posted Mar-11-2007 03:58 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by aharmer:
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.

---

These are good points and I just want to clarify one thing that
seems to be ambiguously stated in much of the literature (endurance
running literature in general). Indeed if you spend too much time
just below or over the RQ = 1 point (anaerobic threshold), you will
not have enough glycogen to make it 26.2 miles and all you have is
fat left. While it is certainly a problem that without glycogen, you
are pushed down to a point where RQ = .707 (100% - most people
don't even have that at rest), it is, I believe, a bigger problem that
glycogen is *required* to metabolize fat! Hence the fat burning
process is an extremely inefficient one, scrounging for whatever
sugars it can find just to maintain some semblance of motion.
While I never run marathons "all-out" I run them at about 90% effort
generally speaking, and the best I've averaged is about 5 beats
below my AT, which from my last vo2max test corresponds to
around RQ of 0.96 (86% carb/14% fat). This is slightly misleading
because for the first 10 or so miles, I'm running at a lower HR and
hence a lower RQ.

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

IP: Logged

posted Mar-11-2007 04:05 PM               

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?

---

In fact, we've seen many cases, where those at ages in the low 20s
and below and in the last 50s and above have sketchy results without
making modifications. I'm not sure why this is. Before plunking
$250, I would first look to see if you can get it into any free testing
opportunities in your area (these are quite common, sometimes
associated with grants that organizations have received to perform
some type of endurance athlete testing - such as with sports drinks)
and then see if any groups or running/tri clubs in your area might have
some group discounts. I think most people in late 20s to very low
50s, the formula will probably work fine, but a test would certainly
help make sure if you're concerned. Most people want a test to tell
them that they should be operating at higher heart rate, but that's
rarely the case for someone in the age zone I mentioned. For someone
who is directed to a higher heart rate, it would generally imply that they
have tremendously strong aerobic conditioning anyway, so why do
they even need to think about this.

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

IP: Logged

posted Mar-11-2007 04:12 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by aharmer:
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.

---

I'm really a wuss, to be honest with you. I no longer like running
races at any extreme level of effort. I would suspect that I could
average about 105% of AT for a 10 mile race, with the first 3 miles
more like 90-95%. You and Greg were discussing % of max heart
rate for 10 mile performance and once again, I'll say it has absolutely
no relevance. My average HR was 174/177 = 98% of anaerobic
threshold in my last Cherry Blossom 10 mile race and I just pushed
the last couple of miles over AT. I had a lot left in the tank after
that, so that leads me to my assumption above. The fact that I
was at 84% max heart rate was pretty much arbitrary since the
10 miler is a mostly aerobic race.

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

IP: Logged

posted Mar-11-2007 06:11 PM               

When you have time could you post the formula used to determine fat/carb ratio compared to RQ values? I'm familiar with the .78, .85 and 1.0, but not sure how to calculate everything in-between. Thanks!

Adam

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

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

IP: Logged

posted Mar-11-2007 06:51 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by leitnerj:
You and Greg were discussing % of max heart
rate for 10 mile performance and once again, I'll say it has absolutely
no relevance.

---

I wouldn't say percent max has "absolutely no relevance." I'm sure the relative variation in %max hr for 10 mile races is less than absolute bpm, so using %max normalizes one factor. There are other factors of course. I also said that %max isn't good enough and used you as an example since you have a high max and more "useless beats" than most of us, suggesting that using a percent of race pace heart rate for some distance (like %10K heart rate or %marathon heart rate) would be better than %max.

IP: Logged

posted Mar-11-2007 07:42 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by gregw:
I wouldn't say percent max has "absolutely no relevance." I'm sure the relative variation in %max hr for 10 mile races is less than absolute bpm, so using %max normalizes one factor. There are other factors of course. I also said that %max isn't good enough and used you as an example since you have a high max and more "useless beats" than most of us, suggesting that using a percent of race pace heart rate for some distance (like %10K heart rate or %marathon heart rate) would be better than %max.

