posted Apr-14-2006 12:03 PM            

Tear it up at Boston, good luck!

IP: Logged

posted Apr-14-2006 02:32 PM            

IP: Logged

posted Apr-14-2006 04:18 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Noquickfix:
Jimmy,
Thanks for your posts - good stuff. Regardless of dropping Maff, post results of your Hadd training after twelve weeks. Curious to hear the results. I gave the Hadd program a shot last year, then bagged-it to race instead of base building (big mistake).

Tear it up at Boston, good luck!

---

Somewhere back in the early part of this thread, I might have mentioned following Hadd training. I ran my best 5K in quite some time without ever doing "5K specific training." After hitting the repeats and stuff, I actually slowed down.

I did the Max HR-50 for the easy days (148 bpm for me) and was doing runs at 158 bpm when that happened. According to the Hadd manual, I should have kept working at the 158 bpm until I could run 10 miles without slowing down.

My best running has come with slowing down my easy days and doing tempo-type work, such as nosing up to 160 bpm for 10 miles and doing Tinman's CV intervals. I would also do tempo runs on a t-mill where I would check my HR after every 5 minutes. The idea would be to check my HR at 5 minutes. If it was still the same at 20 minutes, my fitness was improving and I would up the pace on the next run. Seemed like a good idea, and it's a way to keep from going too fast at the beginning of a tempo run. (see more later on)

I think you need some quicker stuff to help progress although others here can prove me wrong. I think that you can lose fitness by running so slow all of the time.

One thing that I have not seen mentioned is how to pace your runs at MAF or any other program. There are two ways to run this way: go out and work hard until you hit the desired HR and then you end up slowing down the rest of the way. Or you can gradually work up to the desired HR over the first mile or so.

Years ago, I did two tempo runs of 5 miles. They were done 3 days apart on the exact same course under similar weather conditions. In the first one, I ran relatively hard until I hit the 85% HR and held that HR the rest of the way. I ran 30:15 for the 5-mile course with an opening mile around 5:40.

3 days later, I started off again. Only this time, I ran so that I would hit the HR around the end of the first mile. I ran the first mile in 5:55, but my overall finish was 29:36. In other words, I held the same pace for 5 miles while keeping my HR stable. I might have given up 15 seconds during the first mile, but I was nearly a minute faster over the last 4 miles.

Shows what correct pacing will do for you.

IP: Logged

posted Apr-14-2006 07:10 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by kcy1998:
Jimmy,
I believe that you are correct when you talk about the high mileage.In my opinion high mileage is a essential to maffing. I have enjoyed all of your posts and am interested in how your Hadd training progresses. Please post your results and do not be a stranger. GOOD LUCK in BOSTON!

---

Thanks. I'll still be hanging out on the forum.
I'm not doing Hadd training. I'm doing the HR zones
prescribed by Pfitzinger for hard days, which happen to coincide with Parker's in "HR Training for the Compleat Idiot." Easy days will be MAFF and Parker combined. I'll keep people posted on my progress with the two zones as far as my MAF tests go (those are very useful.)

--Jimmy

My Running World
My Maffetone Low-HR Training Experiment

IP: Logged

posted Apr-14-2006 10:51 PM               

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

MyStuff

Low Heart Rate Training FAQ

IP: Logged

posted Apr-15-2006 07:39 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by leitnerj:
Thank you, Jimmy - that's a great set of data! Good luck in Boston!
Be sure to let us know how it goes.

---

Thanks, Jesse. Looks like low 50's for temp. Should be the most fun training run ever!

--Jimmy

My Running World
My Maffetone Low-HR Training Experiment

IP: Logged

posted Apr-15-2006 07:47 PM               

MAF Test 1
12-4-05

Mile 1 11:20 ave Hr 138
Mile 2 11:48 ave HR 139
Mile 3 12:06 ave HR 139

(time: 35:14 pace 11:45)

decline 6.76 %
Temp 64º
Humidity 83%

TEST 2
4/15/06

Mile 1) 10:53 138
Mile 2) 11:17 138
Mile 3) 11:31 139

Time 33:43 Pace 11:14
Decay 5.82%

Temp 64º
Humidity 29%

It took 5 months, but she improved by 31 seconds. That is progress.

