Community: Exchange advice in the forums and read running commentary Resources: Personal running log, calculators, links and other tools for runners News: Running news from around the world Training: Articles and advice about fitness, race training and injury prevention Races/Results: Find upcoming races and past results Home: The Cool Running homepage


Cool Running homepage
Community
discussion forumsviewpoint
| > rules | > faq | > e-mail to a friend | moderator: Liam

Basebuilding, low heart rate training, a la Maffetone and Mark Allen


Topic is 47 pages:
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47
Post a new topic    
> next newest topic | > next oldest topic
Author Topic:   Basebuilding, low heart rate training, a la Maffetone and Mark Allen
jjwaverly42
Cool Runner
posted Jan-12-2007 08:57 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for jjwaverly42     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Stealth26:
Just a question and your opnions...

If you running at say 4 mph at 1% to 2% incline with a HR of 137ish,VS 4.5 to 4.7 mph at 0% incline with a HR of 137ish. On one side you can increase speed the other side you increase incline..... is one MAF type workout better than the other? Would they be considered a "different" type of MAF work out? Would the end results be the same? Would alternating these two workouts be benificial? My thinking is that if both increased separately, they could eventually come together with impressive results.....

**DTFB**


Getting into schools of thought. If you have to choose a school of thought. Go to the one with open campus and good coffee.

That being said, I'd also like to say that it's important to keep it fun and interesting. Below the MAF plafond, there are all sorts of MAFdeer games you can play (Twitchdolf with his chaffed nipples so bright should never be invited) on and off the the rubber road.

One skool of thort says to set the incline on 1% to help give the legs a proper outdoorsy type of workout. I usually do that. It hasn't hurt.

Another building of mentation says to keep it on 0% and do hills occasionally. Running a 1% hill all the time might not be good for one thing or another. I've seen no proof of such a claim, though one with achilles type of poopoo should probably only do hill bursts and keep it at 0%, but there is no proof of that either. Subjective.

I say go the tapas mehod and keep it fun. As long as you are under your MAF canopy, then what does it matter?

Tapas (5--20 minute cool down walk always implied):

--I'll do a short run of 3-5 miles. Keep it on 0%, keeping HR around MAF -10 to -15. Do quarta mile "speed" intervals that get my HR up to my MAF roof. Then drop back to MAF -10 to -15.

--I keep incline on 1%, at a speed that gets my HR up to MAF -20 by the end of the first mile. Then I do .10 to .25 mile hills on an incline and speed that get my HR up to my MAF limit, then drop back. I vary the speed and incline, but always top out at MAF. After awhile I'll have to keep either slowing down or lessening the incline. After each hill I go back to 0% for about a .10 mile, then back to 1% until it's time for another hill. I do until my girlfriend vomits.

--I keep speed on 0%, then alternate "speed" with hill intervals that get me to MAF ceiling.

--pick a slow speed that gets my HR to MAF -25 by the end of the first mile. Every .25 mile increase the incline by .5% until I max out at MAF. Workout over.

--On a long run, I'll do one .25 hill between 2-4.5% at the beginning of each mile, and one .10 mile in the middle of each one..

--I put a plate at the foot of the TM. Set the incline at 2% and throw Hello Kitty on the belt trying to land her on the plate. I call this game "Hello Kitty Goes Weeeee Weeeee Weeeee."

Have fun!

--Jimmy

Daily Jogging Miles
quondam

IP: Logged

Stealth26
Cool Runner
posted Jan-13-2007 02:17 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Stealth26   Click Here to Email Stealth26     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Glad I just got the "short" version from you Jimmy.
**DTFB**

IP: Logged

Tommytwolegs
Cool Runner
posted Jan-13-2007 05:17 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Tommytwolegs     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Stealth26:
Just a question and your opnions...

If you running at say 4 mph at 1% to 2% incline with a HR of 137ish,VS 4.5 to 4.7 mph at 0% incline with a HR of 137ish. On one side you can increase speed the other side you increase incline..... is one MAF type workout better than the other? Would they be considered a "different" type of MAF work out? Would the end results be the same? Would alternating these two workouts be benificial? My thinking is that if both increased separately, they could eventually come together with impressive results.....

