posted Apr-03-2006 12:43 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by jjwaverly42:
Today, I let my HR drift up to my 70%hrr (151) by the last mile. As I move closer to my goal marathon, I feel it's better to keep an even pace in the home stretch of my long runs, as that is the plan for the race. I really don't feel I'm switching over to anaerobic fibers by doing this, as a HR drift of 10 bpm is expected over 22 miles (my MAF is 141).

---

I'm curious, on longer runs, how much rise in HR are you all allowing due to cardiac drift? According to this article, over time your HR can rise up to 20 bpm at constant effort. I find it difficult to keep my HR down after 60-90 minutes. I decided not to be so strict, aiming to maintain a steady pace instead of a steady HR. Near the end of my long runs, my HR sometimes reaches MAF+15, but my effort does not feel any harder than the initial miles run at or below MAF. My current long run is 20 miles.

IP: Logged

posted Apr-03-2006 03:18 PM            

Twelve weeks in and I've started to see the training pay off. For the first 7-8 weeks I trained at Maf -10 (135 bpm). At week ten, I started working up to my recommended MAF of 146 (180-39+5). 90% of training is done outside on a flat run/bike path that parrallels railroad tracks.

Average HR/ Average pace (for the week) 133/12:35, 133/12:33, 134/12:37, 133/12:49, 133/12:50, 134/12:32, 133/12:58, 137/12:39, 134/12:52, 141/11:45, 145/11:40, 144/10:45.

I'm happy with the results so far. My goal is to qualify for Boston in '06 Chicago Marathon. PR is 3:37. Total mileage 420 since 1/15/06 or 85 hours. I use a indoor trainer (bike) on Mondays for a break.

IP: Logged

posted Apr-03-2006 06:37 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by kcy1998:
Wow! I see the numbers where folks start out at Maffing at 11mm and after 10 weeks are in the 8 - 9 mm pace. After 12 weeks I am happy to get my Maff test, a 4 mile run, down to an 11:33 mm pace. After 18 weeks I may be able to get it down to a 10:xx mm pace :-) That is not why I am writing. Over the weekend I hurt my foot. Nothing major but I will not be running for a week. My question is this........If I ride the bike and keep my HR @ Maff for the same amount of time that I had planned on running is that the same as if I had run? This is probably confusing but I do not want to loose my aerobic improvements that I have made in the past 12 weeks.

---

I started out at 17 min/mile and 5 months later peaked out at 7:20/mile
with A LOT of aerobic volume (running, biking, and swimming), all under
MAF. Not everyone will see the same progress, even at the same
volume (I presume, anyway). Ok, but that doesn't answer your question.
If you ride the bike at MAF, you won't necessarily maintain your MAF
running pace, sorry to say, but if you're just talking about a week and
you do a good deal of volume on the bike (a lot more time than you
would spend running), then you may not lose much over just a week.
Not the answer you wanted to hear, I know.

------------------
MyRunningLog

MyStuff

Low Heart Rate Training FAQ

IP: Logged

posted Apr-03-2006 06:41 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by msteed:
I'm curious, on longer runs, how much rise in HR are you all allowing due to cardiac drift? According to this article, over time your HR can rise up to 20 bpm at constant effort. I find it difficult to keep my HR down after 60-90 minutes. I decided not to be so strict, aiming to maintain a steady pace instead of a steady HR. Near the end of my long runs, my HR sometimes reaches MAF+15, but my effort does not feel any harder than the initial miles run at or below MAF. My current long run is 20 miles.

---

I allow none. However, I did notice in my first few 20 milers where
it just became torturous to control heart rate after about mile 16-18.
After many, however, I no longer experienced significant drift. There
were a few times where I cheated and let it climb about 10 beats
or so in the last mile or 2, particularly in warmer weather. Make your
own adjustments and see if they work. Just keep track of where you
deviated from the recommendations so that you know what to adjust
in the case of lack of (or poor) progress.

------------------
MyRunningLog

MyStuff

Low Heart Rate Training FAQ

IP: Logged

posted Apr-03-2006 06:51 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Noquickfix:
Progress Report -

Twelve weeks in and I've started to see the training pay off. For the first 7-8 weeks I trained at Maf -10 (135 bpm). At week ten, I started working up to my recommended MAF of 146 (180-39+5). 90% of training is done outside on a flat run/bike path that parrallels railroad tracks.