Her next phase will coincide with mine. Two of her 4 runs will be in a higher aerobic zone based on HRR%. The other two will be recovery runs
below 70%HRR.

I'll report her MAF test progress in a few months.

--Jimmy

My Running World
My Maffetone Low-HR Training Experiment

IP: Logged

posted Apr-16-2006 08:22 AM            

IP: Logged

posted Apr-16-2006 10:36 AM            

I ran an 8:52 the first mile of a MAF-like test (a Roy Benson test) that I did when I first got my heart rate monitor, where I kept my heart rate between MAF –6 and MAF –1 (130-135). After 14 weeks of MAF training, I ran @ a 10:17 the first mile at my MAF hr (136). If I had run that second run at a lower hr like I did the first run, I suspect I would have been @ 2 minutes slower!

My slow down was so drastic and consistent that I still wonder if I would have lost any less fitness had I just walked every day instead of wogging. All this occurred despite having tripled my weekly running time and doubled my weekly mileage.

I have gone back to running at a higher hr three weeks ago and had hoped to post some results this week, but an aching IT band that flared up the last two weeks of MAFFing is still bothering me, so I took 5 or 6 days off this week.

Though I don’t have any definite numbers, I am confident that after the first two weeks of running faster, I had improved my fitness. The first few days I sort of felt like I did after I took 12 weeks off a couple years ago after breaking my collar bone. I huffed and puffed and couldn’t believe just how slow I was running. My training runs, which averaged @ 7:20 a mile just a few months ago were now being run at a snail-like 9:00—9:30 pace at MAF +12. Fortunately, by the end of week 2 my hr, times and perceived effort had all dropped at MAF+12 despite having cut my mileage in half and about 60% off my time running. I ran today @8:20 pace.

In other words, for me, MAF was a very inefficient training method for improving fitness. Maybe I could have gotten back to pre-MAF fitness by MAFing but it would have, like Jesse L., taken a massive amount of time and something like an eight-fold increase in mileage.

So, I believe Jimmy makes a good point. We must not only ask ourselves whether our MAF times are improving, but also whether the times are improving at the most efficient rate possible. With me, MAF training proved to be not only inefficient but ineffective as well. Hopefully for all you MAFers, I am an anomaly, not the rule.

IP: Logged

posted Apr-16-2006 11:22 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by GForce1:

My slow down was so drastic and consistent that I still wonder if I would have lost any less fitness had I just walked every day instead of wogging. All this occurred despite having tripled my weekly running time and doubled my weekly mileage.

I have gone back to running at a higher hr three weeks ago and had hoped to post some results this week, but an aching IT band that flared up the last two weeks of MAFFing is still bothering me, so I took 5 or 6 days off this week.

Though I don’t have any definite numbers, I am confident that after the first two weeks of running faster, I had improved my fitness. The first few days I sort of felt like I did after I took 12 weeks off a couple years ago after breaking my collar bone. I huffed and puffed and couldn’t believe just how slow I was running. My training runs, which averaged @ 7:20 a mile just a few months ago were now being run at a snail-like 9:00—9:30 pace at MAF +12. Fortunately, by the end of week 2 my hr, times and perceived effort had all dropped at MAF+12 despite having cut my mileage in half and about 60% off my time running. I ran today @8:20 pace.

In other words, for me, MAF was a very inefficient training method for improving fitness. Maybe I could have gotten back to pre-MAF fitness by MAFing but it would have, like Jesse L., taken a massive amount of time and something like an eight-fold increase in mileage.

