's often. Second, and hopefully more accurate, is that my training history does not allow my body to operate at the higher HR's usually reserved for 5K races. McMillan says I should be able to run about 19:15 based on my 1/2 marathon and marathon times.

Any other thoughts?

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

[This message has been edited by aharmer (edited Nov-07-2006).]

IP: Logged

posted Nov-07-2006 11:01 AM            

I'm not sure what it is. I don't have much experience with short races, but I think my form (as bad as it is) seems to get even worse when I push the pace for short distances. I don't have a gear below 10-mile pace. I try and go "harder" but I don't go much faster and my effort (and heart rate) spikes. Adding intervals or strides or maybe downhill faster aerobic running (as Jesse suggested above) might help. After Disney, I'm considering doing the Joe Henderson/Ed Whitlock thing. Lots of LSD combined with frequent short races (5K/10K).

Also, I'd guess your time trial is short of what you could do in a real 5K. There's something magic that happens when you pin a number on your chest.

IP: Logged

posted Nov-07-2006 06:54 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by aharmer:
Here's some data for the data friendly Maffers to analyze. I've been Maffing continuously since May 2006 with no races other than a 100K in October. All running except for the occasional slip over the line has been at 125 or below.

1/2 marathon PR was run in May at 1:29:00. Average HR 158. This morning I was thinking that I'd never raced a 5K. I went out and did a time trial. Obviously these are never quite the same as a racing environment, but I ran it hard and while I'm sure there were a few seconds left in me, it was a very hard effort. I'm very confident of the course length in case you were wondering.

Time was 20:13. I thought around 20 minutes was where I should finish so this doesn't surprise me. What did surprise me was my avg HR of 160. I hit a max during the run of 173 at the very end.

With an assumed max of 176, I ran the 5K at 91% of max....but ran a 1/2 marathon at almost 90% of max.

I'm guessing two things are happening. First, running at low intensity levels for so long has made me soft. What I perceive to be a hard effort may seem like a breeze to others who train for and race 5K's often. Second, and hopefully more accurate, is that my training history does not allow my body to operate at the higher HR's usually reserved for 5K races. McMillan says I should be able to run about 19:15 based on my 1/2 marathon and marathon times.

Any other thoughts?

---

All I can say is that things are similar with me. I used to have
the problem that my times fell apart as the distance increased.
Now they fall apart as it decreases. I'm definitely a wimp now
when it comes to 5ks and 10ks. Although the last 5k I ran, I knocked
off a 30 second PR, it was still far slower than what my marathon
times predict! So be it. I'm pretty sure I run marathons nowadays
on pure endurance! I'm sure that to peak out at the 5k, you will
have to do speed work! You'll have to decide whether it's actually
worth it.

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

IP: Logged

posted Nov-07-2006 08:17 PM            

IP: Logged

posted Nov-07-2006 08:37 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by purfledspruce:

Well, on my "long" run on the weekend, I had serious ITB syndrome pain. I had it 3 weeks ago, then weekend before last weekend I was fine, then last weekend it was horrible. I had to walk home. I haven't run since.

It's pretty bad, showing up around 4 miles in. I've had this problem before, but it didn't show up until 6 miles into a run in January of this year.

I have an appointment at a kinesiologist/chiropractor (sound familiar? Maffetone is a kinesiologist/chiropractor) day after tomorrow. I believe Maffetone when he says that we should try to find out what the cause of an injury is, not just treat the symptoms. ITB is usually treated by massage, self massage with a foam roller, and stretching--then, if that doesn't work, surgery.

I'm hoping that I'm simply running wrong. I have been trying to follow Chirunning for a couple of years now, and it's helped--in 2005 I could only run about a mile before one of my pains made me walk--but I must have some weak pelvic muscles or perhaps weak hamstrings or perhaps some other thing.

I'm totally bummed. When I started training at the Maffetone heart rate, it was really slow again--I had to average 16:30 miles including warmup and cooldown. The week before I had the problem, my average speed was 14:45. <strong>That's after only 4-5 weeks of training!</strong> Plus I could tell that I was getting into better shape. My warmup time was getting longer, and I could feel it happening--around 8-12 minutes into the run I would feel things get looser and my speed would pick up slightly.

