posted Mar-13-2007 04:14 PM               

There are hidden sugars in many foods like bread, but if you minimize how much you eat them, your sugar ingestion will be relatively low.

IP: Logged

posted Mar-13-2007 10:25 PM            

Stats
Male, 44 years of age
5’ 10” 162 pounds
MAF 141=180-44+5(no injuries during three months of running and resistance training)

Ramble
I used to run cross country in high school, but spent the next 25 years smoking, going to school and working behind various desks. I am naturally skinny so my lack of fitness did not cry out. Deciding it was time for change, three years ago, I quit smoking, started eating better and began a more active lifestyle that involved squash, biking, and whatnot.

I have been taking my fitness more seriously for the last three months. I have built up to 15 mpw running four days a week. I use a treadmill on incline 2 between 9:00 and 10:00. When I run outside I try and keep it under 10:00. I usually try and do one of the miles each run at a slightly faster pace:8:30 or so.

I have also been lifting weights three to four days a week after/before most runs. In addition to eating healthy foods, I have been taking about 50 grams of Whey protein a day to fuel my tearing down/rebuilding. In the last three months my weight went from 170 to 162, and have not had any injuries.

My thinking was that since I had been so sedentary for so many years I needed to spend three month or so to build up a general level of muscle, bone density and tendon capacity in addition to try and get my running stride back before I started running greater distances or having a more goal driven training plan

Goal
My plans are to run a 10k in the fall at race pace. I have no idea what race pace might be for me.

I am wondering if MAF suit somebody at my current fitness level?

I went out tonight and did a 5 mile run at MAF (under 141). I am not sure how valid the data is though, I was running through unknown neighborhoods and came upon massive hills and was beated back by significant wind.

dist time av heart rate
mile 1 10:48 130
mile 2 12:02 135
mile 3 12:04 136
mile 4 12:12 138
mile 5 11:47 138

I guess it would be better to go to an oval for these tests. If this data is not statistically valuable I can do that.

thoughts?

IP: Logged

posted Mar-14-2007 08:48 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by futura:
MAF 141=180-44+5(no injuries during three months of running and resistance training)

I went out tonight and did a 5 mile run at MAF (under 141). I am not sure how valid the data is though, I was running through unknown neighborhoods and came upon massive hills and was beated back by significant wind.

dist time av heart rate
mile 1 10:48 130
mile 2 12:02 135
mile 3 12:04 136
mile 4 12:12 138
mile 5 11:47 138

---

First, according to the 180 formula, you should probably be at zero rather than +5 (possibly -5), but certainly not +5. I think that pertains to a competitive athlete, uninjured with little sickness and improving race performances.

Second, the MAF test should be done on a track. Three miles is good since you're not running that much. But these numbers generally look good for a starting point.

Just my opinion...

IP: Logged

posted Mar-14-2007 09:04 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by sclark2:

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?

Shannon

---

1. Training and diet can significantly change and improve the RQ. This applies to the resting RQ all the way to higher training intensities.

2. RQ reflects fat burning, so if you burn more fat (at rest, while you're sleeping, driving, running, etc.) you will store less fat. Most people with lower RQs are leaner, and have more endurance (and generally are healthier).

3. Eating sugar can raise your RQ (so you'll burn less fat). Depending on your metabolism, and how sensitive you are, this can really be a key to improving things.

4. Hard to say exactly what you need to eat. Certainly, I'd reduce or eliminate all high glycemic carbs to start. (Check out Maffetone's Two Week Test).

5. Ketones -- keep it simple. This discussion is very interesting but not practical. Just think of burning two fuels, fat and sugar, and you want to increase fat burning as much as possible. (You're not going to go into a metabolic state called 'ketosis' with a healthy low glycemic diet, so keep away from that discussion as it just causes stress...which raises RQ )

IP: Logged

posted Mar-14-2007 04:57 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ad Nihilum:

> snip <

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.