So, I believe Jimmy makes a good point. We must not only ask ourselves whether our MAF times are improving, but also whether the times are improving at the most efficient rate possible. With me, MAF training proved to be not only inefficient but ineffective as well. Hopefully for all you MAFers, I am an anomaly, not the rule.

---

Thanks for posting your data. If you've got the records, I would
be very interested to have your logs of mile splits with average
heart rate over each split over the course of your MAF training
period. Especially on track on treadmill runs where most other
factors are taken out of the equation. I think the biggest lesson
from your experience is after a few weeks if every single run is
worse then the previous, stop and re-evaluate the situation. I don't
think anyone should continue such a venture when the results
are consistently and monotonically getting worse. If I
recall, you were following an approach such as that suggested at
http://www.powerrunning.com - low mileage, mostly high-end
anaerobic workouts, which is the total opposite of this MAF stuff.
You built a very strong anaerobic endurance, which is fine since
you weren't running (or planning to run, to my knowledge)
marathons. Assuming it wasn't causing injury and you were
showing consistent improvement, it was the right approach for
you. Anaerobic capability goes away fast, but it also returns
very quickly, within a few weeks. Aerobic capability can take
a very long time to develop, sometimes years. You threw all of
your anaerobic capability out the door over a short period of time
and since you hadn't been doing any aerobic workouts (to my
knowledge), you were basically starting from scratch, almost like
a brand new runner. If you weren't plagued by injuries from the
(relatively) high anaerobic volume, you're probably more susceptible
when getting back into it because you have to reacclimate to that
level of exertion. If you're careful getting back into it, you should
be able to reacquire the anaerobic fitness you had before starting,
I would guess within a month or two. Good luck - let us know how
things go as you return to your original training regimen.

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

MyStuff

Low Heart Rate Training FAQ

IP: Logged

posted Apr-16-2006 12:37 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by GForce1:
Thanks, Jimmy, for the info. I, too, lost a good deal of fitness over the course of 14 weeks. My MAF tests are documented earlier in these posts, but for those who are new, here are two runs that sum up my results.

I ran an 8:52 the first mile of a MAF-like test (a Roy Benson test) that I did when I first got my heart rate monitor, where I kept my heart rate between MAF –6 and MAF –1 (130-135). After 14 weeks of MAF training, I ran @ a 10:17 the first mile at my MAF hr (136). If I had run that second run at a lower hr like I did the first run, I suspect I would have been @ 2 minutes slower!

My slow down was so drastic and consistent that I still wonder if I would have lost any less fitness had I just walked every day instead of wogging. All this occurred despite having tripled my weekly running time and doubled my weekly mileage.

I have gone back to running at a higher hr three weeks ago and had hoped to post some results this week, but an aching IT band that flared up the last two weeks of MAFFing is still bothering me, so I took 5 or 6 days off this week.

Though I don’t have any definite numbers, I am confident that after the first two weeks of running faster, I had improved my fitness. The first few days I sort of felt like I did after I took 12 weeks off a couple years ago after breaking my collar bone. I huffed and puffed and couldn’t believe just how slow I was running. My training runs, which averaged @ 7:20 a mile just a few months ago were now being run at a snail-like 9:00—9:30 pace at MAF +12. Fortunately, by the end of week 2 my hr, times and perceived effort had all dropped at MAF+12 despite having cut my mileage in half and about 60% off my time running. I ran today @8:20 pace.

In other words, for me, MAF was a very inefficient training method for improving fitness. Maybe I could have gotten back to pre-MAF fitness by MAFing but it would have, like Jesse L., taken a massive amount of time and something like an eight-fold increase in mileage.

So, I believe Jimmy makes a good point. We must not only ask ourselves whether our MAF times are improving, but also whether the times are improving at the most efficient rate possible. With me, MAF training proved to be not only inefficient but ineffective as well. Hopefully for all you MAFers, I am an anomaly, not the rule.

