 |
> home
> community >
discussion forums > basic training
> basebuilding, low heart rate training, a la maffetone and mark allen (Page 23)
|
    |
 |
| > rules | > faq | > e-mail to a friend | moderator: Liam
 |
 |
| Author |
Topic: Basebuilding, low heart rate training, a la Maffetone and Mark Allen |
jjwaverly42
Cool Runner |
 posted Mar-16-2007 08:51 PM
  
quote:
Originally posted by DavidD:
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. 
You misunderstand. I am correct in saying that Mark Allen is currently saying running around 75% MHR is fine for fat-burning fiber development, If you are being staunch MAF, then your MAF isn't necessarily 75%, it can vary, which could possibly one of the reasons 180-age doesn't work for everyone. MAF worked for me. But was it the 180-age? Was it the 65-72% MHR zone I ran in? Was it the high mileage? Or did I happen to be running, by accident, the proper % of anaerobic threshold? Haven't figured it out. I do know that when I keep my HR around 140 and below, the promise of become a robust fat-burner comes true, and I do well in marathons. As far as "predicted" MHR, I'm not espousing any "predicted" anything.
MHR is difficult to get to, took me quite a few tries, and a hard half marathon with a VERY long sprint to get there (198). When I first got into HR training, I used the HADD track test, and got 184 bpm. Currentlly, still might be a few beats short, but being a few beats off won't hurt. So, yes, really. :> ) Back to "Green Acres"--love Ms. Gabor. The show is so ahead of its time. --Jimmy @@@@
jog log
IP: Logged |
Harper
Cool Runner |
posted Mar-16-2007 10:23 PM
Jimmy -- I think you nailed it on the head: We find a zone that works for us, that helps us make progress, and we can't really say for certain which methodology "predicted" it. It's too bad there isn't some definite scientific answer, an easy formula, for everyone. Unfortunately each person has to take very general guidelines for training and figure out all the specifics for their own body (at that point in time because we all know that what works one year may not work the next for a given individual). It often takes a long time to figure these things out, especially since our bodies are moving targets (I think that's a pun...) How many years have I been running? And I'm just now learning this stuff? Maybe the right answer is out there but so far it seems lost in the din. One glowing neon billboard in a Las Vegas skyline of training plans. I "believe" the MAF method works because it makes sense, but of course lots of things make sense that are also false.[This message has been edited by Harper (edited Mar-16-2007).]
IP: Logged |
jjwaverly42
Cool Runner |
posted Mar-16-2007 10:44 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Harper:
but of course lots of things make sense that are also false.[This message has been edited by Harper (edited Mar-16-2007).]
I know. I thought that putting lemon jello in my running shoes to help with plantar fasciitis made a lot of sense, but turned out to be another internet lie. [This message has been edited by jjwaverly42 (edited Mar-16-2007).]
IP: Logged |
slowgino
Cool Runner |
posted Mar-19-2007 02:00 PM
quote:
Originally posted by jjwaverly42:
Haven't figured it out. I do know that when I keep my HR around 140 and below, the promise of become a robust fat-burner comes true, and I do well in marathons.
I think you have figured it out. You know what works for you, and formulas won't give you that. All the formulas are just approximations anyway, and they can give some very different results. As one coach recently told me, "Forget MHR, it's meaningless as far as how you should train. Get tested, and train by your AeT and AT." As one example, I tried Maffetone's 180 formula and his other criteria and got a number. I tried the "218" formula from that "brianmac" website and used the HRR % method from my measured RHR and got other numbers. Also tried other formulas based on a "measured" MHR from hill repeats. All different numbers. When I got AT (+ AeT, VO2...) tested I finally got my individual numbers for training. How far off were some of the formulas? Well, take Maffetone's for example. My Aerobic Threshold (AeT) is 38% - 41% higher than Maffetone's max training range number (41% strictly by his rules, 38% if I cut myself some slack.) My Anaerobic Threshold (AT) is higher than that, of course. When I got all those numbers by formula, I tried 'em and picked what seemed to feel best. Later I read an article by Maffetone which freaked me out because it said I was destroying my aerobic base. Nonsense. As it turned out, the number (range) that I picked because it felt best and seemed to work ok was the closest thing to my AeT, about AeT - 10 bpm. A coach later told me that I could go higher than that to get the best aerobic system results. If your 140 HR and below works for you, then that's the right thing... and you have figured it out. It would be interesting to see where your AeT is, if you end up getting tested. Gino
IP: Logged |
DavidD
Cool Runner |
posted Mar-19-2007 03:51 PM
I agree, the bottom line is what works for you. Maffetone and Allen promote that too. The big question is, how do you really know it's working. For example, lots of people use race times to indicate their training is working for them. But that's misleading. How you feel? Lack of injury? In reality, the more indicators you use the better. But what's nice about the RQ evaluations in the lab (or the MAF Test on a track) is it's about as objective as one can get with dealing with a human. The notion that we can do more work with the same effort (or the same work with less effort) is important. So, can we run faster today than six months ago at the same hr on the same course? That's when you really know things are working.