---

A lot of stuff going on there! There's no doubt that at some point
you have to change things around. You didn't talk about how much
downhill time you were getting. I think the real issue with anyone
in terms of progress is whether always running at a strictly slow pace
basically shuts down running economy (and I think it does for many
people). I don't think the key is doing anaerobic stuff, but it is to get
some good runs in with high turnover. Change things around - find
what you're comfortable with and maybe sprinkle in several races.

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

IP: Logged

posted Mar-14-2007 05:23 PM               

I do one segment a week of slightly higher and it seems to be working well for me. The mistake (in my opinion) that many people make is when they do higher HR work it's so intense that it damages the fragile aerobic base that they've worked to build. Going out and doing lactate threshold workouts and/or speed intervals isn't what I'm talking about. They'll hurt your base if you're not well established.

You could try moving your HR up by 10% for one run per week, equalling about 10% of your mileage and see it that kickstarts anything. Again, just my opinion, no published data behind it. Good luck!

One last thought, I don't remember seeing your max HR listed. Have you tested it? My max HR is much lower than avg so if I stuck with regular Maff formulas I'd be training too intensely. Just another thought to consider.

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

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

IP: Logged

posted Mar-14-2007 08:56 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by DavidD:
First, according to the 180 formula, you should probably be at zero rather than +5 (possibly -5), but certainly not +5. I think that pertains to a competitive athlete, uninjured with little sickness and improving race performances.

Second, the MAF test should be done on a track. Three miles is good since you're not running that much. But these numbers generally look good for a starting point.

Just my opinion...

---

Thanks for the feedback.

I read more on how important it is to ensure you are in the aerobic zone and coupled with your impartial advice I lowered my MAF rate to 136 and went out to a track after work.

180-44= 136

After a lap of walking and another at a slow jog here are my new numbers.

Mile 1 11:29 131
Mile 2 11:50 132
Mile 3 12:09 133
Mile 4 12:12 133
Mile 5 12:27 133

Now I'll try and build up my mpw and see what happens over time to my aerobic fitness.

I sure do like how I feel after these MAF runs: painfree and refreshed. It makes me think I can add miles a little quicker than the 10-15% increase I was planning. I might try a longer run than usual this weekend.

It was almost a surreal experience today: I was running at a very slow pace on an tartan oval in an empty stadium but within earshot a large crowd was cheering over a rugby game. I of course pretended they were cheering on my 12 minute miles.

[This message has been edited by futura (edited Mar-14-2007).]

IP: Logged

posted Mar-15-2007 08:12 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by aharmer:
One last thought, I don't remember seeing your max HR listed. Have you tested it? My max HR is much lower than avg so if I stuck with regular Maff formulas I'd be training too intensely.

---

I'm surprised to see so much serious talk about max HR. It does not play a role in MAF training. And I don't see its role in any other training issues. Max HR is misleading and relatively subjective. Maybe it's just traditional? The old 220 formula (not really scientific) used max HR (indirectly).
(Guess I'm due to get some strong comments on my strong statements... )

IP: Logged

posted Mar-15-2007 11:09 AM               

I live in Chicago. Very little downhill running. There are 30 foot hills here. At most it takes a minute to run down.

aharmer wrote
Piggybacking off of Jesse a bit...some higher turnover stuff is good, you might also some SLIGHTLY higher HR stuff.

I do one segment a week of slightly higher and it seems to be working well for me. The mistake (in my opinion) that many people make is when they do higher HR work it's so intense that it damages the fragile aerobic base that they've worked to build. Going out and doing lactate threshold workouts and/or speed intervals isn't what I'm talking about. They'll hurt your base if you're not well established.

You could try moving your HR up by 10% for one run per week, equalling about 10% of your mileage and see it that kickstarts anything. Again, just my opinion, no published data behind it. Good luck!

One last thought, I don't remember seeing your max HR listed. Have you tested it? My max HR is much lower than avg so if I stuck with regular Maff formulas I'd be training too intensely. Just another thought to consider.

Age: 35
Max HR: 195
I've been using 180-35-5=140.