**DTFB**


For a short time, I was in a TM rut of running everything at the same incline/pace. Here's what I ended up doing---

I figured out what my average road speed was at MAF and now run my "normal" TM days at that speed .... while adjusting the incline up or down as needed to keep me at my MAF target (right now, I think it would average 2%).

One day a week I put a 1x4 flat under the TM's back feet (the 3/4" rise works out to be about 2% DECLINE) and have to run 60-90 seconds per mile faster to stay at MAF. This is to get in some leg turnover time as these wise(-)guys have advised in the past.

I have other very easy TM days (I guess they'd be called "recovery" runs ) that I do at road speed, but use 0% incline and drop down a few beats below MAF.

I do weekly medium-long and long runs on the road.


IP: Logged

jjwaverly42
Cool Runner
posted Jan-13-2007 01:04 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for jjwaverly42     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Did everyone see the quotes by Mark Allen in Runner's World saying 75% MHR is a good ceiling? Thoughts?

--Jimmy

yester world

jogging miles

IP: Logged

jjwaverly42
Cool Runner
posted Jan-13-2007 01:07 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for jjwaverly42     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Stealth26:
Glad I just got the "short" version from you Jimmy.
**DTFB**

You got me jamming, Stealth.
Actually my TM is on the fritz. Deck caved in.

--Jimmy

nerb

joglog

IP: Logged

fredurie
Cool Runner
posted Jan-13-2007 01:15 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for fredurie     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
Originally posted by jjwaverly42:
Did everyone see the quotes by Mark Allen in Runner's World saying 75% MHR is a good ceiling? Thoughts?

--Jimmy

yester world

jogging miles


A good ceiling for what? Anybody that is any good is at
around 85-87% for a certain % of their miles.

IP: Logged

leitnerj
Cool Runner
posted Jan-13-2007 03:36 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for leitnerj   Click Here to Email leitnerj     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
Originally posted by fredurie:
A good ceiling for what? Anybody that is any good is at
around 85-87% for a certain % of their miles.


I'm quite certain he's talking about for base-building and
aerobic development, certainly not to build up core speed.
I'm sure he went way above that for his speed work.

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

IP: Logged

slowgino
Cool Runner
posted Jan-13-2007 04:24 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for slowgino     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
I'm interested in a good ceiling heart rate for basebuilding, but I have real questions about whether the "180 formula" or something similar will work properly for me. Here's why:

Within the last few months I had an AT test which measured my AeT (aerobic threshold), AT (anaerobic threshold), and a "highest tested" Max HR. That Max HR can't be my real max, it was only 3 bpm higher than my AT.

OK. My AeT was 139. That was higher than the pace at which I'd done most training, but no problem... I had been training easy to build endurance, from 10 to 20 bpm *less* than the tested Aet.

But (arghh) according to the "180 formula" my maximum HR for aerobic endurance training should be 101.

So if my measured Aet is 139, what might be a good "aerobic base training" ceiling heart rate?

Thanks for any help anyone can give me.


------------------

IP: Logged

leitnerj
Cool Runner
posted Jan-13-2007 04:33 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for leitnerj   Click Here to Email leitnerj     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
Originally posted by slowgino:
I'm interested in a good ceiling heart rate for basebuilding, but I have real questions about whether the "180 formula" or something similar will work properly for me. Here's why:

Within the last few months I had an AT test which measured my AeT (aerobic threshold), AT (anaerobic threshold), and a "highest tested" Max HR. That Max HR can't be my real max, it was only 3 bpm higher than my AT.

OK. My AeT was 139. That was higher than the pace at which I'd done most training, but no problem... I had been training easy to build endurance, from 10 to 20 bpm *less* than the tested Aet.

But (arghh) according to the "180 formula" my maximum HR for aerobic endurance training should be 101.

So if my measured Aet is 139, what might be a good "aerobic base training" ceiling heart rate?


