posted Mar-07-2007 10:54 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by leitnerj:
I think the question came up recently about whether I had runa marathon at MAF. It turns out that I was pacing a friend in amarathon this weekend (report in race reports section) and I ran most of it at MAF (average overall less than MAF) and herewere my splits and avg heart rate for each split:

8:23/137, 8:25/139, 8:37/140, 8:50/139, 8:30/141,
8:13/141, 8:20/142, 8:48/144, 8:28/144, 8:13/144,
8:09/144, 8:12/145, 8:26/148, 8:44/147, 8:47/147,
8:53/147, 8:46/148, 8:46/149, 8:48/149, 8:53/150,
8:45/151, 8:29/159, 8:34/155, 8:40/155, 8:43/155,
8:51/156, 2:28/159
The course was very flat except for about 4 sections, so
it's a good measure of heart rate drift.

---

This is very interesting. Maffetone wrote somewhere that the ideal marathon pace for a flat course would average about 15 seconds per mile faster than MAF pace (I think with the high not going above that level).

IP: Logged

posted Mar-07-2007 07:03 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by DavidD:
This is very interesting. Maffetone wrote somewhere that the ideal marathon pace for a flat course would average about 15 seconds per mile faster than MAF pace (I think with the high not going above that level).

---

That's funny, and if he really said that, it's totally nonsense! My
ideal marathon pace is 1:30 - 2 min/mile faster than MAF pace.
The splits I put out were just for pacing my friend and very easy
pace for me.

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

IP: Logged

posted Mar-08-2007 04:33 PM               

Two days ago I had an RMR and VO2 Max test done. It was very educational and I highly recommend all athletes get this done.

What I found out is that my VO2 Max is above average for my age range (female, 20-29 yr. olds) @ 57 ml/kg/min. So, I definitely have the potential to be a solid endurance athlete. Great news since I enjoy long distance running, however, my Aerobic Base is fairly poor. This has prohibited my running abilities for years. Typically, during what I consider a 'normal' run, my heart rate is consistently around 155-170 bpm. If my aerobic base was stronger, I'd be running at closer to 120-130 bpm. At the rate I currently run, I am constantly crashing and experiencing very poor performance runs - some that I can't even finish (I am almost always feeling very tired, heavy and overall fatigued).

After reading about the Maffetone Training Approach a while ago, I began the training full force. I followed this for about 3 months, and though I did feel better overall, I found that my pace kept getting slower and slower (and never got faster at any point). I got very discouraged and turned away from Maff training.

Now, having had these tests done, I realize that Maffetone training should technically really benefit me. So I have decided to try it one more time.

I am really nervous about having the same experience as the first time. It's been about a year since I last followed this training and I really haven't been able to get back to the same level from before I started Maff last year. Before Maff last year, I was able to run consistenly around an 8:15/8:30 mpm pace, and after nearly a year of working back to it, I can barely maintain a 9:00 mpm pace. So that of course, is another concern.

Does anyone have any experience with this? Or any recommendations I should consider?

Thanks in advance!

-Shannon

Here are the basic of my test results:

Max HR during the test = 191 (yes, this is high, but it's fairly normal for me to reach this)

Peak VO2 = 48.8

Estimated VO2 Max = 57.2

IP: Logged

posted Mar-08-2007 06:09 PM            

I am still gaining speed, but this week starts my first real attempt at peaking in years. I have been doing MAF training exclusively since last May.

Jesse will probably have more questions for you.

------------------
***********
My myspace
My User Profile
Low Heart Rate Training FAQ Because many have asked...

IP: Logged

posted Mar-08-2007 07:01 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by sclark2:
(I originally posted this in the main basic training page, but it seems more appropriate here)

Two days ago I had an RMR and VO2 Max test done. It was very educational and I highly recommend all athletes get this done.