---

When I look back on my 1st experimentation with a modified HADD system. I did 99% of my miles at 70%HRR and below. The two zones in terms of HRR were:

55-60% HRR recovery (60% was an absolute ceiling)
63-70% HRR hard days

There was the expected slow down in pace, as I was working at low HR's for the first time, but I didn't experience a dip in fitness. It was a steady progression.

Same with my 2nd and 3rd training periods with the Pfitzinger zones of

70% HRR and below (recovery)
65-78% HRR hard days

My take on Maffetone training is that it properly gets runners down into a lower HR zone, which is essential for developing slow twitch fibers. I think the 180-age works for some, but not for others. The formula puts some into the proper zone, and others it doesn't. Mark Allen worked his MAF at 155 bpm, which if his MHR is 195, like mine, and his RHR is 46 BPM like myself, he was working in a zone of 67-74% HRR, not the 54-62% HRR zone that I was working in all the time with the 180-age (Most of my runs I warmed up to 126 bpm tried to top out at about 137-138 bpm). I found more success working my hard days in the zone in which he was working That's if his MHR was about the same. If his MHR was lower, then he was working even harder, if higher then of course a little closer or the same as my zone.

My girlf friend saw some pretty good progress for running 5 miles every other day (I posted hers above). In terms of mileage and time on her feet, she smoked me in the progress department. We figured out her MHR yesterday, and concluded she was doing her runs at about 69-70% HRR. Well above my 54-62%.

Like anything in life, 180-age is not close to being absolutely successly for everyone. It works remarkably well for some, okay for a few, and others will stagnate or get worse. My experiments all point to a %HRR for me.

One of the most important things to remember, whether you are doing Maffetone, or aerobic zones by anyone else., is that you are going to start off at paces that seem intolerably slow. When I did my first experiment with the two Hadd zones. I began at 12:30 (hard days) and 13:30 (recovery). That was after training at 8-9:00 minute miles all the time. Whether you use MAF, or 70%HRR, if your aerobic system needs work, you will very slow at first. IF the MAF happens to be right for you (like my gal's) then you will see progress. It might take 4-5 months to see 30 seconds, but it all depends on mileage or time on feet.

Doing aerobic work is undeniably important for health, speed, and endurance. A period of at least 12 weeks at 70%HRR will always do some good.

MAF might be the extreme in some ways, but it is an important part to the HR training landscape.

Experimentation is always good. You'll learn something every time.

I'm running Boston in the morning! Wow. A dream come true.

--Jimmmy

My Running World
My Maffetone Low-HR Training Experiment

IP: Logged

posted Apr-16-2006 12:48 PM               

At the very least, if you're going to pursue a lot of speedwork (which I hardly ever do), then I believe it is essential that you have at least 3 runs per week at a low-HR like MAF or below 70%HRR and below. These runs should be done after the hard days, and the 70% or MAF should be an absolute ceiling. This will help recovery, but will also give you a number of miles every week where you are working your slow twitch aerobic fibers. In Parker's book, he talks about this. He found people made aerobic progress while doing speedwork, IF they included these recovery runs of 70% and below on the day after every hard workout.

Also, the use of the MAF test, or a monitioring of the pace of these recovery runs, will give you a measure of how your aerobic base is doing.

Personally, if I'm going to add any LT runs or intervals, then it's very little. I try to always keep at least 90% of my training miles aerobic.

--Jimmy

My Running World
My Maffetone Low-HR Training Experiment

IP: Logged

posted Apr-16-2006 06:01 PM            

IP: Logged

posted Apr-16-2006 06:51 PM            

Jesse, you were right about doing all anaerobic running before. Until I bought a hr monitor and found this site, I had no idea that my running had been basically anaerobic.

Knowing what I know now, I think I’ll work on the aerobic side of the equation, running at a lower hr than I used to but no higher than 75% HRR (MAF +14), at least until I build a much better base. I may alternate that with easy days run @ 65 or 70% HRR (between MAF and MAF + 8). Inspired by Jesse, I think I’ll also spend some time going on long bike rides a couple times a week riding below a HRR limit of 70% to help build aerobic pathways. This is a radically different approach from what I was doing just a few months ago and am curious to see how it all turns out. Under my old system I was not getting any faster, so I’m motivated to try something new to see if I can break old barriers.