The "180 formula" has nothing directly to do with anaerobic
threshold (unless you're talking about some other 180 formula-
where did you get the 180 formula from?). I'm not surprised that
your vo2max test gave a max heart rate 3 beats higher than your
anaerobic threshold, and furthermore, it's not important. Your
anaerobic threshold itself is important (what was it?) The Maffetone/
Mark Allen formula will set your MAF (maximum aerobic function)
heart rate at 180-age +/- 5 beats here and there for various things,
but most people can just use 180-age. So, unless you're 99 years
old, the 180 formula used mostly in this thread will give you a
different value. That value shouldn't be too far from 80-85% of
your anaerobic threshold and it should be pretty close to your
aerobic threshold (it will depend on your level of fitness as well
as on how your tester defines these quantities, which are not
always standard). What was your respiratory quotient (RQ
or RER) at your anaerobic threshold? What was it at your
aerobic threshold?

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

IP: Logged

slowgino
Cool Runner
posted Jan-13-2007 06:12 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for slowgino     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
I got the 180 formula from Maffetone, just like everyone uses here. Sorry, I don't know the respiratory quotient values at AeT and AT... I'm not sure they were printed on the results sheet I got.

My AT (anaerobic threshold) was 146. Yeah, I know, some folks have a lot more space between AeT (139) and AT (146). I know some of us don't.

In any case, yes, Maffetone's formula gives me 101 or 102 as a "maximum aerobic training heart rate." You mention 80% to 85% of AT as something that should be close. For me that's a heart rate of 117 - 124 or so. I've heard some people say that 10 bpm below the AeT (aerobic threshold) would be ok... that would be 129 for me.

When I started training last spring, I jogged to get HR up to 115 and then walked til it went to 105, and just repeated that. Pretty soon I was using 120 and 110, then 125 and 115. Eventually I just started running easy for an hour or two at 120-125, etc. etc. This training was done after a 5 month layoff, which included 6 weeks of PT to alleviate CFL syndrome.

Yes, Maffetone's formula does come out at 101 for me this year (102 last year.) And though I know I'd get some training benefit from that HR limit, I wonder if I'm one of those folks out on the fringes of the bell curve of the formula's fit.

If the 101 HR limit is still hard to believe, I could supply the number(s) to plug in.

------------------

IP: Logged

leitnerj
Cool Runner
posted Jan-13-2007 09:40 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for leitnerj   Click Here to Email leitnerj     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
Originally posted by slowgino:
I got the 180 formula from Maffetone, just like everyone uses here. Sorry, I don't know the respiratory quotient values at AeT and AT... I'm not sure they were printed on the results sheet I got.

My AT (anaerobic threshold) was 146. Yeah, I know, some folks have a lot more space between AeT (139) and AT (146). I know some of us don't.

In any case, yes, Maffetone's formula gives me 101 or 102 as a "maximum aerobic training heart rate." You mention 80% to 85% of AT as something that should be close. For me that's a heart rate of 117 - 124 or so. I've heard some people say that 10 bpm below the AeT (aerobic threshold) would be ok... that would be 129 for me.

When I started training last spring, I jogged to get HR up to 115 and then walked til it went to 105, and just repeated that. Pretty soon I was using 120 and 110, then 125 and 115. Eventually I just started running easy for an hour or two at 120-125, etc. etc. This training was done after a 5 month layoff, which included 6 weeks of PT to alleviate CFL syndrome.

Yes, Maffetone's formula does come out at 101 for me this year (102 last year.) And though I know I'd get some training benefit from that HR limit, I wonder if I'm one of those folks out on the fringes of the bell curve of the formula's fit.

If the 101 HR limit is still hard to believe, I could supply the number(s) to plug in.


Maffetone's formula is 180-age. If Maffetone's formula gives you
a HR of 101, that means you're 79 years old.

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

[This message has been edited by leitnerj (edited Jan-13-2007).]

IP: Logged

jjwaverly42
Cool Runner
posted Jan-13-2007 09:42 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for jjwaverly42     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
Originally posted by fredurie:
A good ceiling for what? Anybody that is any good is at
around 85-87% for a certain % of their miles.