What I found out is that my VO2 Max is above average for my age range (female, 20-29 yr. olds) @ 57 ml/kg/min. So, I definitely have the potential to be a solid endurance athlete. Great news since I enjoy long distance running, however, my Aerobic Base is fairly poor. This has prohibited my running abilities for years. Typically, during what I consider a 'normal' run, my heart rate is consistently around 155-170 bpm. If my aerobic base was stronger, I'd be running at closer to 120-130 bpm. At the rate I currently run, I am constantly crashing and experiencing very poor performance runs - some that I can't even finish (I am almost always feeling very tired, heavy and overall fatigued).

After reading about the Maffetone Training Approach a while ago, I began the training full force. I followed this for about 3 months, and though I did feel better overall, I found that my pace kept getting slower and slower (and never got faster at any point). I got very discouraged and turned away from Maff training.

Now, having had these tests done, I realize that Maffetone training should technically really benefit me. So I have decided to try it one more time.

I am really nervous about having the same experience as the first time. It's been about a year since I last followed this training and I really haven't been able to get back to the same level from before I started Maff last year. Before Maff last year, I was able to run consistenly around an 8:15/8:30 mpm pace, and after nearly a year of working back to it, I can barely maintain a 9:00 mpm pace. So that of course, is another concern.

Does anyone have any experience with this? Or any recommendations I should consider?

Thanks in advance!

-Shannon

Here are the basic of my test results:

Max HR during the test = 191 (yes, this is high, but it's fairly normal for me to reach this)

Peak VO2 = 48.8

Estimated VO2 Max = 57.2

---

Hi sclark,

Could you clarify one point? Before Maf last year you were running 8:15's comfortably. What HR was this at? And today when you run at 9:00 pace what HR is that at?

Is there a specific event you are training for, and if so when?

On your test results did the printout include a column with RQ values? If you're marathon training that number is a valuable tool.

Don't worry about speed...the slower you are forced to go when starting Maff training, the more you need it. Buidling a good aerobic base isn't a 12 week process, it's a gradual process that happens over years. Be patient, you'll reap great rewards. Just ask Jesse who will probably comment here soon.

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

"Pain is temporary. Regret hurts forever."
hrmarathontraining.blogspot.com

IP: Logged

posted Mar-08-2007 07:47 PM               

1. How much downhill running did you get in in your first attempt?

2. Did you always stay strictly below MAF?

3. Did you use 180-age or did you give yourself 5 extra?

4. From your vo2max test, what was your HR at:

RQ = .78
RQ = .85
RQ = 1
VO2max

I didn't see your age buried in there - how old?

Your max HR is actually not very high. Mine is 210 and I'm 37.
That will get us started - I love the opportunity to geek out on this
stuff, as if I don't have enough opportunity for that at work.

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

IP: Logged

posted Mar-09-2007 01:25 AM               

Short bio - running since 1989, training since about 95ish? First marathon in 96 (3:50), have run 15 since then, going 3:19 in 1999, 2003, 2004, and 3:20 in 2002 and 2003. My last two marathons have been beset with bothersome foot injuries and some other various hurts, in those I've gone 3:33, 3:32. After CIM this past Dec, I decided to shut it down to try to heal up my feet and a grouchy hip. I took December off, then started back up trying to adhere to the low heart rate philosophy. I have stuck with it since the first of the year and have seen my pace go from 10:45ish (average .... 12:00 at the end of 4-6 milers) to about 9:45 average (about 10:30 at the end of 6 milers).
I am planning on staying with the low heart rate for another 2 weeks, then want to add some faster running. I am currently running 35 miles/week, with 2-4 miles downhill on the treadmill -4%)
All that to ask ..... what do the experts suggest I do for my "comeback" to training? My loose plan is to start with strides once or twice a week, plus a tempo run (as close to 20 minutes as I can get to start)

I appreciate any and all input/suggestions.

I should add that I am planning on running a half in early May (running as strongly as I can, but not approaching a PR or anything)

------------------
hup

IP: Logged

posted Mar-09-2007 07:40 AM               

If you aren't looking for a PR in your half I would continue with the Maff training for a longer period. Continuing with Maff for a longer period will continue to improve your base and I'm not sure what faster running will do for you at this point. Of course this is coming from somebody who enjoys the slow aspect of Maffing so take what I say with a grain of salt. You have to be happy with what you're doing or why do it at all right? If the slow running isn't agonizing for you I'd stick with it for as long as possible, even if that's many months.