---

sorry to hear it Jason, but I'm confident you'll get to the bottom of
it. There have been several posters on here that have had similar
issues and with the right adjustments, they've overcome them.

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

IP: Logged

posted Nov-07-2006 09:43 PM            

Has anyone out there modified Hadd's methods with lower mileage and been successful?

Thaks
Chris

IP: Logged

posted Nov-07-2006 10:28 PM               

I recently did my first Hadd test, so I don't have any good information for you. For the next few weeks I'm going to experiment with some higher HR stuff just because I haven't done it for so long, but then I'm back to Hadd training. I definitely don't plan on doing 50+ mile weeks, let alone 100+ mile weeks. Remember that his pupil was a 2:25 marathoner so working up to higher mileage is much easier than for most of us mere mortals.

Let's stay in touch if you're going to stay with Hadd's system for awhile, I'd like to see your progress. I've got my first treadmill test done (115, 125, 135, 145, 155) and will start with the remainder of his program soon.

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

IP: Logged

posted Nov-07-2006 11:54 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chris345:
I've been reading the Hadd article again and was wondering about his suggested mpw. His example guy built a base of 50 mpw then increased up to over 100 mpw. I can probably squeeze in 50-60 mpw max but 100 is totally out of the question.

Has anyone out there modified Hadd's methods with lower mileage and been successful?

Thaks
Chris

---

I used Hadd for my first marathon (Cape Cod), and had a bit of a death march at the end. Was WAY OFF any predictions. That wasn't necessarily the Hadd approache's fault, as I made lots of mistakes in retrospect. One being that I ate a plate of pancakes with syrup an hour before the race. Had no sleep. And it reached 70 degrees. Could never get up to planned pace in that race. Felt dead the whole race. Was it the pancakes? Was it the training? Was it too many hill repeats? Was it too much rest during the taper? Was it the course? Was it that I couldn't stop thinking about whether or not Brad and Jen might be having marital problems? Was it the never-ending fantasy looping in my brain of a carbo-loading dinner date with both Margret Thatcher and Janet Reno (in sports bras and race ready shorts) at the same time? Lots of factors. Hadd was fun though. Interesting little lactate threshold game.

--Jimmy

Coolrunning profiles:
Current Marathon Training
My Running World

[This message has been edited by jjwaverly42 (edited Nov-08-2006).]

IP: Logged

posted Nov-08-2006 09:38 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by jjwaverly42:
I used Hadd for my first marathon (Cape Cod), and had a bit of a death march at the end. Was WAY OFF any predictions. That wasn't necessarily the Hadd approache's fault, as I made lots of mistakes in retrospect. One being that I ate a plate of pancakes with syrup an hour before the race. Had no sleep. And it reached 70 degrees. Could never get up to planned pace in that race. Felt dead the whole race. Was it the pancakes? Was it the training? Was it too many hill repeats? Was it too much rest during the taper? Was it the course? Was it that I couldn't stop thinking about whether or not Brad and Jen might be having marital problems? Was it the never-ending fantasy looping in my brain of a carbo-loading dinner date with both Margret Thatcher and Janet Reno (in sports bras and race ready shorts) at the same time? Lots of factors. Hadd was fun though. Interesting little lactate threshold game.

--Jimmy

Coolrunning profiles:
Current Marathon Training
My Running World

[This message has been edited by jjwaverly42 (edited Nov-08-2006).]

---

Thatcher and Reno together on a date and you call it a fantasy? That might be a fascinating conversation but unless all these slow miles cause delirium, I don't think we can blame that on Hadd training.

aharmer,
I will keep you posted. I am working on building to 50 mpw still. Out of curiosity, what were your lap times for the test?

Chris

IP: Logged

posted Nov-08-2006 10:12 AM               

IP: Logged

posted Nov-08-2006 12:22 PM               

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

IP: Logged