Average HR/ Average pace (for the week) 133/12:35, 133/12:33, 134/12:37, 133/12:49, 133/12:50, 134/12:32, 133/12:58, 137/12:39, 134/12:52, 141/11:45, 145/11:40, 144/10:45.

I'm happy with the results so far. My goal is to qualify for Boston in '06 Chicago Marathon. PR is 3:37. Total mileage 420 since 1/15/06 or 85 hours. I use a indoor trainer (bike) on Mondays for a break.

---

Sounds good. Question for you about the trainer. When I started on
the trainer before my aerobic fitness was where it is now, I would
set the resistance somewhere in the middle and in any of the hard
gears, it was difficult to keep my heart rate below MAF. Nowadays
with the resistance maxed out, I have difficulty getting my heart rate
up to MAF, even in the highest of gears. I literally have to come out
of the saddle and pedal like crazy just to get within about 5 beats of
MAF. How is it for you? Are you also a cyclist?

------------------
MyRunningLog

MyStuff

Low Heart Rate Training FAQ

IP: Logged

posted Apr-03-2006 07:46 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by leitnerj:
Sounds good. Question for you about the trainer. When I started on
the trainer before my aerobic fitness was where it is now, I would
set the resistance somewhere in the middle and in any of the hard
gears, it was difficult to keep my heart rate below MAF. Nowadays
with the resistance maxed out, I have difficulty getting my heart rate
up to MAF, even in the highest of gears. I literally have to come out
of the saddle and pedal like crazy just to get within about 5 beats of
MAF. How is it for you? Are you also a cyclist?

---

Actually, a higher cadence should raise your HR just fine.

Diane

IP: Logged

posted Apr-03-2006 08:10 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by diane143:
Actually, a higher cadence should raise your HR just fine.

Diane

---

haha - no doubt! just to be clear, I have to work *tremendously*
hard to get a cadence aggressive enough now to get my heart
rate up to the MAF.

------------------
MyRunningLog

MyStuff

Low Heart Rate Training FAQ

IP: Logged

posted Apr-03-2006 08:49 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by leitnerj:
Sounds good. Question for you about the trainer. When I started on
the trainer before my aerobic fitness was where it is now, I would
set the resistance somewhere in the middle and in any of the hard
gears, it was difficult to keep my heart rate below MAF. Nowadays
with the resistance maxed out, I have difficulty getting my heart rate
up to MAF, even in the highest of gears. I literally have to come out
of the saddle and pedal like crazy just to get within about 5 beats of
MAF. How is it for you? Are you also a cyclist?

---

I've used several types over the years, rollers and magnetic designs. Last fall I bought a fluid resistance design, the brand is Cycle Ops. It's very close to road simulation, the harder you pedal, the greater the resistance. There's also an adjustment that applies preassure to the wheel (tire) that will increase resistance. No problem getting the heart rate up. Rollers are the most fun (if there is such a thing), but offers the least resistance. Fluid is also very quite, a plus for the people living below or with you. I've found the magnetic design loud and harder to spin, not very fluid. Hope that helps, just my opinion and I'm definately not the "techy" type.
I've been cycling on and off for twenty years. I prefer cycling, however, I find running more convienent and safer with the demands of work and family. I must admit, running is now taking the number one spot due to MAF training. It's made running painless for me, I just wish I started four years ago. I could have saved myself a lot of injuries, and a lot of wasted miles outside of my aerobic zone . Thanks for your well documented hard work, I've certainly benefited.

IP: Logged

posted Apr-03-2006 11:43 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by msteed:
I'm curious, on longer runs, how much rise in HR are you all allowing due to cardiac drift? According to this article, over time your HR can rise up to 20 bpm at constant effort. I find it difficult to keep my HR down after 60-90 minutes. I decided not to be so strict, aiming to maintain a steady pace instead of a steady HR. Near the end of my long runs, my HR sometimes reaches MAF+15, but my effort does not feel any harder than the initial miles run at or below MAF. My current long run is 20 miles.