There's your first opinion, I'm sure you'll get many others to make your decision really easy! lol

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

"Pain is temporary. Regret hurts forever."
hrmarathontraining.blogspot.com

IP: Logged

posted Mar-09-2007 10:41 AM               

Aharmer - Before Maff last year, I was running between 8:15 and 8:30 mpm at a heart around 160-170 on average. Unforutantely, I lost all of my coolrunning logs during that crash that happened a while ago, so I don't have any exacts to refer to. I have to be honest, I was never really "comfortable" during any point of my running. I've been running for nearly 5 years and have experienced some sort of discomfort about 90% of the time.

My HR today, running around a 9:00 mpm pace, really isn't any different - steady at about 160-170 bpm. I am not signed up for any one particular race at the moment. I live in Philadelphia and intend to do the Broad Street Run in May (10 miles - this will be my second time doing this race), then the Philadelphia Distance Run in the Fall (half marathon), and ideally, run my first marathon in November.

My test did report RQ values (I will list them below) - I'm not familiar with this - why is it important?

Leitnerj - I am a 23 year old female. I really didn't do much downhill running the first time I tried Maffetone. I almost always ran around a college campus in my neighborhood that has a "nature trail" that loops the perimeter of the campus. It has some uphill and downhill points, but nothing drastic. For the first week, it was very difficult to stay under Maff HR - I finally got it down the second week and was able to keep it there about 90% of the time - it always went up when I tried to run uphill, and I would end up having to walk every time.

I used the formula of 180 minus my age, but then I added 5.

In regards to HR, VO2 max, and RQ values, I don't see anything regarding the specifc numbers you listed (.78, .85, 1) but maybe this will help:

At minute 5:20:
VO2 = 35.3
RQ = 0.85

At minute 6:36:
VO2 = 45.9
RQ = 0.98

At minute 7:26:
VO2 = 48.8
RQ = 1.09

Thanks again to all three of you - I really appreciate the help!

Shannon

IP: Logged

posted Mar-09-2007 12:57 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by leitnerj:
Ok, here's my quick list of Q's to sclark:

1. How much downhill running did you get in in your first attempt?

2. Did you always stay strictly below MAF?

3. Did you use 180-age or did you give yourself 5 extra?

4. From your vo2max test, what was your HR at:

RQ = .78
RQ = .85
RQ = 1
VO2max

I didn't see your age buried in there - how old?

Your max HR is actually not very high. Mine is 210 and I'm 37.
That will get us started - I love the opportunity to geek out on this
stuff, as if I don't have enough opportunity for that at work.

---

These are great questions. Also, what is the resting RQ? (The RQ tells you how much fat and how much sugar you're buring at certain heart rates.) I've also had the experience of slowing down during an MAF base buidling period several years ago, and I found something in Maffetone's book saying that could indicate another problem (nutritional need, stress/cortisol problem, etc.). With some help I finally figured it out and the next MAF test (about a month later) started getting faster at the same hr, and continued getting faster for the next 6 or 7 months until my race season started and I hit a natural plateau.

IP: Logged

posted Mar-09-2007 01:05 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by sclark2:
willamona - thank you for the reply! it's always very encouraging to hear other's experiences and the success they've had. =)

In regards to HR, VO2 max, and RQ values, I don't see anything regarding the specifc numbers you listed (.78, .85, 1) but maybe this will help:

At minute 5:20:
VO2 = 35.3
RQ = 0.85

At minute 6:36:
VO2 = 45.9
RQ = 0.98

At minute 7:26:
VO2 = 48.8
RQ = 1.09

Thanks again to all three of you - I really appreciate the help!

Shannon

---

These numbers are important, but the HR is missing. You should have a colum that lists HR if you're reading from the typical printout you got from the test.

The nice thing about RQ is relating it to HR. This way you can take the information from the physiology lab onto the road. This also should relate to the MAF, max aerobic HR and the MAF test, or other tests you can do yourself.