Based on lack of significant progress in 5 months, something has to change. Slowing down doesn't seem like the thing to do. So I'm left with speeding up. The real questions, then, are:

How much time do I spend in higher HR ranges?
How much higher should these new HR ranges be?

If you look at Hadd's training plan, he pretty much covers all HR ranges between MAF and the lactate threshold. So that's kind of my idea. I figure I'll spend about 1/3rd of my training time in various higher HR ranges. I'll sprinkle in some fast-finishes on some runs and also some strides.

Also, I think I'm going to upgrade myself from using 180-age-5 to 180-age (145 instead of 140). It's been 8 months and my aerobic base has been established, so it seems OK to do this.

What's interesting is that if I follow Stu Mittleman's guidelines on the MAP and MEP zones, then I'd set my lower MAP zone to be 125-139 and my higher MEP zone to be 140-150. That is to say, even at HR 150 (which is MAF+5), my breathing and focus feel the same. I don't notice "forced exhalation of air" etc until 155+. These are subjective, of course, and it's easy to make errors trying to judge these things. On one hand, I can argue that maybe my self-set value of 140 is too low; on the other hand, I can argue that 145 or 150 is too high and I'm misjudging these sensations because I want to run faster.

Since I still plan on spending the majority of my time beneath the MAF ceiling, I don't see how this will damage my aerobic base; are they really that fragile? If they are that fragile, how does one prepare to race a marathon? I don't believe running at MAF paces such as 10:00 min/mile will fully prepare anyone to handle running at 8:00 min/mile. There's a mind-muscle connection that has to be established and all that. If you want to run efficiently at a given (fast) pace, you have to practice running at that pace. Right? However, if after a month, I see my performance decline across the board, then I'll know I've made a training error.... again...

On a side note, earlier this weekend I ran an hour at HR 155, then I ran 3.1 miles at avg HR 174. I wanted to get a feel for where my lactate threshold was. It feels like it was around 170-173. At this pace (~8:00 min/mile) I felt like I could run for an hour. I actually ran a full 5K and matched my previous PR of 24:00. However, 2 years ago when I set that 5K PR, I thought I was going to die: major burn from oxygen debt in lungs and legs. But this time, it was no problem. 170/195 = 87% of my max HR, which seems high for a lactate threshold. But 85% of 195 = 166, and that HR felt easy. I didn't feel any oxygen debt until about 177. I always thought that the lactate threshold was where you first started to feel oxygen debt. Am I wrong? In any case, it certainly felt as though I could hold the HR of 170 for an hour.

[This message has been edited by Ad Nihilum (edited Mar-15-2007).]

IP: Logged

posted Mar-15-2007 11:43 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ad Nihilum:
Based on lack of significant progress in 5 months, something has to change. Slowing down doesn't seem like the thing to do. So I'm left with speeding up.

---

Wow...you're saying that only training affects your progress or lack of? There are other significant issues to address before giving up/speeding up -- diet, nutrition, training volume (stress), work hours (stress), family/social things (stress), ... did I mention stress?

IP: Logged

posted Mar-15-2007 12:06 PM               

I hear ya regarding max HR. However, the comment you referenced is very relative to Maf training. If your max HR is unusually low like mine, you cannot follow the Maf formula. If I followed the Maf formula to the letter I would do all of my training at either 149 or 154 depending on whether I added 5 or 10 beats (can't remember the exact scenarios for adding beats, but I would add the maximum). My max HR is 176 so this would have me doing my daily basebuilding at 82-85% of my max HR. Probably not what I should be doing. For that reason I believe knowing your true max HR is fairly important.

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

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

IP: Logged

posted Mar-15-2007 12:15 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by DavidD:
I'm surprised to see so much serious talk about max HR. It does not play a role in MAF training. And I don't see its role in any other training issues. Max HR is misleading and relatively subjective. Maybe it's just traditional? The old 220 formula (not really scientific) used max HR (indirectly).
(Guess I'm due to get some strong comments on my strong statements... )

---

David,

I hear ya regarding max HR. However, my previous post definitely relates to Maf training. If your max HR unusually low such as mine, the Maf formula cannot be used. By the strict Maf formula I would be training at either 149 or 154 (can't remember the scenarios for adding beats but I add the maximum). With my max HR of 176, I would be doing my daily basebuilding training at between 82-85% of max HR. Not where I want to be. That's the reason I asked about max HR.