---

I've read different things. I 've seen as high as 15 bpm in one article. I kept mine to 10 bpm over MAF, trying not to go over 70% hrr. I was running about 3 hours 20 minutes (aprox. 17 miles) before I started to drift over MAF. Had about 5 miles to go. My body isn't acclimated to the heat just yet, and that contributed to the drift.

If you can't keep your HR down after just 60-90 minutes, I don't think it's 20 bpm of drift. You might just be running too fast. Approaching MAF-10 too quickly. What I do on a 20 miler is try to get to MAF-10 by aprox. the half way point in the run.

I was strict for about 16 of 18 weeks (had a two week layoff). I'm still doing 95-100% of miles at or under MAF on a weekly basis. Except for one occasion (10k race run slowly at LT pace), I haven't done any "speedwork' at all. After 16 weeks, a few miles over MAF at the end of a long run is not going to hurt my progress. Even pace is very important in a marathon, and with the Boston Marathon in two weeks (training run) and my goal marathon just 7 weeks away, I want to practice keeping steady when the legs are tired. The mental benefits are immeasurable.

Good luck.

--Jimmy

My Running World
My Maffetone Low-HR Training Experiment

IP: Logged

posted Apr-04-2006 04:07 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by jjwaverly42:
If you can't keep your HR down after just 60-90 minutes, I don't think it's 20 bpm of drift. You might just be running too fast. Approaching MAF-10 too quickly. What I do on a 20 miler is try to get to MAF-10 by aprox. the half way point in the run.

---

You may be right. I notice what I would call "drift" after an hour or so, but I can adjust my pace slightly to keep my HR down on shorter runs (say up to 12 miles), and I try to do this. It's during the longer runs (16-20 miles) that it gets really difficult to stay below MAF, and I do indeed tend to exceed MAF by 10 bpm or more during the last few miles of these runs.

BTW I thought cardiac drift could begin to affect one's HR soon after exercise began. Isn't this the reason that you have to slow your pace even during a 5-mile MAF test? If not, what's going on?

quote:

---

I was strict for about 16 of 18 weeks (had a two week layoff). I'm still doing 95-100% of miles at or under MAF on a weekly basis. Except for one occasion (10k race run slowly at LT pace), I haven't done any "speedwork' at all. After 16 weeks, a few miles over MAF at the end of a long run is not going to hurt my progress. Even pace is very important in a marathon, and with the Boston Marathon in two weeks (training run) and my goal marathon just 7 weeks away, I want to practice keeping steady when the legs are tired. The mental benefits are immeasurable.
[/B]

---

I have my first marathon on June 3. Until then I will stick with what I have been doing. My average HR over all my runs is still below MAF, but I gave up on strict Maffetone in frustration after about 11 weeks (I got slower!). After my marathon I may give it another go. Several of you guys that have followed the method faithfully have had impressive results. I appreciate you reporting your experience.

IP: Logged

posted Apr-04-2006 11:27 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by msteed:
BTW I thought cardiac drift could begin to affect one's HR soon after exercise began. Isn't this the reason that you have to slow your pace even during a 5-mile MAF test? If not, what's going on?

---

All I know is that HR drift is due to dehydration and an increase in viscosity in the blood. You can reduce (can't eliminate) it by hydrating during runs. I always drink at least 14-21 oz every hour, even on short runs, depending on the temp. So, I don't think there is much drift in the first hour or two, if you stay hydrated. I've read figures as high as 10% increase in HR in 45 minutes to an hour if you don't hydrate (on a hot day).

The slowing in the MAF test is partially due to drift or dehydration, but I think that is very minimal. I believe the slowing is mostly due to level of fitness in the fibers and lactate build-up and tolerance. In a recent test, my rate of slowing (difference between mile 1 and 5) was much less than in tests in the past. This indicates better lactate tolerance and increased fitness in the fibers, not being better hydrated, as I always stay hydrated and keep the conditions the same for each test.

That's my take. If anyone can add to, or correct, this, please do.