IP: Logged

posted Mar-09-2007 01:27 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by DavidD:

These numbers are important, but the HR is missing. You should have a colum that lists HR if you're reading from the typical printout you got from the test.

The nice thing about RQ is relating it to HR. This way you can take the information from the physiology lab onto the road. This also should relate to the MAF, max aerobic HR and the MAF test, or other tests you can do yourself.

---

Sorry about that, I meant to include the HR:

At minute 5:20:
VO2 = 35.3
RQ = 0.85
HR = 128

At minute 6:36:
VO2 = 45.9
RQ = 0.98
HR = 140

At minute 7:26:
VO2 = 48.8
RQ = 1.09
HR = 165

The strange thing is that the HR's listed do not match what I recall seeing during the test. According to the test, I peaked at minute 7:26 @ a HR of 165 - however, I disticnlty remember seeing my HR @ 190 before the test finished.

**I have scheduled a consult with the doctor to reivew my results in detail.

Shannon

IP: Logged

posted Mar-09-2007 03:51 PM               

As David mentioned, RQ value represents the proportion of fat vs carbs your body is burning. At lower intensities your body burns a higher percentage of fat, and that ratio turns more heavily to carbs as you jack up the intensity. There is a point that you are burning almost exclusively carbs, and that is the point where the RQ value reaches 1.0. So why is this important for marathon training? The average person (and this is quite a leap, lumping all runners into an average) burns approximately 100 calories per mile. That same average person is able to store approximately 2000 calories worth of glycogen in their muscles, blood and liver. This means that if you are running at an intensity which requires your body to burn almost exclusively carbs (RQ of 1.0 or greater), you will run out of glycogen somewhere around 20 miles. This is also known as hitting the wall, and it really sucks. At that point you are reduced to running at a speed that can rely primarily on slow burning fat. That's why you have to slow down so much, it has nothing to do with being tough or not.

So with RQ values in hand you have a valuable tool to begin marathon training. In a marathon most people will have to run at an average HR that keeps them slightly below their RQ value of 1.0. Your corresponding HR is about 140-142 if I remember correctly. At this point you would not expect to be able to maintain an intensity above about 130-135 for the marathon distance. Remember this is my opinion, you might have personal data that proves me wrong. Your current pace at 130-135 should be close to what you could handle for a marathon. If you take that number and multiply it by about 94%, that is pretty close to the pace you could handle for a half-marathon.

The good news is that with proper training you can push that value up (make it faster), allowing you to maintain a higher intensity for the marathon distance. I'm sure others will chime in with much more information but there's one piece to consider. Best of luck!

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

"Pain is temporary. Regret hurts forever."
hrmarathontraining.blogspot.com

IP: Logged

posted Mar-09-2007 03:52 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by sclark2:
Sorry about that, I meant to include the HR:
At minute 5:20:
VO2 = 35.3
RQ = 0.85
HR = 128
At minute 6:36:
VO2 = 45.9
RQ = 0.98
HR = 140
At minute 7:26:
VO2 = 48.8
RQ = 1.09
HR = 165

The strange thing is that the HR's listed do not match what I recall seeing during the test. According to the test, I peaked at minute 7:26 @ a HR of 165 - however, I disticnlty remember seeing my HR @ 190 before the test finished.

**I have scheduled a consult with the doctor to reivew my results in detail.

Shannon

---

I hope it's a doc who knows what these numbers mean. If they're correct, it explains your problem. You're buring almost all sugar and very little fat at 140 HR. Even at 128 heart rate (probably a slow jog for you), your sugar:fat ratio is 50:50. That's not good if you want to build endurance. I wonder what your RQ is at rest?

IP: Logged

posted Mar-09-2007 03:54 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by sclark2:
Sorry about that, I meant to include the HR:
At minute 5:20:
VO2 = 35.3
RQ = 0.85
HR = 128
At minute 6:36:
VO2 = 45.9
RQ = 0.98
HR = 140
At minute 7:26:
VO2 = 48.8
RQ = 1.09
HR = 165

The strange thing is that the HR's listed do not match what I recall seeing during the test. According to the test, I peaked at minute 7:26 @ a HR of 165 - however, I disticnlty remember seeing my HR @ 190 before the test finished.