He was talking about endurance training--not racing. I called it a ceiling--top of your aerobic zone training.

It was in the January issue of Runners World, page 73:

"If you want to be a runner for life' says Allen "90% of your training should be in your aerobc zone, which is around 75% of your maximum heart rate. That's where you are going to simulate your systems, rather than wearing them down."

Now, it seems from that quote that he's going by %MHR these days and not MAF. Maybe why MAF doesn't work for some is that they are too low in relationship to the 75% or too high.

Has anyone run across any more info on whether or not Mark Allen is still touting MAF training and has changed to a flat 75% MHR?

Any thoughts?

--Jimmy

Daily Jogging Miles
ggggg

IP: Logged

slowgino
Cool Runner
posted Jan-13-2007 11:50 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for slowgino     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote originally posted by leitnerj:
------------------------------------------------------------
Maffetone's formula is 180-age. If Maffetone's formula gives you a HR of 101, that means you're 79 years old.
-----------------------------------------------------------
[hey, i'm a newbie at these posts. how does one quote previous posts (just point me to where to find out) thanks. slowgino]

IIRC, Maffetone says subtract 10 if you are taking regular medication. Unless I'm mistaken, that and my age of 69 in a couple months gives 101.

The medication, an ACE inhibitor prescribed 7 years ago for hypertension, might not be needed as much now. I started regular exercise, lost 30 lbs, and 2.5 years ago measured my blood pressure 1-2 hrs after running for the 20 days I ran that month. The tightly clustered results averaged 94 over 63. Anyway, the medication does not reduce cardiac output, and a couple exercise stress tests in the past few years say the heart is just fine.

Maybe I should just average the Maffetone formula value (101) and my measured aerobic threshold (AeT = 139) to get 120, which is 82% of my AT (which measured 146)

IP: Logged

willamona
Cool Runner
posted Jan-14-2007 12:11 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for willamona     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
slowgino, you are old enough that you may have to fugde the numbers a bit. I don't remember off hand but I think at 50-55 people start having problems with the 180-age formula and need to do more of a 75% type of thing.

------------------
***********
My myspace
My User Profile

IP: Logged

slowgino
Cool Runner
posted Jan-14-2007 01:36 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for slowgino     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Previously posted by willamona:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
slowgino, you are old enough that you may have to fugde the numbers a bit. I don't remember off hand but I think at 50-55 people start having problems with the 180-age formula and need to do more of a 75% type of thing.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Thanks, willamona, yes I think I've seen some formulas which have corrections for the older folks among us. IIRC the older you are and the more you train, the more you have to add to the resulting number.

Also, I've talked to a number of folks who have had AT testing done, and they are often surprised at what comes out versus the formula's result. I'll try to contact the AT tester I had (who has moved) and see what he recommends for a training HR based on AeT and AT. He's pretty experienced... I envy him cruising along at a 10 min/mile pace with a heart rate of 109 (he's a triathlete in his early sixties.)

IP: Logged

leitnerj
Cool Runner
posted Jan-14-2007 07:31 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for leitnerj   Click Here to Email leitnerj     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
Originally posted by willamona:
slowgino, you are old enough that you may have to fugde the numbers a bit. I don't remember off hand but I think at 50-55 people start having problems with the 180-age formula and need to do more of a 75% type of thing.



I agree - sorry - if you're 69, you definitely shouldn't tie yourself
down to any of these numbers. People in the early 20s or high
50s and above really need to make a lot of adjustments and
shouldn't trust any explicit numbers at all.

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

IP: Logged

d3finition
Cool Runner
posted Jan-16-2007 05:46 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for d3finition   Click Here to Email d3finition     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
Originally posted by willamona:
slowgino, you are old enough that you may have to fugde the numbers a bit. I don't remember off hand but I think at 50-55 people start having problems with the 180-age formula and need to do more of a 75% type of thing.


Yep. I am doing maffetone training too and I am soon to be 18 . I was onto numbers a little in the start but it turned out different for me so I just ran slow and comfortable. 1 wierd thing though my "slow" and "comfortable" HR is 168+.