That being said. I think you are doing the correct thing for your marathon.
It's very important to practice eeven or negative splits in the latter part of your long runs. The zone in which you are working is more like the one prescribed in Pfitzinger's Advanced Marathoning (65-78% HRR). I trained in that zone last year for VCM and Philly marathons and did pretty well with it. I never drifted over the 78%. I always tried to finish at 78%. Figuring ten for drift, it was like staying down around 71% HRR. So the zone covers the drift, and keeps you aerobic. The zone always allowed me to run negative splits (1st half-2nd half).

Keep going. Have a great marathon!

--Jimmy

My Running World
My Maffetone Low-HR Training Experiment

IP: Logged

posted Apr-04-2006 03:59 PM               

Did the "test" today on the treadmill with 1 mile warm-up. Times were as follows: mile 2: 14:48; mile 3: 15:60; mile 4: 15:23; mile 4.5: 7.84. Kept heart rate at or below 135 (some movement in the heart rate as I'm not all that good at predicting what speed will get me what heart rate.) I wonder how good an indicator of my aerobic functioning these times are given very "newbie" status and the times that others have posted that they needed to start with (i.e., 16+ minute miles) to keep their heart rates under MAF. Did I not accurately determine MAF?

Another question. I can keep the heart rate down when biking without a problem - did 50 minutes yesterday at 117-125 (didn't really feel like I was working all that hard...). When I get in the pool....all bets are off. I'm really not that good at swimming and so I'm not sure how I'm gonna managed to do it and keep my heart rate low without sinking. Need to be in the pool because we have a boat and I need to know how to swim better than I do.

I have run 2 races in my life: the first one 1 1/2 years ago, a 5K for which I was not prepared and pushed the baby in the carriage - 36:xx (I was dead last, but I finished! and I'm back!!!). The second was last sunday a 4 miler. I finished in 42:53. Averaged 11:xx minutes miles for the first three miles and then did the last mile in 9:16 (I think I underestimated my pace ability a bit...).

That's it in a nutshell. I'm willing to be a test subject for the "new to running" group with this method and would appreciate any feedback from the more experienced in the group. Thanks in advance.
Molly

IP: Logged

posted Apr-04-2006 06:37 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by mumzi23:

Did the "test" today on the treadmill with 1 mile warm-up. Times were as follows: mile 2: 14:48; mile 3: 15:60; mile 4: 15:23; mile 4.5: 7.84. Kept heart rate at or below 135 (some movement in the heart rate as I'm not all that good at predicting what speed will get me what heart rate.) I wonder how good an indicator of my aerobic functioning these times are given very "newbie" status and the times that others have posted that they needed to start with (i.e., 16+ minute miles) to keep their heart rates under MAF. Did I not accurately determine MAF?

Another question. I can keep the heart rate down when biking without a problem - did 50 minutes yesterday at 117-125 (didn't really feel like I was working all that hard...). When I get in the pool....all bets are off. I'm really not that good at swimming and so I'm not sure how I'm gonna managed to do it and keep my heart rate low without sinking. Need to be in the pool because we have a boat and I need to know how to swim better than I do.

---

Hi Molly - there's nothing to indicate you did anything wrong
in determing MAF HR. The pace one starts at is almost arbitrary,
well, actually based on a number of factors associated with
aerobic fitness, speed, etc., so there's not much you can do with
a first run, other than to record it as a baseline.

Now, as far as the bike goes, if you're on an exercise bike at the
gym, unless you're at "level 20" or something, you'll have difficulty
bringing your heart rate up. If you're out on your bike on a very
hilly course, it will likely be very difficult to keep it down. Also
it is tough to keep it down in a spin class.

Swimming - one of the big benefits I've received from the swimming
heart rate training is that when I've followed Terry Loughlin's Total
Immersion guidance, I try to keep my pace as slow as possible and
still float. It has improved my form tremendously and my speed.
I was at 50-60 minute miles at high HRs when I started, and now I'm
at 33-35 minute miles below MAF, very easy paced. The difference
is tremendous. You may need to focus on drills for a while unti you
get your form in line, but there are benefits to very controlled pace
swimming, focusing on stroke efficiency.

------------------
MyRunningLog

MyStuff

Low Heart Rate Training FAQ

IP: Logged

posted Apr-04-2006 07:17 PM               

I am using a stationary bike at home. I think, for now anyway, that I can get my heart rate up to MAF on the bike. That may not last (I can only hope).