---

Hey Greg,

I'm not certain that I understand completely what you're saying, but if I do it seems like there would be a shortcoming here as well. Using a percentage of race pace HR for a marathon is difficult because everybody is capable of racing at a different percentage. Some elites can exceed 90% of their max HR for the marathon distance, while many have a difficult time maintaining 80%. Am I on the right page or are you talking about something different?

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

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

IP: Logged

posted Mar-11-2007 07:51 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by aharmer:
Hey Greg,

I'm not certain that I understand completely what you're saying, but if I do it seems like there would be a shortcoming here as well. Using a percentage of race pace HR for a marathon is difficult because everybody is capable of racing at a different percentage. Some elites can exceed 90% of their max HR for the marathon distance, while many have a difficult time maintaining 80%. Am I on the right page or are you talking about something different?

---

By %marathon heart rate I mean heart rate divided by avg heart rate for a marathon. I've averaged 173 bpm for my last two marathons (that I raced). So 105 %MaxMarathonPaceHeartRate is 181 bpm or about what I run for a half marathon. My everyday easy run average about 135-140 bpm or 78-81 % of average marathon heart rate.

Not everybody's run a marathon so you could use a shorter distance and do pretty well (like % of 10K average heart rate). (Jesse, would still be an outlier since he doesn't run short distances very often.)

IP: Logged

posted Mar-11-2007 08:25 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by aharmer:
jesse,

When you have time could you post the formula used to determine fat/carb ratio compared to RQ values? I'm familiar with the .78, .85 and 1.0, but not sure how to calculate everything in-between. Thanks!

Adam

---

Unfortunately, I don't know of a formula (although I wish I did). I
have a table that was copied out of
Lusk, G. "Science of Nutrition," 4th ed., Philadelphia, W.B. Saunders Co,
1928, p. 65.

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

IP: Logged

posted Mar-11-2007 08:26 PM               

My daily training pace is 125HR which is 82.2% of my goal marathon HR or 78.6% of my known half-marathon HR. Looks like we're working on pretty similar ground. You're proposing that people base their daily training paces off of their known marathon or half-marathon HR's right? That eliminates the shortcoming I mentioned earlier, it sounds like a pretty good idea to me. I'm interested to hear from others where their numbers fall to see what kind of range is out there.

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

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

IP: Logged

posted Mar-11-2007 08:37 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by gregw:
I wouldn't say percent max has "absolutely no relevance." I'm sure the relative variation in %max hr for 10 mile races is less than absolute bpm, so using %max normalizes one factor. There are other factors of course. I also said that %max isn't good enough and used you as an example since you have a high max and more "useless beats" than most of us, suggesting that using a percent of race pace heart rate for some distance (like %10K heart rate or %marathon heart rate) would be better than %max.

---

I should have used the phrase "arbitrary relevance," which would be
more accurate. There's probably a good swath of people of similar
fitness who have a nice correlation between max heart rate and
anaerobic threshold, without particularly high heart rates. For them,
it may make sense. For others, I don't think so. If you were to dig
through the numerous posts from the various versions of this thread
and pull out the people that exhibited high max heart rates (i.e., quite
a bit higher than 220-age) that also had vo2max (or similar) tests,
you'd notice that none of them have particularly high anaerobic
thresholds and in fact, many have lower anaerobic thresholds than
people with much lower max heart rates. Given that max heart
doesn't change at all with fitness and anaerobic threshold does and,
in particular, AT changes with one's ability to use fat efficiently, the
max heart rate is a pretty much arbitrary quantity. It probably wouldn't
be too difficult to find a dozen people with max HRs 20 beats lower
than mine that all have about the same AT that I have, although a
max HR-based approach will tell us all to use the same training or
race pace. Given that races all the way down to the one mile are
mostly aerobic, I would contend (i.e., Jesse's opinion, take it or
leave it) that this would apply to virtually all races. For shorter races,
I don't think heart rate is important in general anyway.