By the way Jesse, would it be wise to increase my speed by a little (say 0:30 min per mile) every month or so instead of increasing milage for that week? I am on 11 min mile flat now after some injuries and doing 1 hour runs 4 times a week. I don't think my school schedule will allow me to consistently increase the duration of my 1 hour runs 10% each week.

[This message has been edited by d3finition (edited Jan-16-2007).]

IP: Logged

leitnerj
Cool Runner
posted Jan-16-2007 05:59 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for leitnerj   Click Here to Email leitnerj     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
Originally posted by d3finition:
Yep. I am doing maffetone training too and I am soon to be 18 . I was onto numbers a little in the start but it turned out different for me so I just ran slow and comfortable. 1 wierd thing though my "slow" and "comfortable" HR is 168+.

By the way Jesse, would it be wise to increase my speed by a little (say 0:30 min per mile) every month or so instead of increasing milage for that week? I am on 11 min mile flat now after some injuries and doing 1 hour runs 4 times a week. I don't think my school schedule will allow me to consistently increase the duration of my 1 hour runs 10% each week.


Given that you're around 18, you shouldn't be firmly affixed to
any formula. Sounds like you've found a comfortable HR at 168,
which is completely believable. Nonetheless, what you do as
far as changing distance or speed depends on your goals, which
I'm not sure I know. Generally, I would try to get up to 30-35
miles per week before adjusting speed (unless you are speeding
up at the same heart rate).

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

IP: Logged

slowgino
Cool Runner
posted Jan-16-2007 11:19 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for slowgino     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
Originally posted by leitnerj:

I agree - sorry - if you're 69, you definitely shouldn't tie yourself
down to any of these numbers. People in the early 20s or high
50s and above really need to make a lot of adjustments and
shouldn't trust any explicit numbers at all.



IP: Logged

slowgino
Cool Runner
posted Jan-17-2007 03:31 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for slowgino     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
Originally posted by leitnerj:

I agree - sorry - if you're 69, you definitely shouldn't tie yourself
down to any of these numbers. People in the early 20s or high
50s and above really need to make a lot of adjustments and
shouldn't trust any explicit numbers at all.



Thanks for the feedback.

When I first started training with a HRM 1.5 years ago, I tried a number of formulas for training ranges. Maffetone's 180 formula was low (102), others were higher (e.g. 130)... so I picked something in the middle, 119-120. Eventually I ended up doing a run-walk method with a run HR of 124-129 and then periodically walk until HR went down 10 bpm, etc.

Recently I got spooked by reading an entire article by Maffetone, with his dire predictions about what you would do to your aerobic base by exceeding his "180 formula" max training HR. That was 101-102 for me (106-107 cutting some slack.)

They say don't trust the formulas... get tested. I got tested in September when I was in halfway decent shape. I have a good idea of my MHR based on an all-out 3x killer-hill repeat (plus formulas). So my AeT (139) is around 88% to 90% MHR and my AT (146) is about 93% or 94% MHR.

So yeah, for me at least, some formulas work and some don't. The only way to know which works is to get tested, and then you really don't need the formula .

Now I'm no longer spooked by the Maffetone article. Thanks.

IP: Logged

leitnerj
Cool Runner
posted Jan-17-2007 05:17 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for leitnerj   Click Here to Email leitnerj     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
Originally posted by slowgino:

Now I'm no longer spooked by the Maffetone article. Thanks.

That's good. In his book, Maffetone does go into the
"reliable" age range, but it's not in all of his articles.
The most "equivalent" formula for one who has
had a full vo2max test, would have you between about 80 and
85% of anaerobic threshold, or between the values for
respiratory quotient of about .78 and .85 (if you have that
data). But I'm not even sure you need to worry about that.
Good luck - please post how things go for you.

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

IP: Logged

martinjames
Cool Runner
posted Jan-17-2007 03:07 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for martinjames   Click Here to Email martinjames     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Jessie, JJ, others, what's the view on Karvonen v. percentage of max HR? In my case, it makes a difference. For example, my 70% max HR is 118, my Karvonen equivalent is 133. That's a big jump. The numbers narrow as the % increases, but are still separated by meaningful amounts.