Will I do significant damage to any basebuilding for running that I might do by being at a higher heart rate in the pool until I get going?

thanks for all your info, work, help with this stuff. I'll check out the immersion training.
Molly

IP: Logged

posted Apr-04-2006 07:27 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by mumzi23:
thanks! do you think that I'll see any results from training this way even though I'm so new to it? Will I always be so slow?

I am using a stationary bike at home. I think, for now anyway, that I can get my heart rate up to MAF on the bike. That may not last (I can only hope).

Will I do significant damage to any basebuilding for running that I might do by being at a higher heart rate in the pool until I get going?

thanks for all your info, work, help with this stuff. I'll check out the immersion training.
Molly

---

There's no magic answer to your questions. My best attempt
at them is in the FAQ. If you do a lot of anything at higher
heart rates, swimming or whatever, it may interfere. Perhaps
you should see where you are in terms of heart rate in the pool.
Good luck - give it a try and see where it takes you.

------------------
MyRunningLog

MyStuff

Low Heart Rate Training FAQ

IP: Logged

posted Apr-05-2006 03:41 PM            

------------------
Do you not know that in a race all the runners run, but only one gets the prize?
Run in such a way as to get the prize
- 1 Corinthians 9:24-27

My User Profile

My Climbing Photos

IP: Logged

posted Apr-06-2006 04:48 PM            

March 10 13:30 min/mi
April 6 11:06 min/mi

HR 135, on a treadmill at 1% incline, on the same treadmill under identical conditions for consistency.
This is pretty rapid progress, undoubtedly some of that was because I was just starting to run again after 12 weeks off due to injury and the training curve is pretty steep at that point. OTOH, I had kept up my training pretty well on the elliptical and recumbent bike so I wasn't completely out of shape. It's impossible to know where I'd be if I had done my typical 150-160 HR pace training, but this tells me that training at my MAF HR is certainly having good effect.
Also, this was relatively low mileage, just the running in the Pfitzinger stress fracture rehab program, which has a maximum of 55 minutes of running at the end! It will be interesting to see how I progress now that I can do longer training runs. I'm starting an 18-week marathon workup next week, and I plan to do almost all of this program at MAF pace, at least until week 10, before adding any faster stuff. I say "almost" because I do not intend to give up my trail runs/races, and it is just not possible to do this type of training on trails.

IP: Logged

posted Apr-08-2006 10:33 PM            

First I'll sum up my Maff experiement for those who haven't seen my posts. I started Maff low HR training 16 weeks ago, with my max limit being 144(my true MAF). After 11 weeks my pace went from 11:30 m/m to 11:30 m/m(I have posted results/frustration in this thread or part 1 of this thread). In other words I went nowhere.

In week 11 I went searching for answers why this wasn't working. I got an idea from a poster on another forum that maybe I was running to slow, that maybe I wasn't putting enough stress on my system to achieve any aerobic gains. So week 12 I decided to raise the bar and up my max limit to 154(10bpm). Here's what's happening-

Both tests done on the same course under similar conditions. Course is rolling hills with a few steep hills and I marked those miles. I stopped doing tests on the HS running track because it was starting to feel like a grind and I don't even know how to work a treadmill.

Week 12 low HR training, week 1 at MAF + 10 (44 degrees and cloudy)
mile-pace/avg hr
1-10:27/147
2-11:22/153 (hills)
3-10:32/153
4-11:20/155 (hills)
5-10:17/153
6-11:13/153

Week 16 low HR training, week 5 at MAF + 10 (36 degrees and cloudy)
1-9:27/143
2-10:00/152 (hills)
3-8:53/152
4-9:50/150 (hills)
5-8:48/150
6-9:20/152

I decided to post these two runs because they were the same exact distance on the same course under almost the same conditions. At about week 3 of running at the higher HR's I started to see great improvement on most of my runs. I should add that at week 12 I was running 44 mpw. Just this past week(week 16) I tipped 50 miles. When I started MAF I was running 25 mpw. I would also like to add that adding 10bpm still kept me running conversationally, that is aerobic I mean.