Jimmy, I liked those HRR numbers and your thoughtful analysis regarding Mark Allen’s success. If you are right, then possibly I, too, will see improvement with my new training plan.

Finally, Jesse you may have been right when you said in one of your responses that I may not have been ready for MAF training. Of course, as Jimmy reiterated, everyone is different and a formula that works exceedingly well for many will sometimes have disastrous results for a few. Either way, it has been a learning experience, and I am grateful for all the sincere help given here whenever I asked for it.

Thanks guys. I’ll visit periodically and let you know how my new “MAF-influenced” training works out.

IP: Logged

posted Apr-16-2006 09:43 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by GForce1:

Thanks guys. I’ll visit periodically and let you know how my new “MAF-influenced” training works out.

---

Sounds good - I hope you can find the ideal way to get yourself
to the next level, then post how it works for you. Obviously a very
small percentage of people use MAF training, so there are many
ways to success without it. There's no doubt that no matter what
you do, you should try to get the hang of having a significant
percentage of "low effort" runs in, to avoid overtraining and burnout,
and to work your aerobic system. I think that's the biggest thing that
many runners miss. Aside from the time aspect, people ask me
all the time how I am able to put in so much volume and do so
many long races. My answer to that is that I leave nothing on the
training course. All of my effort is in races. Even if I do a marathon
or more every week, one of my races is equivalent in terms of
effort and pounding to 1-3 of the typical runner's training days.
That's certainly the case comparing myself today to myself just
over 2 years ago when could barely tolerate 40-55 miles of running
per week and I always had pains here and there. My choices
really boiled down to trying low HR running or quit, so it was easy
for me! Just as a trivial tidbit, all of my training runs are between
50-60% of heart rate reserve, although nowadays I'm probably still
very aerobic up to about 75-80% HRR. I know that about a year
ago when I had my first vo2max test, I was mostly anaerobic at
75% HRR, 80% carb burn/20% fat burn. However, I wouldn't have
known that without a vo2max test. You might consider getting one
just to make an assessment of things - it may be worth the $100-150.

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

MyStuff

Low Heart Rate Training FAQ

IP: Logged

posted Apr-17-2006 04:46 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by kcy1998:
My report from the Charlottesville HM and how Maff has affected my times. I have been Maffing for the past 14 weeks. The three weeks prior to the HM I put in 35, 40 and 28 mpw. I have gone from averaging a 14:50 pace on 20 miles a week to averaging 11:47 on 40 miles a week. I am now able to run 10 miles and keep my HR at Maff doing a 11:33 pace. Now for the race. I hydrated and carbed loaded. The last four miles I did prior to the HM my average HR was 12 beats below Maff doing a 11:33 pace. I wonder if being so well hydrated had something to do with that?
I did not eat anything before the HM. I left the house @ 05:30 and drank 20oz of water then @ 07:00 I stopped drinking and used the port potty. After 45 minutes into the race I started drinking Gatorade and I took a GU. Within the first two miles I knew I was not going to do my 08:05 goal pace. The lines for the port a potties were very long and I got stuck at the back of the pack. My PR is a 07:45 pace for a HM. Charlottesville is Very Hilly. The fastest I have run in the past 4 months is a 11:33 pace. Everything has been at Maf. I faded quick and finished with a 08:53 pace. When I was done I did not feel as if I was dying like I have in my prior Half and Full Marathons. My legs are still sore but that is to be expected. The idea was to gage a benchmark as to where I was with Maff. I believe that the race was a success. I was over a minute slower than my PB but that came at the peak of my marathon training. In my opinion this proved to me that while I had run nothing faster than an 11:33 for the prior 4 months I was still able to run fast when it was needed. I am calling this round a success and will stay Maffing until I realy have to start my Marathon Training Program.
Please pass along any information that you have regarding my little summary.
TIA,
kc