I actually believe that max HR can be a useful number in certain scenarios. Sometimes it's the only fixed variable (within reason) and that can be helpful, but I understand where you're coming from.

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

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

IP: Logged

posted Mar-15-2007 12:35 PM               

I have no job stress, family stress or otherwise. I'm single, live alone, have a 5-minute walk to work and never work late. I have an impeccable diet, based largely on vegetables, low in animals fats, high in good fats. I eat little sugar. I've lost about 5 lbs of fat over the last 8 months; I never go hungry. I would say I'm eating enough calories and getting ample nutrition. In a given week I probably eat over 20 different kinds of vegetables. I sleep 8 hours a night, more if I need. I have all the free time I need. Usually my biggest stress of the day is deciding which route I want to take when I run. "Hmm, do I feel like going north or south?"

In late autumn, I tried super low HR (MAF-15 to MAF-20). After 3 weeks of this, I found that I was getting slower. Upon resuming my usual MAF-5=140 HR, it took several weeks for my usual pace to return. (age=35, max HR=195)

Currently I'm training about 40 mpw with long runs every 2 weeks. I usually don't make "weekly plans" but try to listen to my body. Today, for example, I will run anywhere from 30 mins to 90 minutes depending on how my body feels when I get out there. I feel rested and definitely not over-trained.

Since slowing down isn't the answer, and staying the same is going nowhere, and given that my diet and rest and stress levels are about as good as anyone can do on one's own, I think I need to mix it up with higher HR training.

As I wrote before, there was a brief period where I trained with higher HRs, using a new zone of 140-150 based on Stu Mittleman's book. In the first 3 weeks, I actually saw substantial improvement in paces across all HR ranges. I was ecstatic. Then I crashed into what I'm calling my Winter Funk. For about 3 weeks my paces and HRs were awful; it was as if all my progress had been erased. I'm not entirely certain was caused the Winter Funk. I suspect it may have been overtraining since for those 3 "faster" weeks my weekly mileage went from 40 to 50 miles and I was running 7 days a week. It's also possible that faster running eroded my aerobic base, although I was still doing at least 60% of my miles in the MAF range.

Following the Winter Funk, I cut back to 5 days a week from 7, and resumed strict MAF-5=140 training. But presently I'm still basically at the same level I was at 5 months ago.

IP: Logged

posted Mar-15-2007 12:59 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ad Nihilum:
Based on lack of significant progress in 5 months, something has to change. Slowing down doesn't seem like the thing to do. So I'm left with speeding up.

---

Wow...you're saying that only training affects your progress or lack of? There are other significant issues to address before giving up/speeding up -- diet, nutrition, training volume (stress), work hours (stress), family/social things (stress), ... did I mention stress?

IP: Logged

posted Mar-15-2007 01:15 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by aharmer:

David,

I hear ya regarding max HR. However, my previous post definitely relates to Maf training. If your max HR unusually low such as mine, the Maf formula cannot be used. By the strict Maf formula I would be training at either 149 or 154 (can't remember the scenarios for adding beats but I add the maximum). With my max HR of 176, I would be doing my daily basebuilding training at between 82-85% of max HR. Not where I want to be. That's the reason I asked about max HR.

I actually believe that max HR can be a useful number in certain scenarios. Sometimes it's the only fixed variable (within reason) and that can be helpful, but I understand where you're coming from.

---

Same here. Max HR = 169. I couldn't figure out why everyone was complaining about the slow pace when I first started because I was hustling. Then I got hurt and went back to the drawing board. I discovered that the Hadd training that this thread identifies as an alternative (and which works from max HR) worked better. It brought my "easy" effort level from @138-117. Big difference -- and it worked.