I think this data may be helpful to those who have been running at extreamly low HR's and haven't seen any imrovement, especially if you have had a steady pace vs HR like I did. You may be running to slow.

I'm going to keep at it as long as I'm seeing improvement so I'll keep posting.

Thanks for reading

Jesse

IP: Logged

posted Apr-09-2006 12:15 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by runawayjesse:
Hello Maffers! I haven't posted here in awhile but I have some interesting data that may be of interest to some of you.

First I'll sum up my Maff experiement for those who haven't seen my posts. I started Maff low HR training 16 weeks ago, with my max limit being 144(my true MAF). After 11 weeks my pace went from 11:30 m/m to 11:30 m/m(I have posted results/frustration in this thread or part 1 of this thread). In other words I went nowhere.

In week 11 I went searching for answers why this wasn't working. I got an idea from a poster on another forum that maybe I was running to slow, that maybe I wasn't putting enough stress on my system to achieve any aerobic gains. So week 12 I decided to raise the bar and up my max limit to 154(10bpm). Here's what's happening-

Both tests done on the same course under similar conditions. Course is rolling hills with a few steep hills and I marked those miles. I stopped doing tests on the HS running track because it was starting to feel like a grind and I don't even know how to work a treadmill.

Week 12 low HR training, week 1 at MAF + 10 (44 degrees and cloudy)
mile-pace/avg hr
1-10:27/147
2-11:22/153 (hills)
3-10:32/153
4-11:20/155 (hills)
5-10:17/153
6-11:13/153

Week 16 low HR training, week 5 at MAF + 10 (36 degrees and cloudy)
1-9:27/143
2-10:00/152 (hills)
3-8:53/152
4-9:50/150 (hills)
5-8:48/150
6-9:20/152

I decided to post these two runs because they were the same exact distance on the same course under almost the same conditions. At about week 3 of running at the higher HR's I started to see great improvement on most of my runs. I should add that at week 12 I was running 44 mpw. Just this past week(week 16) I tipped 50 miles. When I started MAF I was running 25 mpw. I would also like to add that adding 10bpm still kept me running conversationally, that is aerobic I mean.

I think this data may be helpful to those who have been running at extreamly low HR's and haven't seen any imrovement, especially if you have had a steady pace vs HR like I did. You may be running to slow.

I'm going to keep at it as long as I'm seeing improvement so I'll keep posting.

Thanks for reading

Jesse

---

Congrats on your progress, Jesse. MAF +10 as your max limit sounds perfect for you. I do believe in Slow Burn that his prime aerobic workout zone is 180-age +10 has the high end and 180-age -10 for the low end.
You fit right in there. Tweaking is a good thing sometimes.

Keep on going!

--Jimmy

My Running World
My Maffetone Low-HR Training Experiment

IP: Logged

posted Apr-09-2006 05:24 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by jjwaverly42:

Tweaking is a good thing sometimes.

Keep on going!

--Jimmy

My Running World
My Maffetone Low-HR Training Experiment

---

I think that's especially the case for people who are at the low
end or the high end of the recommended age spectrum. Great
results - glad you've finally found the light!

------------------
MyRunningLog

MyStuff

Low Heart Rate Training FAQ

IP: Logged

posted Apr-09-2006 09:06 AM            

Based on my age (55) I should be somewhere between 115 and 135.

Based on 75% of MHR (184 measured) I should be around 138.

I run at around 140 for easy paced running. No higher than 142.

At this level, and over a 14 week period I have seen an improvement of about 30 seconds per mile, but average weekly mileage has gone from 30 mpw to 50 mpw and weight has gone from 215 to 207. I give credit for the improvement to extra miles and lighter weight, but I would not have been able to run the extra miles if I had not kept HR down.

IP: Logged

posted Apr-09-2006 11:00 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by tigger:
I have found the formula to be a little low.

Based on my age (55) I should be somewhere between 115 and 135.

Based on 75% of MHR (184 measured) I should be around 138.

I run at around 140 for easy paced running. No higher than 142.

At this level, and over a 14 week period I have seen an improvement of about 30 seconds per mile, but average weekly mileage has gone from 30 mpw to 50 mpw and weight has gone from 215 to 207. I give credit for the improvement to extra miles and lighter weight, but I would not have been able to run the extra miles if I had not kept HR down.