---

Very nice job and certainly a positive. There's no doubt you're headed
in the right direction and this race showed that you can still go well
beyond what you're doing in training. Keep your eye on what's happening
with you training paces at MAF and when improvement seems to slow
down significantly, you may want to sprinkle in a few miles of tempo
each week. Given how far your MAF pace was off of your PR HM
pace and how much you've improved so far, clearly you're right smack
in the middle of a significant anaerobic to aerobic transition. As long
as things continue to improve, you are well off taking your aerobic
development as far as it can go - that has worked well for me and after
almost a year now, I still haven't moved into a speed phase. Clearly,
I have required a lot of development as well. After about a year of
this stuff, not only can I tolerate a lot of training volume, my training
pace at MAF is faster than it was before this form of training (back
then, at much higher heart rates), and I PR in about every race, but
also, I can tolerate a tremendous number of long races (which I run
well above MAF). Here's my summary in the last couple of months:

2/19: Greenbelt President's Day marathon: 3:34
2/26: RRCA ten mile challenge race: 71:01 (PR)
3/5: B&A trail marathon: 3:19 (PR) (ran 20 miler the day before,
topped off 84 miles of running for the week)
3/12: Lower Potomac River marathon: 3:29 (82 degrees out,
ran 20 miler the day before)
3/19-20: no races, but back to back 20 milers on the weekend.
77 miles of running that week (+ lots of cycling and swimming)
3/25: HAT run 50k trail race: 5:03 (ran 20 miler the day after)
4/2: Cherry Blossom 10 mile race: 69:12 (PR)
4/9: Bull Run Run 50 mile trail race: 8:55:52 (rained most of the
day, course was 90% mud)
Following week, 80+ miles of running and 100+ miles of cycling.

It pays off. Two years ago, I was in pain all the time just from
45-55 miles per week of running. I was also stuck at 3:50s to
4+ for marathons, not improving. Then I saw jjwaverly's posting
on heart rate training and I decided to try it out. It took a while for
things to kick in, but eventually it all came together. We'll see how
far I can take it.

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

MyStuff

Low Heart Rate Training FAQ

[This message has been edited by leitnerj (edited Apr-17-2006).]

IP: Logged

posted Apr-17-2006 04:49 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by jjwaverly42:

Thanks, Jesse. Looks like low 50's for temp. Should be the most fun training run ever!

--Jimmy

My Running World
My Maffetone Low-HR Training Experiment

---

I've been tracking - 3:52 for a training run at Boston - nice job! Especially
considering that you've been mostly recovering and taking it easy.
How did it feel? Did you feel like you could have gone much faster
or do you really feel that you've lost a lot of fitness? If you feel that
you've lost a lot of fitness, do you think it is more due to the recovery
from your previous ails, or from MAFing a lot?

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

MyStuff

Low Heart Rate Training FAQ

IP: Logged

posted Apr-17-2006 07:16 PM               

First of all:
This race is bigtime awesome in so many ways. Wow on the organization. Wow on the crowd support. Wow on the nice, challenging course.

For you splitsaholics like me:

Boston Marathon
1) 9:56 127..........................14) 8:58 164
2) 8:50 149...........................15) 9:09 165
3) 9:04 151..........................16) 8:34 166
4) 8:51 151..........................17) 8:52 176
5) 9:52 154 (pee break).....18) 8:53 177
6) 8:52 160..........................19) 8:36 172
7) 9:06 160..........................20) 9:10 172
8) 8:54 162..........................21) 9:21 178
9) 8:50 162..........................22) 8:28 175
10) 8:56 163........................23) 8:41 177
11) 9:00 166........................24) 8:20 179
12) 8:56 165........................25) 8:22 182
13) 8:38 171........................26.2) 9:43 188 (8:06 pace)
13.1) :58 169
Half 1:58:37....9:03 pace...... 2nd Half 1:54:16... Pace 8:43
Official Time... 3:52:53 (8:53)