Now, to your other part - using %marathon HR, % 10k HR, there's
quite possibly some good logic there.
------------------
MyRunningLog
MyStuff
Low Heart Rate Training FAQ
My marathons and ultras
My races and reports

[This message has been edited by leitnerj (edited Mar-11-2007).]

IP: Logged

posted Mar-12-2007 08:21 AM               

IP: Logged

posted Mar-12-2007 09:27 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by aharmer:
Hi hup,

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

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by leitnerj:
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.

---

Thank you, aharmer & Jesse, for your replies. I pretty much figured that it would be best for me to continue on with the low HR training.

How long would you suggest I carry on with it?

.... and one other question, I have been sticking with a straight 180 - age so far. Do you think it would it be better or worse to bump up to 180 - age + 5/10 bpm?

Finally, I can see my improvement in pace at MAF and that has been encouraging, but I'm itching to train and race! (especially with the good weather we've been having here lately )

Thanks for your advice on this, guys.

hup

IP: Logged

posted Mar-12-2007 10:09 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by misstenacity:
Based on a decent estimate of MHR=195, I set my range to 135-150 (69-76%) on the monitor, and went for a 14 mile out and back. It was easy to keep it in range on the flat parts, I just went easier than usual. But there's a hill about 2 miles before the turnaround, and to keep it below 150 I had to walk 3 times for about a minute each, and when running I was doing "granny" baby-steps. For comparison, that 2+ mile hill was 29 minutes up, and 16 minutes down, flying just to keep the HR around 140. :-)

Overall it was a great run - I felt like I was tired but could have completed the run again. Yay!

---

So, above was my run report from two weeks ago, after having a minor cold slow me down. Last weekend I did another 2 hour MAF run, mostly on trail, which went fine.

YESTERDAY, I went and did the exact same run as two weeks ago to see how I felt, but I went about 1/3 mile farther before turning around.

REPORT: Kept HR between 134-149 with no problem, had to slow way down on the steep uphills but did not have to walk at all. Made original turnaround point 5 minutes earlier than last week (70min vs 75), and did not try to force my HR to be in range on the downhill, so it averaged around 120 even as I was going 7:30 pace or so.

On the flat final section (5 miles), I kept the HR right at 145, and then for the final 5K there are markers on the pavement for each K, so I noted the times of those: 5:20, 5:17, 5:08, 5:08, 5:10. That's between 8:30 and 8:13 pace per mile, easily sustained.

The total time for the run was identical to two weeks ago, but this was 2/3 mile longer, remember.

I'd like to qualify for Boston in a marathon this summer, but based on these times, it sounds like I could do it RIGHT NOW. That is awesome!

Perhaps I should revise my target marathon time.... to 3:20. :-)

Andrea
in Albuquerque

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

IP: Logged

posted Mar-12-2007 11:34 AM               

IP: Logged

posted Mar-12-2007 06:39 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by roy c:
Just a quikie, due to a long term injury ( while not maffing) should I cycle at my running Maf pace ie;131 more something different?
Thanks
Roy

---

BUMP

IP: Logged

posted Mar-12-2007 06:46 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by roy c:
BUMP

---

I'm not sure exactly what the question is, but I would stay at the same HR you were using before.

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

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

IP: Logged

posted Mar-12-2007 07:03 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by gregw:
By %marathon heart rate I mean heart rate divided by avg heart rate for a marathon. I've averaged 173 bpm for my last two marathons (that I raced). So 105 %MaxMarathonPaceHeartRate is 181 bpm or about what I run for a half marathon. My everyday easy run average about 135-140 bpm or 78-81 % of average marathon heart rate.

Not everybody's run a marathon so you could use a shorter distance and do pretty well (like % of 10K average heart rate). (Jesse, would still be an outlier since he doesn't run short distances very often.)

---

Hey Greg,

Here's some of my data based on your idea of calculating training HR's based on known race HR's.

My daily training HR of 125 is 78.6% of my known half-marathon HR, and 82.2% of my intended marathon HR.