---

Your age is at the high end of the spectrum where Maffetone has
indicated consistent results (not to say that you're old, just that
the most consistent results have been seen in the 25-50 range).
Many here have been successful outside of that range. In a few
cases outside of that range, people have seen more success going
a bit higher, but still maintain the same principle of strictly keeping
the heart rate below during a basebuilding period. In either case,
for those in that regime, everyone feels exactly the same way you
feel, that it's way too darn slow. When I started, my pace was 17
min/mile at my target heart rate, but 5 months later, it hit 7:20/mile.
Given that you were only 10 beats above (Maffetone and Mark
Allen would recommend 130 for someone in pretty good shape
at age 55, and 135 for someone in very good shape at that age)
you're pretty close.

------------------
MyRunningLog

MyStuff

Low Heart Rate Training FAQ

IP: Logged

posted Apr-09-2006 12:37 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by leitnerj:
Your age is at the high end of the spectrum where Maffetone has
indicated consistent results (not to say that you're old, just that
the most consistent results have been seen in the 25-50 range).
Many here have been successful outside of that range. In a few
cases outside of that range, people have seen more success going
a bit higher, but still maintain the same principle of strictly keeping
the heart rate below during a basebuilding period. In either case,
for those in that regime, everyone feels exactly the same way you
feel, that it's way too darn slow. When I started, my pace was 17
min/mile at my target heart rate, but 5 months later, it hit 7:20/mile.
Given that you were only 10 beats above (Maffetone and Mark
Allen would recommend 130 for someone in pretty good shape
at age 55, and 135 for someone in very good shape at that age)
you're pretty close.

---

After my 16 miler yesterday I feel old today! Nevertheless I think I am in pretty good shape, but not very good shape. I could lose a few lbs & will do so over the coming months.

Yes, I'm close to the Mafetone number but it's still significant in terms of how I feel while running. I suppose one could argue that I could have held my pace at 10:15 and allowed HR to drop instead of holding HR constant and letting pace improve. But faster pace means more miles in the same time. So I chose that route.

Mafetone is just another way to say "easy paced running." There is no doubt in my mind that daily easy pace will provide much more benefit to lower mileage runners than energy draining weekly intervals.

IP: Logged

posted Apr-09-2006 02:40 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by tigger:

Mafetone is just another way to say "easy paced running." There is no doubt in my mind that daily easy pace will provide much more benefit to lower mileage runners than energy draining weekly intervals.

---

Not exactly - in fact, at first for many, it's quite painfully slow
(i.e, easy-paced would actually be faster).
Then, after some generally short period of time, it becomes
easy-paced. Lastly, it actually becomes challenging to keep it
up, day after day. I like about an 8:20 mile. That's just my
preference. On a treadmill nowadays, my pace up at the top
of the MAF zone is in the low 7s. Even though I now run it at
a low heart rate, it's not easy paced for me (although for a runner like
fredurie, it's a snail's pace). It turns out to be about my marathon
pace outside on solid ground with hills, which takes considerable
push.

------------------
MyRunningLog

MyStuff

Low Heart Rate Training FAQ

IP: Logged

posted Apr-09-2006 04:44 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by leitnerj:
Not exactly - in fact, at first for many, it's quite painfully slow
(i.e, easy-paced would actually be faster).
Then, after some generally short period of time, it becomes
easy-paced. Lastly, it actually becomes challenging to keep it
up, day after day. I like about an 8:20 mile. That's just my
preference. On a treadmill nowadays, my pace up at the top
of the MAF zone is in the low 7s. Even though I now run it at
a low heart rate, it's not easy paced for me (although for a runner like
fredurie, it's a snail's pace). It turns out to be about my marathon
pace outside on solid ground with hills, which takes considerable
push.

---

I would expect your marathon pace to be quite a bit faster than easy paced running. MP normally should be a minute or so faster per mile. Marathons can be run around 20 to 25 beats per minute below your max heart rate. My easy pace is around 45 beats lower than max. If I ever have a hope of a BQ it will be because I can squeeze a little extra aerobic speed out of my heart.

IP: Logged