IP: Logged |
fredurie
Cool Runner |
posted Mar-20-2007 08:16 AM
Monday30 minute warmup, 20 times 200 meters with a 45 second
jog recovery, warmdown Tuesday 70 minutes slow, HR 87.
IP: Logged |
Docster
Cool Runner |
posted Mar-20-2007 08:38 AM
quote:
Originally posted by jjwaverly42:
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
I'm a good example of no speed work doesn't translate into no speed. (well...it's relative, mind you what I'm calling speedy) I run most of miles with my wife at a 10:30 to 11:00 pace these days. (she is steadily improving as well using MAF) My MAF pace is about 9:00 to 9:20 depending on temps, hills, etc. I ran my first marathon in February at an 8:11 pace, with almost zero speed work, aside from 2 long runs where I ran the last 6 miles at my target MP of 8:20. 98% of my 270 miles in January were at MAF, with probably 50% of those at MAF - 20. In my case, I believe the higher volume MAF allowed me to run helped me maintain my speed for the full marathon. Granted, I'm fairly new to running, but here is my next example. Since my marathon on February 17, I've run 85 to 95% of my miles with my wife at about an 11:00 pace. I ran a 4 mile race last weekend. My pace was 6:52 on a hilly out and back course. I've probably never run a sub 7 minute mile since high school, much less 4 of them in a row. Everyone is different, of course, and it felt odd running so hard, it was great to really let loose.  I do plan on cutting mileage some this summer, cross training more, and doing some speed work for the shorter summer races. Then it's back to the lower speed, higher mileage to prep for a fall marathon. This time around I'll try to add a few more tempo runs and a bit more hill work. So far, though, I'm very excited about my progression.
IP: Logged |
DavidD
Cool Runner |
posted Mar-23-2007 05:54 PM
Anyone doing MAF training on the bike, and doing some kind of MAF test? How are you doing the test on your bike? Outdoors, indoors?
IP: Logged |
futura
Member |
posted Mar-27-2007 08:52 PM
I am new to MAF, below is my first test.MAF Test (March 14, 2007)
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 I then ran a 27.3 mile week all under 136 then a 30 mile week all under 136 bpm. I went out tonight for another MAF run;something over 6 miles. Since I was so close to the oval during my run, I ran over during mile 5 and ran my sixth mile under test conditions. I did mile six in 11:20 mpm at 135 bpm.
Tonights 6.76 miles run averaged out at 11:20. Granted it's early to claim statistical progress but I like the direction of this.
IP: Logged |
slowguy
Member |
posted Mar-28-2007 08:16 AM
How many miles per week does one have to run to see a benefit from the MAF program?
IP: Logged |
Docster
Cool Runner |
posted Mar-28-2007 08:29 AM
quote:
Originally posted by slowguy:
How many miles per week does one have to run to see a benefit from the MAF program?
Everyone is different when it comes to this, but lower mileage runners (less than 20) won't see as many benefits as someone who is running a higher volume. Personally, I think that around 30 miles a week (with one run being a 'long' run) is a good start. Certainly when you get into the 40's and up, many of us began getting faster at all distances simply because aerobically we were so much stronger. As I starting LHR training when I was still fairly new to running, I don't really have any mileage benchmarks. Hopefully a few others in this thread can help out more in that regard.
IP: Logged |
martinjames
Cool Runner |
posted Mar-28-2007 09:30 AM
quote:
Originally posted by slowguy:
How many miles per week does one have to run to see a benefit from the MAF program?
My number was @200 miles total, however you carve it up (4 weeks x 50 miles, 6 weeks x whatever (ok, math's not my strong suit).
IP: Logged |
SysTemP
Cool Runner |
posted Mar-28-2007 04:33 PM
I do not run very much, but I did this since the 8th of January (totaled about 250 miles) and I went from close to a 13 minute a mile pace at 180 - age HR to a 11:15 minute a mile pace at the same HR range. I am satrting this week to add some speed work to what I am doing. I ran 3 miles last night and felt like I was being kicked in the ribs the whole time, but I pushed it out in 27 minutes which is faster than I could have done before...------------------
Took back my life on July 17th, 2006.