I also do one increased intensity run each week (detailed in my blog). Every 6 weeks I increase the intensity of these runs until I'm doing them at intended marathon HR. The first column is the different HR's I'm using. 2nd column is training HR as a percentage of my intended marathon HR, and the final number is training HR as a percentage of known half-marathon HR.

136 82.2% 78.6%
142 89.5% 85.5%
147 93.4% 89.3% (just started this 6-week block)
152 100% 95.6%

Anything jump out at you as unusual or important?

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

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

IP: Logged

posted Mar-12-2007 08:18 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by aharmer:

Anything jump out at you as unusual or important?

---

Not really except that looking at your blog entries from the last week or so, I saw averages from 118 to 123 on your shorter runs, which is 78-81% of your projected marathon average, the same as my 135-140 range I see on my non-long runs.

Your approach is pretty interesting. I'm drawn to the idea of race pace tempo runs (which is what the book on the team oregon site recommends). I'm trying some non-MAF running as well after not being able to convince my body or my real life to get over 60 mpw consistently (which was taking 10+ hours). I introduced a short tempo portion on Thursday at about 10-mile pace and started doing my long runs a little faster. More of a hard/easy approach. I've also spread the mileage over 7 days instead of 6 with 4 days being *very* easy. If you're interested in another HRM geek's experiment, you can look at my blog.

Greg

IP: Logged

posted Mar-12-2007 09:59 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by roy c:
Just a quikie, due to a long term injury ( while not maffing) should I cycle at my running Maf pace ie;131 more something different?
Thanks
Roy

---

Cycling is a different animal in many ways and unless you have
a "fit" problem with your bike, you can handle at lot more without
a problem. I would keep your original MAF pace. I'd be surprised
if you kept exactly at a specific HR target the whole time anyway
unless you keep the same resistance setting the whole time. In
short, there's probably no reason to lower it.

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

[This message has been edited by leitnerj (edited Mar-12-2007).]

IP: Logged

posted Mar-12-2007 10:04 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by hup:

How long would you suggest I carry on with it?

.... and one other question, I have been sticking with a straight 180 - age so far. Do you think it would it be better or worse to bump up to 180 - age + 5/10 bpm?

---

If I were to go with the "what would Jesse do?" or better yet
"what did Jesse do?", the answer would be - you'll know when
you get there! Basically, you continue it until you get sick of it
(which you may be now), when you get into a specific training
period before a race, or when you completely plateau (or even
start to get slower) from the purely low HR runs. I wouldn't change
your MAF heart rate, but try doing some runs where you target a
lower HR. You'll be surprised at how much you can improve things
by developing the low end of your aerobic system.

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

IP: Logged

posted Mar-12-2007 10:09 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by gregw:
I'm drawn to the idea of race pace tempo runs (which is what the book on the team oregon site recommends). I'm trying some non-MAF running as well after not being able to convince my body or my real life to get over 60 mpw consistently (which was taking 10+ hours).

---

One can argue that each marathon I run is another race pace
tempo run - I just run them a bit longer than suggested.

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

IP: Logged

posted Mar-13-2007 08:42 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ad Nihilum:
Can anyone post link to where I can read all about RQ and how it relates to training and VO2max? If I know my VO2max and RQ at various HRs, how can I use that as a training aid? How does it correlate with low HR training?

---

Maffetone's book (Training for Endurance) goes into this from a practical standpoint (rather than academic). He has a textbook (Complementary Sports Medicine) that is more technical. I will send a message to his website and ask them to post the chapter on this topic since it's a common question (not that they would do it ).

IP: Logged

posted Mar-13-2007 08:45 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ad Nihilum:
Can anyone post link to where I can read all about RQ and how it relates to training and VO2max? If I know my VO2max and RQ at various HRs, how can I use that as a training aid? How does it correlate with low HR training?

---

Maffetone's book (Training for Endurance) goes into this from a practical standpoint (rather than academic). He has a textbook (Complementary Sports Medicine) that is more technical. I will send a message to his website and ask them to post the chapter on this topic since it's a common question (not that they would do it ).