**I have scheduled a consult with the doctor to reivew my results in detail.

Shannon

---

I hope it's a doc who knows what these numbers mean. If they're correct, it explains your problem. You're buring almost all sugar and very little fat at 140 HR. Even at 128 heart rate (probably a slow jog for you), your sugar:fat ratio is 50:50. That's not good if you want to build endurance. I wonder what your RQ is at rest?

IP: Logged

posted Mar-09-2007 03:56 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by sclark2:
Sorry about that, I meant to include the HR:
At minute 5:20:
VO2 = 35.3
RQ = 0.85
HR = 128
At minute 6:36:
VO2 = 45.9
RQ = 0.98
HR = 140
At minute 7:26:
VO2 = 48.8
RQ = 1.09
HR = 165

The strange thing is that the HR's listed do not match what I recall seeing during the test. According to the test, I peaked at minute 7:26 @ a HR of 165 - however, I disticnlty remember seeing my HR @ 190 before the test finished.

**I have scheduled a consult with the doctor to reivew my results in detail.

Shannon

---

I hope it's a doc who knows what these numbers mean. If they're correct, it explains your problem. You're buring almost all sugar and very little fat at 140 HR. Even at 128 heart rate (probably a slow jog for you), your sugar:fat ratio is 50:50. That's not good if you want to build endurance. I wonder what your RQ is at rest?

IP: Logged

posted Mar-09-2007 04:31 PM            

I've thought about plunking down my $250 to have my VO2max tested to give me more precise HR range to train in. Worth it?

IP: Logged

posted Mar-09-2007 04:52 PM               

The person I am meeting with is a legitimate doctor in the field, so I am sure he will have his own expertise to lay on me.

The technician who performed the test seemed very knowledgable in her own right, and mentioned similiar things as a lot of you. According to her, I have great potential as an endurance athlete with a VO2 max listed as "above average" for my gender and age range. However, my poor aerobic base is quite disturbing.

DavidD - you are exactly correct - one of the information sheets she gave me showed a graph of my fat:carbs ratio throughout the test. And even when I was running at my "aerobic base" my ratio was almost exactly 50:50 (technically, it was more carbs than fat). When I was running in "AT" it was less than 5% fat - and I know for a fact that 99% of my runs are within "AT" (definitely over 140 bpm).

Unfortunately, I can only attribute this tio my own poor training methods for the past five years. The mentality was always push, push, push - faster, faster, faster - and to just tough it out.

I cannot find anything that states my resting RQ, but I would be curious to see that as well.

I'm looking forward to additional responses - thank you!

Shannon

IP: Logged

posted Mar-09-2007 05:54 PM               

Good point on the Maff formula. I'm a huge advocate of low HR base building but not as sold on the Maffetone formula. Many including Jesse don't like to use max HR as a measurement but I think it has some merit. Here's my reasoning, I'd like to hear other thoughts.

When you compare mere mortals (us) versus elites at the marathon distance, they are able to maintain a higher intensity for the distance. The top elites can maintain 90%+ of their max HR for the distance. We know that we don't have the genetics to be elite, so our mission is to perform as close to our genetic potential as possible. In a marathon we strive to maintain as high a percentage of our max HR as possible, even if we don't always think of it that way. The higher % of your max HR you can run at and be below 1.0 RQ, the closer you will be to your genetic potential right?

If this is true, then basing your training off of a percentage of your max HR shouldn't be a bad thing. When it is difficult to pinpoint measurements such as aerobic threshold, anaerobic threshold, lactate threshold, etc., your max HR is always a fixed number to work from. Well, closer to fixed than any other measurement. I might be completely off base here, what do you guys think?

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

"Pain is temporary. Regret hurts forever."
hrmarathontraining.blogspot.com

IP: Logged

posted Mar-09-2007 07:18 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by aharmer:

If this is true, then basing your training off of a percentage of your max HR shouldn't be a bad thing. When it is difficult to pinpoint measurements such as aerobic threshold, anaerobic threshold, lactate threshold, etc., your max HR is always a fixed number to work from. Well, closer to fixed than any other measurement. I might be completely off base here, what do you guys think?