I started out the race without warming up, so I used the first mile. My legs were tired from the start. Probably due to no real taper, just a regular rest week. My goal for today's run was to run 9:00 miles for the first 20, and if I had something left, I would pick it up. My legs were tired, but I never faltered on pace. I even had a huge amount left in the tank. I never hit any kind of wall--not even a hint of slowing. Any of my slow miles were due to some LONG challenging hills.

Now, considering that I haven't trained fully just yet, no taper, and going on tired legs, I was pretty amazed by the eveness of my heart rate. It pretty much sat between 160-171 for a long time. The only reason it went up was that I speeded up, or the mile was particularly hilly.

Could I have gone faster? Yes, but maybe 10 minutes. On fresh legs, maybe 15-20.

If you go by this run, I haven't lost much fitness since Philly. I can't ignore the fact that I pretty much did this run on 99% of training miles at MAF or under. My heart rate was even, I could push through the tiredness, I didn't hit a wall. I had a big amount left in the tank. I was hitting 3 beats below my max coming down the stretch.

If the proof is in the racing pudding, then I have to upgrade my opinion of Maffetone training. The work on the slow twitch fibers is paying off.

I'm going to adjust my plan to continue MAF on recovery days, and just set a ceiling on hard days of 70%HRR or MAF +10. Only getting up there in the last part of my runs.

Jesse and everyone, do this race if you get a chance--it's bigtime professional. Well done. A dream come true. Even kissed a Wellsley girl! Must have slapped 100 hands and heard "Go Rhode Island" (I wear my Rhode Island Road Runners shirt) about a 500 times.

Time to chill

--Jimmy

p.s. don't try to slap the hands of drunk guys--hurts.

My Running World
My Maffetone Low-HR Training Experiment

[This message has been edited by jjwaverly42 (edited Apr-17-2006).]

IP: Logged

posted Apr-17-2006 08:43 PM            

IP: Logged

posted Apr-17-2006 09:08 PM               

I'm glad you got a "taste" of what this training has done. You went
into the Boston the same way I went into the first marathon of
Tahoe, pace at MAF still quite slow, uncertain of what I really
had to work with and when all was said and done, I was quite surprised
and had a half tank of gas left at the end. No wall, just tired.

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

MyStuff

Low Heart Rate Training FAQ

IP: Logged

posted Apr-18-2006 08:50 AM            

IP: Logged

posted Apr-18-2006 09:19 AM            

Anyway, I'm looking at following more of a Parker-type program where I alternate days at 70% w/ days around 85%. 70% gives me a few extra beats to play with, and I'm under the philosophy that I have to do quality-type work in order to run faster. The quality work is more of a temp-type effort. However, right now, I'm just wearing the thing to get used to it.

What I've learned so far:

1. A easy mile or so to warm up helps a bunch. The other day, I started off by trying to get into my normal rhythm quickly. I averaged 7:24 pace for 5 miles, but my HR topped out at 186 while running a 7:11 mile (albeit part of it was uphill).

2. Yesterday, it was 101 degrees when I went out to run 5 miles. Although I was cruising along at 8:00+ pace, my HR topped out at 179.

3. When I go over 180, I get miserable in a hurry. Of course, that's approximately 90% of max. I could literally feel the difference in how I felt between 178 bpm and 180 bpm. 178 was pushing; 180 had me dry-heaving after a few minutes.

4. Stayed under 150 bpm this morning for 5 miles. I felt like I was crawling. On the other hand, it was nice knowing that I didn't have to push because I was already tired.

The heat will be an issue in training w/ an HRM.

IP: Logged

posted Apr-18-2006 10:22 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Serious Runner:
I got my new Cardiosport Extreme the other day and have been playing with it. There's quite the learning curve as this is loaded.