IP: Logged |
leitnerj
Cool Runner |
posted Mar-28-2007 05:41 PM
quote:
Originally posted by DavidD:
Anyone doing MAF training on the bike, and doing some kind of MAF test? How are you doing the test on your bike? Outdoors, indoors?
I guess I missed it when you first posted. I do MAF on the
bike and swimming. I don't do any MAF tests, but I just watch
my pace improve through time and watch my heart rate go down.
I've been mostly indoors for the last couple of months, but I'm
back to outdoors again now that the ice is all gone.
------------------
MyRunningLog
MyStuff
Low Heart Rate Training FAQ
My marathons and ultras
My races and reports
IP: Logged |
williamkablitz
Cool Runner |
posted Mar-29-2007 12:18 PM
Hi everybody.I'm new to this post and have been running for about five months. I'm sure this has probably been discused before but I really don't want to read through all 23 pages, so I'll make it as simple as I can. My first question is this: Does anyone know at what % the body actualy switches from aerobic to anaerobic? Or does it completely depend on the person? If I go by Maffetone, I should be training at 144 BPM. After doing some sprints and hard runs I have come to the conclusion than my Max heart rate is 175 and my Resting heart rate is 45, so that means 142.5 is 75% for me. (2) Would the 142.5 be better as a max for me to train at? I also don't understand how the 180-age could work for a 30 year old who has a MaxHR of 190 and another 30 year old who has a Max of 170. (3) Wouldn't it be wiser to find the correct % for each individual to work at?
IP: Logged |
gregw
Cool Runner |
posted Mar-29-2007 12:37 PM
williamkablitz,Coming up with something better than 180 - age fills a good chunk of the 23 pages of this thread. Jesse's FAQ has this to say 15. My max heart rate is very low – should I use a lower MAF heart rate? Quite possibly. It’s always safer to stay on the low end. If you know that you have a very low max heart rate, I'd recommend you take a look at the Hadd article,
section 6, to select a low heart rate target. You can scan back in this thread and find lots of opinions on the subject.
IP: Logged |
williamkablitz
Cool Runner |
posted Mar-29-2007 01:19 PM
Thank you for not answering a single question I asked Gregw!!
: )I understand it may not be an easy issue to give a straight answer to, and I accept that. What I'm looking for though is a general percentage that most experts agree is where the bodys aerobic threshold lies (example 60%, 70% or 75%). If it breaks down to lie mainly between a certain percentage for the masses such as 60%-70% then fine, that is all I'm asking. If no one knows the answer to this question please don't bother answering. And if i offend please forgive me, but as i don't like wasting my time with unneeded training i also do not like wasting my time with unneeded reading.
IP: Logged |
aharmer
Cool Runner |
posted Mar-29-2007 01:42 PM
William,First thing to know is that the attitude will get you little or no help around here. You're currently using the Karvonen formula right? Your 75% Karvonen number is actually over 81% of your max HR. While there is no standard percentage, many people would tell you that their aerobic basebuilding is around 70% of max HR. My max is the same as yours and I do almost all of my training at 125bpm or less. During strict basebuilding periods I do all runs at this intensity. If you're interested in learning start reading because I'm afraid you're not going to get much help around here. ------------------
My Profile "Pain is temporary. Regret hurts forever."
http://www.hrmarathontraining.blogspot.com/
IP: Logged |
williamkablitz
Cool Runner |
posted Mar-29-2007 03:27 PM
aharmerFirst of all let me thank you for letting me know that most people train at about 70%. That is pretty much one of the answers that I was looking for. But why is it that you had to go and side step the issue by telling me I'm using the wrong formula to obtain my %, and not bother giving me the correct one? And as far as the attitude goes, I don't have an attitude. I asked pretty simple questions and all i wanted was some pretty simple answers. I stated right in my post that I didn't want to read through all 23 pages of posts and what do i get? Some body telling me to read all 23 posts and a 25 page article. I thought the point of these posts was to help people get some fast simple answers. If anyone has an attitude its you, for the fact that you know I'm using the wrong formula and refusing to explain the right one to me. Ignorance is forgivable, stupidity is not.
IP: Logged |
DavidD
Cool Runner |
posted Mar-29-2007 04:23 PM
quote:
Originally posted by williamkablitz:
My first question is this: Does anyone know at what % the body actualy switches from aerobic to anaerobic? Or does it completely depend on the person?If I go by Maffetone, I should be training at 144 BPM. After doing some sprints and hard runs I have come to the conclusion than my Max heart rate is 175 and my Resting heart rate is 45, so that means 142.5 is 75% for me. (2) Would the 142.5 be better as a max for me to train at? I also don't understand how the 180-age could work for a 30 year old who has a MaxHR of 190 and another 30 year old who has a Max of 170. (3) Wouldn't it be wiser to find the correct % for each individual to work at?