---

I think you're right. While not perfect by any stretch, using a percentage does serve to normalize, to a degree, what is a substantial variable between people -- max hr.

There's still a substantial amount of variation even with % max hr, however. Enough to make a big difference in training HR. For instance, Jesse and I both ran Cherry Blossom last year and are pretty close in age (1 or 2 years apart). He averaged 174 bpm (or 174/210 = 83% max) and I averaged 183 bpm (or 183/200 =91.5% max). (And I was ~ 1 min/mi slower!).

Now you refer to max hr is "fixed," which is true, but you still have to measure it or suffer from the 10-12 bpm std deviation in the error of the 220-age formula. What I wonder is if you're going to bother figuring out you max hr, why not use avg race heart rate for a race like a 5 or 10K? People use pace guides like 5K + 2 min/mi or 10K + 90 sec/mi. How about %10K HR? This would normalize out a lot of the variance between people. Even better for our purposes would probably be %marathon HR, but that's a hell of a test to ask for!

[This message has been edited by gregw (edited Mar-09-2007).]

IP: Logged

posted Mar-09-2007 08:16 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by gregw:
I think you're right. While not perfect by any stretch, using a percentage does serve to normalize, to a degree, what is a substantial variable between people -- max hr.

There's still a substantial amount of variation even with % max hr, however. Enough to make a big difference in training HR. For instance, Jesse and I both ran Cherry Blossom last year and are pretty close in age (1 or 2 years apart). He averaged 174 bpm (or 174/210 = 83% max) and I averaged 183 bpm (or 183/200 =91.5% max). (And I was ~ 1 min/mi slower!).

Now you refer to max hr is "fixed," which is true, but you still have to measure it or suffer from the 10-12 bpm std deviation in the error of the 220-age formula. What I wonder is if you're going to bother figuring out you max hr, why not use avg race heart rate for a race like a 5 or 10K? People use pace guides like 5K + 2 min/mi or 10K + 90 sec/mi. How about %10K HR? This would normalize out a lot of the variance between people. Even better for our purposes would probably be %marathon HR, but that's a hell of a test to ask for!

[This message has been edited by gregw (edited Mar-09-2007).]

---

Great points Greg, this is the stuff I love to "geek out on" as Jesse would say. I can't remember your current PR's at different distances but I assume at 91% you ran that 10M close to all-out right? I know Jesse routinely runs races at less than 100% effort, please chime in here Jesse, what % Hr do you think you could support for 10M in an all-out effort? I bet he'll tell us it's somewhere around the 90-93% area just like you. I know I'm at around 90% for a half-marathon so I'm right in the same ballpark as you.

You're absolutely right about the max HR deviation, I was going under the assumption that we measured using an all-out running test to come up with max HR. You're right that using a specific % of a certain race pace is much more accurate than adding or subtracting minutes. Saying somebody should run 1:30 slower than their 10k pace is a bit crazy. You might run 4:40 pace and I might run 11:00 pace. If you figure out the corresponding percentages they're worlds apart.

I've always used half-marathon pace in seconds divided by about 0.95 for marathon pace. If you go by HR I believe it's pretty similar. In a marathon you should be able to support about 95% of the HR that you can in a half-marathon. How do your stats stack up to these?

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

"Pain is temporary. Regret hurts forever."
hrmarathontraining.blogspot.com

IP: Logged

posted Mar-09-2007 08:58 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by aharmer:

I've always used half-marathon pace in seconds divided by about 0.95 for marathon pace. If you go by HR I believe it's pretty similar. In a marathon you should be able to support about 95% of the HR that you can in a half-marathon. How do your stats stack up to these?