IP: Logged

posted Mar-15-2007 02:17 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ad Nihilum:
I don't believe running at MAF paces such as 10:00 min/mile will fully prepare anyone to handle running at 8:00 min/mile. There's a mind-muscle connection that has to be established and all that. If you want to run efficiently at a given (fast) pace, you have to practice running at that pace. Right? ]

---

I don't fully agree. Choosing a speed has always been a mystifying event for me. "Let's see, I want to run a 6:00 pace in a 5k, so I'm going to practice running at 6:00." I can't run a 6:00 mile yet. Instead, I know what my heart rate zone for a 5k is, then I can go out and practice in that zone, then whatever my speed is, it is. Same with MAF. To me, that's a fat burning zone. If you don't make any progress, and you've built your miles up enough, then the MAF zone needs to be adjusted up or down. That's when you should think about a %MHR or %HRR. But first, you really have to work your tail off to get a real MHR established. I find that a 65-75% MHR range works well. My MAF was 72%.

What I found is that just training in this zone made all my heart rate zones faster. I believe this is also due to long runs, which will recruit fast twitch fibers at some point. They get a work out as well, and even take on some slow-twitch qualities.

Building base should be temporary, then you add in the higher heart rates as a stimulus, and for the mental game. Or start racing, that is a fast-twitch stimulus as good as any.

BTW, I ran a 3:22 marathon on 9:00+ mileage.
10:00 minute miles will prepare you for an 8:00 marathon, if 10:00 is in the proper heat rate zone. Then again, just choosing 10:00 might be folly.

That's my contribution to page 22. Now back to Start Trek: The Next Generation. I love my life.

--Jimmy

Jog Log
zzzzzzz

IP: Logged

posted Mar-15-2007 04:43 PM               

As was already obvious, the doc pointed out that my body will not utilize fat as fuel which therefor leads to my constant "crashing", both day to day and during racing.

The main proof of this is from my resting RQ, which equaled 0.82. Though a resting RQ is very difficult to change, it isn't impossible. It would require me to experiement with a VERY low carbohydrate intake for 1-2 weeks and possibly go through a fasting stage that would have me eating less than 800 calories per day. He acknowledged that this is NOT recommended under normal circumstances, but that it is technically the only way I can truly force my body to learn how to burn fat for fuel.

However, before going into anything crazy like this, he recommended I try out something else first. The way he described it was that CHO or glucose will typically burn within 2 hours of ingesting, protien in 4 hours, and fat in 6 hours. So, with this being said, it's understandable that I am always hungry and often crashing not long after I eat and especially during runs. I am going to try a standard low carb diet and make sure I am loading up on proteins and fats 2 hours before I run. According to the doc, this won't be a quick fix but it may help in the long run. He made sure to point out that he is not recommending I start the Atkins Diet and eat meat, meat, and more meat all day long. It's more of a South Beach Diet kind of approach to start.

As for a question, I am looking for more information on Maffetone's 2 week plan. What it entials and what experiences people have had? I think it may be good for my situation.

Thanks!

Shannon

IP: Logged

posted Mar-15-2007 04:51 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ad Nihilum:
l
Since I still plan on spending the majority of my time beneath the MAF ceiling, I don't see how this will damage my aerobic base; are they really that fragile? If they are that fragile, how does one prepare to race a marathon? I don't believe running at MAF paces such as 10:00 min/mile will fully prepare anyone to handle running at 8:00 min/mile. There's a mind-muscle connection that has to be established and all that. If you want to run efficiently at a given (fast) pace, you have to practice running at that pace. Right? However, if after a month, I see my performance decline across the board, then I'll know I've made a training error.... again...

---

I do agree with Jimmy's response on the above. I ran faster than
7:30/mile in more than one marathon on training paces of around
9:45-11/mile. However, as I mentioned, it is important to get some
(even if minute) element of running that has fast turnover. Downhill
is the preferred way to do this because you can stay within your
aerobic regime and get the turnover at the same time. I believe
a few of the folks here that have had problems did not have that
element. Fortunately, there are some treadmills that downhill settings.
I do have plenty of hills around here, so there are no problems for
me.