The body does not "switch" from aerobic to anaerobic -- there's always a combination of both going on. But there's a dominant aerobic state you want during base building. Maffetone's 180 formula does not take into consideration your max HR (for a reason, the max HR is not a good indicator of much). Nor does it take into account resting HR. Both these HRs can be very elusive, and during overtraining, metabolic problems, nutrition issues, etc. (that may not even produce symptoms) the max and resting HRs can change to abnormal rates. The 180 formula, when used correctly (it's not just 180 - age) is incredibly accurate when compared to a physiology lab treadmill test where RQ, HR and other parameters are measured.
IP: Logged |
aharmer
Cool Runner |
posted Mar-29-2007 05:04 PM
quote:
Originally posted by williamkablitz:
aharmerFirst of all let me thank you for letting me know that most people train at about 70%. That is pretty much one of the answers that I was looking for. But why is it that you had to go and side step the issue by telling me I'm using the wrong formula to obtain my %, and not bother giving me the correct one? And as far as the attitude goes, I don't have an attitude. I asked pretty simple questions and all i wanted was some pretty simple answers. I stated right in my post that I didn't want to read through all 23 pages of posts and what do i get? Some body telling me to read all 23 posts and a 25 page article. I thought the point of these posts was to help people get some fast simple answers. If anyone has an attitude its you, for the fact that you know I'm using the wrong formula and refusing to explain the right one to me. Ignorance is forgivable, stupidity is not.
You might want to re-read my original post and try to find the sentence where I told you your formula was incorrect. I never said anything of the sort...I told you that many people use something around 70% of their max HR. To be around 70% of max HR, most people need to use an intensity less than 70% in the Karvonen formula.
IP: Logged |
gregw
Cool Runner |
posted Mar-29-2007 05:09 PM
quote:
Originally posted by DavidD:
The 180 formula, when used correctly (it's not just 180 - age) is incredibly accurate when compared to a physiology lab treadmill test where RQ, HR and other parameters are measured.
Where is the data? It's not in "Training for Endurance."
IP: Logged |
gregw
Cool Runner |
posted Mar-29-2007 05:37 PM
quote:
Originally posted by williamkablitz:
I stated right in my post that I didn't want to read through all 23 pages of posts and what do i get? Some body telling me to read all 23 posts and a 25 page article.
Your questions #2 and #3 taken together bascially said you wanted to know what heart rate to train at and noted you had a low heart rate. I pointed you directly to question 15 of Jesse's FAQ (and even went to the trouble to copy it in the post and provide a link) lest you have to read all 53 entries. Jesse's entry then nicely points you specifically to section 6 of Hadd's article so you can find the appropriate heart rate. As a bonus I made a link to Hadd's article so you didn't have to search for the link in the FAQ. (No thanks necessary.) For your first question about the %HR for aerobic and anaerobic, I apologize for not having responded. I'll note that typing "anaerobic heart rate" in google gives this article as the first result (link provided for your convenience). In case you don't want to read that, it calls 80% the end of the aerobic zone and the beginning of the anaerobic zone. The 80% is using the Karnoven formula. So you don't have to look that up, I'll do the math for you. 80% for you would be .8*(175-45) + 45 = 149 bpm. There's the easy to come by, very precise, but incorrect answer that I suppose you were looking for.
IP: Logged |
williamkablitz
Cool Runner |
posted Mar-29-2007 07:32 PM
gregwNow that's what I'm talking about! That is exactly the kind of response I was looking for. I should have stated that the first question was the most important to me, which is why i got a little agitated. And now that I know the aerobic zone ends around 80% I know that I'm completely safe training at 75% to build my aerobic fitness. (even if its wrong!!) Like i said, i've only been running for 5 months and i'm just starting to experiment with things other than just triing to get out the door and move. I appologize if I came off as offensive to you, its just that I tend to be a very sarcastic person, and believe it or not I am thankful for the effort on your part. And if you think my training at Karnoven 75% is not the right approach I would gladly accept your thoughts on the issue. aharmer This is what you said "Your 75% Karvonen number is actually over 81% of your max HR. " This statment confused me and made me think perhaps I was using the wrong formula. I probably should have stated the Karvonen method in my original question. A simple matter of miss comunication.
IP: Logged |
TommyL
Cool Runner |
posted Mar-29-2007 09:55 PM
quote:
A simple matter of miss comunication.
Any relation to Miss Congeniality?
IP: Logged |
 |
|
|
|
 |
 |
 |
|