IP: Logged

posted Mar-13-2007 03:58 PM               

Age 35, max HR 195. MAF=180-age=145. But I began using HR 140 because I was coming off an injury and wanted to be cautious. My 5K PR of 23:30 didn't match my HM PR of 2:20 or my marathon PR of 4:30. I figured I was a good candidate for low-HR training.

Initially, I was running 12:00-12:30 min/mile @ HR 140 at 25 mpw.

Within 3 months, I could run 10:15 min/mile @ HR 140.

I was averaging 30-40 miles per week plus another 10-20 miles per week of fast-walking. I was strict with not letting my HR wander above 140. I almost always followed the "3-hour no eating before running" rule.

After 5 months, I tried 3 weeks of super-low HR, around 125-133. But I found this actually made me slower. It took about 3 weeks of running at HR 140 to get my pace back to where it was.

During this time I went from running 5 days a week to 7 days a week.

Then in month 6 I tried mixing in some faster work, using an HR range of 140-150 for half my runs. After 3 weeks I made a lot of progress. Looking back, I think the progress was most likely neurological adaptations since I hadn't been running at those higher paces. But it seemed to make me faster across the board. I could run 9:30 at HR 140, 9:00-ish at HR 150, and 10:30 at HR 128. I was thrilled. Weekly mileage touched 50 mpw for a month.

In month 7, for some unknown reason, I crashed. Too much running? Overtraining? Or maybe my aerobic base withered because I spent too much time running faster? No idea. For 3 weeks, my paces and HR were awful, 11:30 min/mile at HR 140. I cut out all faster running, went back to 5 days a week instead of 7 days a week. Got plenty of rest.

In month 8, my paces and HRs rebounded and I improved very slightly to 10:00 min/mile @ HR 140.

This is where I'm at today. I haven't made as much progress as I'd hoped. I wanted to be running 9:00 at HR 140 by now. Looking back over my training logs, most of my progress was made in the first 3 months and since then I've gone up and down and pretty much plateaued. Sometimes if I'm a little tired my paces and HRs will be the same as they were before I started this low-HR training and it's demoralizing; makes me think I've made no progress, but that's not true.

What I'm going to do now is run maybe half my runs in the low-HR range of 130-145, and the other half will be faster, involving all the various HR ranges between 145 and 175, including lactate threshold runs with my HR 170-ish. If after a month or so I haven't seen any progress, or if I seem to be losing my aerobic base, then I'll know I've made a training error. But at this point, my strict low-HR training is going nowhere so I think something has to change. Mixing in faster work feels right.

To end on a positive note: As summer approaches, I feel totally prepared and ready for it. My weekly mileage base is at 40 mpw. My long run is up to 16 miles. I'm healthy with no injuries or nagging aches/pains. I feel primed to enjoy every single day of the summer. I'm grateful for spending the entire winter single-mindedly focused on basebuilding.

IP: Logged

posted Mar-13-2007 04:06 PM               

My Resting RQ is 0.82! So even at rest, I'm burning a lot more sugar than fat, and my body is not effective at using fat as a feul source.

This was received through email, and I have not yet had the official consult with the doctor to review this information. However, he did state the following in the email and I'm not certain what it means for me and what I should do:

"Fat is converted to ketones and used for fuel when liver and muscle glycogen stores are low. Contrary to some other athletes, your body does not like this feul source. The effects of the poor use of ketone fuel has been described in the exact same way that you refer to your symptoms of "crashing": fatigue, heaviness, light-headed and dizzy."

I plan on asking him what I can do with this, but I'm interested in your opinions as well.

Here are some of the other questions I have for him so far:

1.) Can I change my resting RQ?

2.) How does my RQ effect my weight loss goals? I am trying to drop 10 pounds of fat.

3.) Will eating more/less sugar make a real difference?

4.) Should my nutritional breakdown be altered due to my RQ values - i.e: % of CHO, protein, fats for my day to day calorie intake

5.) How can I better my use of ketones as fuel?

I am very inteested in all of your opinions as well!

Shannon

IP: Logged