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

IP: Logged

posted Mar-15-2007 04:58 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by sclark2:
I wanted to give an update since I just had my consultation today regarding my RMR and VO2 max tests.

> snip <

Shannon

---

Shannon - thanks very much for posting all of your details -
it's going to be really helpful for others in the same boat. It's
really giving a boost to the "if it ain't working, get a vo2max
test" advice. I don't know the answer to the Maffetone diet
question, but I would put a nickel down that David (or possibly
Jimmy) just might!

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

IP: Logged

posted Mar-15-2007 08:25 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by sclark2:
The main proof of this is from my resting RQ, which equaled 0.82. Though a resting RQ is very difficult to change, it isn't impossible. It would require me to experiement with a VERY low carbohydrate intake for 1-2 weeks and possibly go through a fasting stage that would have me eating less than 800 calories per day. He acknowledged that this is NOT recommended under normal circumstances, but that it is technically the only way I can truly force my body to learn how to burn fat for fuel.
However, before going into anything crazy like this, he recommended I try out something else first. The way he described it was that CHO or glucose will typically burn within 2 hours of ingesting, protien in 4 hours, and fat in 6 hours. So, with this being said, it's understandable that I am always hungry and often crashing not long after I eat and especially during runs. I am going to try a standard low carb diet and make sure I am loading up on proteins and fats 2 hours before I run. According to the doc, this won't be a quick fix but it may help in the long run. He made sure to point out that he is not recommending I start the Atkins Diet and eat meat, meat, and more meat all day long. It's more of a South Beach Diet kind of approach to start.
As for a question, I am looking for more information on Maffetone's 2 week plan. What it entials and what experiences people have had? I think it may be good for my situation.

---

The resting RQ can most certainly be improved. And, the two week test of Maffetone's would be a great start. (I'd avoid Atkins of any sort, and fasting is a bad idea for this type of thing.) The test may still be on his website (www.philmaffetone.com) on the homepage as the "post holiday fix" or something. The book In Fitness and In Health has the longer version/explanation. I've had great success with it, and have used it for many patients and athletes over the years.

IP: Logged

posted Mar-16-2007 10:01 AM               

I re-read Hadd's training with "Joe" and it seems applicable to me. My max HR is 195; Joe's is 193. My weekly mileage base is 40, whereas Joe started at 50.

The last few days I've used 180-age=145 as my new MAF limit instead of 140. It's a small change, seemingly, but those extra few beats allow for more speed. Then once a week I'll do a "lactate threshold" run at Hadd's initial recommendation for "Joe" at 155-160, bumping that up when I can go 10 miles without slowing down.

I'll report back in a month...

IP: Logged

posted Mar-16-2007 12:32 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ad Nihilum:
Thanks for your responses, guys.

I re-read Hadd's training with "Joe" and it seems applicable to me. My max HR is 195; Joe's is 193. My weekly mileage base is 40, whereas Joe started at 50.

The last few days I've used 180-age=145 as my new MAF limit instead of 140. It's a small change, seemingly, but those extra few beats allow for more speed. Then once a week I'll do a "lactate threshold" run at Hadd's initial recommendation for "Joe" at 155-160, bumping that up when I can go 10 miles without slowing down.

I'll report back in a month...

---

145 puts you at 75% MHR, which is fine for developing fat-burning fibers according to our god, Mark Allen.

Good luck.

--Jimmy

Jog Log
zzzzzzz

IP: Logged

posted Mar-16-2007 01:21 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by jjwaverly42:
145 puts you at 75% MHR, which is fine for developing fat-burning fibers according to our god, Mark Allen.
--Jimmy

---

Well, not really. The 180 formula does not consider max HR. This is 75% of the predicted max HR which is only hypothetically correct 1/3 of the time.

IP: Logged

posted Mar-16-2007 01:48 PM               

IP: Logged

posted Mar-16-2007 05:41 PM               

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

IP: Logged