Ironically, Karvonen brings my numbers back up toward my MAFF # which, when I started doing this low HR work, was too high for me given my low max HR. My resting pulse has dropped by 12 or more bpm, which accounts for the change.

The Karvonen numbers seem about right. My average HR for the Marine Corps Marathon was 145, which would be more than 85% max HR, but 80% according to Karvonen.

I ask only for training purposes, i.e. can i allow my HR to drift to 127 for aerobic runs or continue to try to keep it @115. i'm probably better off running slower, still there are times when i'm forcing myself to stay below x% when I feel like i might be able to inch it up a bit without compromising my training.

IP: Logged

leitnerj
Cool Runner
posted Jan-17-2007 05:27 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for leitnerj   Click Here to Email leitnerj     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
Originally posted by martinjames:
Jessie, JJ, others, what's the view on Karvonen v. percentage of max HR? In my case, it makes a difference. For example, my 70% max HR is 118, my Karvonen equivalent is 133. That's a big jump. The numbers narrow as the % increases, but are still separated by meaningful amounts.

In my opinion (which most probably won't agree with), I believe
both Kharvonen or max heart rate formulas are just as arbitrary.
Neither is tied to anaerobic threshold, which is the more important
quantity. Furthermore, a Kharvonen-based approach would tell
someone with other things equal to run at a higher heart rate if
his/her resting heart rate were higher. So, if a person is in an
overtrained (or just sick) state with a higher resting heart rate,
then this approach would tell that person to run at a higher heart
rate than usual. So, if the desire is to always err on the higher
heart rate side, Kharvonen is the way to go (that nugget is a simple
fact, not an opinion!)

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

IP: Logged

kcy1998
Cool Runner
posted Jan-17-2007 08:01 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for kcy1998     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
Originally posted by jjwaverly42:

He was talking about endurance training--not racing. I called it a ceiling--top of your aerobic zone training.

It was in the January issue of Runners World, page 73:

"If you want to be a runner for life' says Allen "90% of your training should be in your aerobc zone, which is around 75% of your maximum heart rate. That's where you are going to simulate your systems, rather than wearing them down."

Now, it seems from that quote that he's going by %MHR these days and not MAF. Maybe why MAF doesn't work for some is that they are too low in relationship to the 75% or too high.

Has anyone run across any more info on whether or not Mark Allen is still touting MAF training and has changed to a flat 75% MHR?

Any thoughts?

--Jimmy

Daily Jogging Miles
ggggg



Jimmy,
I find it interesting also. What is his reasoning for using 75% of MHR over MAF? I do not even want to venture a guess. Hopefully someone can provide insight for the switch.
kcy

IP: Logged

leitnerj
Cool Runner
posted Jan-17-2007 08:30 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for leitnerj   Click Here to Email leitnerj     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
Originally posted by kcy1998:

Jimmy,
I find it interesting also. What is his reasoning for using 75% of MHR over MAF? I do not even want to venture a guess. Hopefully someone can provide insight for the switch.

I don't think it was a switch or a choice over the MAF equations.
I think it was just a general statement that 75% HRmax will be
an upper bound for most for aerobic training.

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

IP: Logged

All times are Eastern Time (US). > next newest topic | > next oldest topic
Topic is 47 pages:
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47
Post a new topic    
Administrative Options: > Close Topic | > Archive/Move | > Delete Topic

Hop to:  
Powered by Infopop www.infopop.com © 2000
Ultimate Bulletin Board 5.47d

race directors shop my profile
Sponsored By

© 2014 Active Network, LLC and/or its affiliates and licensors. All rights reserved.
About Us | Terms of Use | Copyright Policy | Your Privacy Rights | Support
Cool Running Facebook Facebook | Cool Running Twitter Twitter | Newsletter Subscription | News Feed Subscription | WannaDo
Race Directors | Running Events | Race Results | Running Tips | Pace Calculator | Couch to 5K | Running Forum | Running News