---

My max is 200 (makes the math convenient)

I've done two all-out half marathons (180 and 182 bpm) and four all-out marathons (172, 172, 173, and 173). 172.5/181 = 95.3%, so I'd say 95% works pretty well for my heart rate. It's not close for pace, however. My half PR is 7:35 min/mi. It was set 2 weeks after my full PR of 8:31 min/mi. 7:35 / 0.95 = 7:59 min/mi. I take it as a sign I have room for improvement

IP: Logged

posted Mar-11-2007 10:42 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Harper:
I'm curious as to what leitnerj will say about sclark2's VO2max test. As was pointed out, her RQ=1.0 HR was 140. That is well below the 180-23=157 MAF formula. This would indicate that she's not in good aerobic conditioning. Further, if she followed the 180-23=157 guideline, her HR would be too high. Since her max HR is 191 and her age is 23, she seems like she would be a normal candidate for the 180 MAF formula, yet...

I've thought about plunking down my $250 to have my VO2max tested to give me more precise HR range to train in. Worth it?

---

The MAF 180 Formula is not 180 - age. There is another step to the formula (the +5, 0, -5, -10 beats). And, the MAF aerobic max heart rate has nothing to do with V02 max.

I think the treadmill tests are great IF they include all the RQs, associated HRs and it's done by good people with good equipment. But the MAF test comes from lots of data from Maffetone who did the lab tests for many years, and it seems to correlate well from all I've read and the tests I've done. $250 seems cheap. What are others paying?

IP: Logged

posted Mar-11-2007 03:44 PM               

MAF rates:
80-85% anaerobic threshold (the first heart rate where RQ=1)

or

HR between RQ = .78 (75% fat burn) and RQ = .85 (50% fat burn)

So, for you, strict following of Maffetone's age-based formula
(ignoring the +5s and -5s), would give a training HR of 157.
Ouch! You're anaerobic at that point. You won't train yourself
to burn fat at that heart rate or even 20 beats below! Makes me
wonder if your data are bad, if this is a characteristic of people
on the young end of the spectrum, or you just need to spend
some time at very low HRs to get into a fat-burning mode. I suspect
the answer is the third, because clearly you have identified for
yourself that this is something you need to work on. From my
first formula above, it will put you at a training heart rate between
112 and 120! For the second approach, you will max out at 128.
I can imagine that this will really be painfully slow for you. It may
be a case where you start with something a little bit higher and
see if you can work your way down over time.

Incidentally, this is a great example of a case where you would
absolutely not want to use % of max heart rate for a training zone.
Given that there are apparently 50 beats between your AT and
your max heart rate, your max heart rate is almost entirely
irrelevant for any type of endurance training.

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

IP: Logged

posted Mar-11-2007 03:47 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by hup:
After months of lurking in this thread, I'm finally going to "come out".

Short bio - running since 1989, training since about 95ish? First marathon in 96 (3:50), have run 15 since then, going 3:19 in 1999, 2003, 2004, and 3:20 in 2002 and 2003. My last two marathons have been beset with bothersome foot injuries and some other various hurts, in those I've gone 3:33, 3:32. After CIM this past Dec, I decided to shut it down to try to heal up my feet and a grouchy hip. I took December off, then started back up trying to adhere to the low heart rate philosophy. I have stuck with it since the first of the year and have seen my pace go from 10:45ish (average .... 12:00 at the end of 4-6 milers) to about 9:45 average (about 10:30 at the end of 6 milers).
I am planning on staying with the low heart rate for another 2 weeks, then want to add some faster running. I am currently running 35 miles/week, with 2-4 miles downhill on the treadmill -4%)
All that to ask ..... what do the experts suggest I do for my "comeback" to training? My loose plan is to start with strides once or twice a week, plus a tempo run (as close to 20 minutes as I can get to start)

I appreciate any and all input/suggestions.

I should add that I am planning on running a half in early May (running as strongly as I can, but not approaching a PR or anything)

---

Hey hup! Glad to see you lurking about here! I agree with aharmer -
see if you can stick it out for a bit longer - it really can pay off.
Especially since you're still trying to flush some injuries out. It
will really help to strengthen your legs without the brutal punishment.
Sprinkling in a half at a modestly high (over MAF) effort, shouldn't
have any significant negative effect and it will give you a feel for
how racing feels after going through some rounds of MAFing.

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

IP: Logged