Anyway, I'm looking at following more of a Parker-type program where I alternate days at 70% w/ days around 85%. 70% gives me a few extra beats to play with, and I'm under the philosophy that I have to do quality-type work in order to run faster. The quality work is more of a temp-type effort. However, right now, I'm just wearing the thing to get used to it.

What I've learned so far:

1. A easy mile or so to warm up helps a bunch. The other day, I started off by trying to get into my normal rhythm quickly. I averaged 7:24 pace for 5 miles, but my HR topped out at 186 while running a 7:11 mile (albeit part of it was uphill).

2. Yesterday, it was 101 degrees when I went out to run 5 miles. Although I was cruising along at 8:00+ pace, my HR topped out at 179.

3. When I go over 180, I get miserable in a hurry. Of course, that's approximately 90% of max. I could literally feel the difference in how I felt between 178 bpm and 180 bpm. 178 was pushing; 180 had me dry-heaving after a few minutes.

4. Stayed under 150 bpm this morning for 5 miles. I felt like I was crawling. On the other hand, it was nice knowing that I didn't have to push because I was already tired.

The heat will be an issue in training w/ an HRM.

---

I just read Parker's book and don't like the idea of the 85%HRR hard days 3 days a week. Basically he's advocating speedwork 3 days a week with 70%HRR recovery days. In one of the personal stories, a real good runner did fine keeping everything under 70%HRR, which is more in line with the subject of this thread, Low-HR Training ALA MAffetone/Mark Allen.

His plan is basically making sure you take a recovery day at a low HR in between hard lactate threshold runs or intervals. Using the heart rate monitor as your sheepdog.

I'm not saying the Parker plan won't make you faster. It probably will, but there might be a cost involved for some (injury) with all the anaerobic miles every week. Aerobic work is maybe 50% tops. I also disagree with his assessment that you can only run a "wall--free" marathon at 75% HRR.

If you need to be running a bit faster, yet want to stay aerobic for 90% of your miles, try the zones from Pfitzinger's Advanced Marathoning. His zone for long runs works pretty well, and will keep you away from your LT zone. You can get them from my profile under Phase 2 or 3. Or just get the book. It's a good tool. He never has you doing speedwork more than once a week (LT or intervals).

Good luck!

--Jimmy

My running world

IP: Logged

posted Apr-18-2006 12:01 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by jjwaverly42:

I just read Parker's book and don't like the idea of the 85%HRR hard days 3 days a week. Basically he's advocating speedwork 3 days a week with 70%HRR recovery days. In one of the personal stories, a real good runner did fine keeping everything under 70%HRR, which is more in line with the subject of this thread, Low-HR Training ALA MAffetone/Mark Allen.

If you need to be running a bit faster, yet want to stay aerobic for 90% of your miles, try the zones from Pfitzinger's Advanced Marathoning. His zone for long runs works pretty well, and will keep you away from your LT zone. You can get them from my profile under Phase 2 or 3. Or just get the book. It's a good tool. He never has you doing speedwork more than once a week (LT or intervals).

Good luck!

--Jimmy

My running world

---

Oops. Despite what I typed (I was misquoted ), I don't plan to do 3 tempo runs every week. More likely, it will be 1-2 runs at the most. And those will start out reasonably slow, like 5K pace + 1 minute. Once the HRM shows little upward movemet at that pace, it'll be time to increase the pace.

Thanks for the suggestion on the Pftizinger book. I'll have to pull my copy back out.

The main reason I'm looking for a little more quality is that I concentrate more on 5/10Ks. I have been finishing up some of my easy runs with a session of strides. Short enough that I don't go anaerobic, but enough to get the legs turning.

I will say that I'm impressed by the results I'm seeing from everyone.

IP: Logged

posted Apr-18-2006 03:25 PM               

--Jimmy

My Running World
My Maffetone Low-HR Training Experiment

IP: Logged