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


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

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


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


Interesting. Where did you read that?

--Jimmy

Jog Log
zzzzzzz

IP: Logged

williamkablitz
Cool Runner
posted Mar-29-2007 10:08 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for williamkablitz     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
LOL..

Hey, Sandra looked good in that movie.

IP: Logged

slowgino
Cool Runner
posted Mar-30-2007 09:51 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for slowgino     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
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.

Really? I'd have a hard time believing it's incredibly accurate when compared to the lab testing. Here's why:

Using the 180 formula with Maffetone's adjustments for factors like taking medications, injury history, etc, I come up with a number for myself. My measured Aerobic Threshold (AeT) in my lab test is over forty percent (40%) higher than that Maffetone number. Think about it... that's just a huge difference.

I'd like to see the actual research that would convince us that the 180 formula plus the adjustments is truly incredibly accurate. Details like the type and number of test subjects, what was measured and how, confidence levels, statistical analyses of the results (incl. type of curve fitting used, factors used in regression analyses, variance/standard deviation around the formula's prediction, etc), and whatever else would be appropriate.

In any case, that formula with its adjustments is way, way off the mark for some of us.

IP: Logged

aharmer
Cool Runner
posted Mar-30-2007 10:08 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for aharmer   Click Here to Email aharmer     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
The Maff formula is designed to place people in the correct training zone based on Maffetone's views of what the proper zones are. I happen to agree with his views on basebuilding but that's beside the point.

Unfortunately NO formula is accurate for everybody. By learning about the physiology behind the formulas you can look at many ideas and formulate your own ideas of where your personal zones should be. Personally I don't believe anybody should blindly use the Maff formula for setting their training HR.

My number is 180-36=144. I forget all of the additions/subtractions based on contributing factors but I believe I would add 5 or 10 beats to my number. Let's say I only add 5, my designated training HR would be 149. Wow, sounds low right? Well that would put me at about 85% of my max HR. Not a great way to build aerobic base. After researching different formulas I determined that many of them placed runners somewhere in the neighborhood of 70% max HR. For me that's 125 which is where I train. 24bpm difference...I like the idea behind the formula but to say it's more accurate than lab tests is questionable.

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

"Pain is temporary. Regret hurts forever."
http://www.hrmarathontraining.blogspot.com/

IP: Logged

DavidD
Cool Runner
posted Mar-30-2007 11:08 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for DavidD   Click Here to Email DavidD     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Maffetone's 180 formula does NOT take into account aerobic threshold, anaerobic threshold, max HR, resting HR, etc. So we can't use any of those numbers to compare with the 180 formula. I keep reading people's comments about the 180 formula says this but my max whatever is that -- apples and oranges.

I mentioned the accuracy of this formula because I've done many hundreds (probably thousands) of treadmill tests on many kinds of athletes and inactive folks, measuring RQ, HR, etc. When first hearing about the 180 formula years ago (I was very skeptical) I started comparing it with the treadmill tests, knowing the 220 formula was not very accurate.

This does not mean it's accuracy applies to everyone, but to a population of runners, for example. We are dealing with humans so, like any study or observation, nothing would apply to all.

Maffetone discusses more of the science in his textbook (Complementary Sports Medicine), and I heard him discuss how he came up with the formula at a medical conference (he also did many of the standard treatmill tests on the athletes he worked with).

Another point I made much earlier is that none of these methods are of any value without some relative objective evaluations. So whatever heart rate you train at, or system you use (including no system at all), it only means something when you can show success. Race times may seem like success, but it's too subjective (for example, many athletes perform their best races when overtrained, but overtraining is not a logical approach). Measuring RQ vs. HR vs. pace is a great way, as are other treadmill test indicators. However, the average person can't do these tests, or certainly do them frequenly enough. The MAF test is a great way to monitor progress with relative objectivity if it's done properly.

IP: Logged

fredurie
Cool Runner
posted Mar-30-2007 11:17 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for fredurie     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Friday

AM 80 minutes slow, HR 75-76.

John Treacy won the world cross country champs and ran 2:09-2:10 for
the marathon. His recovery day speed was 7:30 a mile, which would
probably been done at a very low HR.

IP: Logged

gregw
Cool Runner
posted Mar-30-2007 12:37 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for gregw     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
Originally posted by DavidD:
Maffetone's 180 formula does NOT take into account aerobic threshold, anaerobic threshold, max HR, resting HR, etc. So we can't use any of those numbers to compare with the 180 formula. I keep reading people's comments about the 180 formula says this but my max whatever is that -- apples and oranges.

Please tell us what the appropriate apples-to-apples comparison would be.

quote:

I mentioned the accuracy of this formula because I've done many hundreds (probably thousands) of treadmill tests on many kinds of athletes and inactive folks, measuring RQ, HR, etc. When first hearing about the 180 formula years ago (I was very skeptical) I started comparing it with the treadmill tests, knowing the 220 formula was not very accurate.

This does not mean it's accuracy applies to everyone, but to a population of runners, for example. We are dealing with humans so, like any study or observation, nothing would apply to all.


I think you're saying you verified the 180 formula was accurate for something based on your treadmill tests, but you don't say what that is. What measurable quantity is the 180 formula an accurate predictor of? Is it HR at RQ=.78? You leave us to guess.

quote:

Maffetone discusses more of the science in his textbook (Complementary Sports Medicine), and I heard him discuss how he came up with the formula at a medical conference (he also did many of the standard treatmill tests on the athletes he worked with).

Does the maffetone book actually have some presentation of data that show a correlation of MAF heart rate and some measurable quantity? I see it on Amazon and I'm almost, but not quite, willing to plunk down $69 to see if there's anything there.

quote:

Another point I made much earlier is that none of these methods are of any value without some relative objective evaluations. So whatever heart rate you train at, or system you use (including no system at all), it only means something when you can show success. Race times may seem like success, but it's too subjective (for example, many athletes perform their best races when overtrained, but overtraining is not a logical approach). Measuring RQ vs. HR vs. pace is a great way, as are other treadmill test indicators. However, the average person can't do these tests, or certainly do them frequenly enough. The MAF test is a great way to monitor progress with relative objectivity if it's done properly.

Pace versus a given heart rate does give a good baseline for assessing progress. I don't think anybody doubts that. The question is why use the 180 formula. What evidence shows the 180 formula in particular be trusted and not some other means?

[This message has been edited by gregw (edited Mar-30-2007).]

IP: Logged

leitnerj
Cool Runner
posted Mar-30-2007 12:38 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for leitnerj   Click Here to Email leitnerj     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Maffetone's formula is definitely not going to be valid
for people over about 55 or under about 20-25. I can
only assume that the linearity dies at these ends. Also,
as aharmer can attest, it's not good for people with very
low max heart rates (no science is required there). sclark2
has brought us another example - those who use a high
percentage of carb at low exertion levels will have issues
with it as well. (The latter two examples will have someone
working at too high of a heart rate using the Maffetone formula.)

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

IP: Logged

kponds
Cool Runner
posted Mar-30-2007 02:06 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for kponds     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
How do you pace your races after maffetone-style training?

I have maffetone'ed it since I was a newbie pretty much, and it's worked great for me. But I realized the other day, that I don't think I know what racing is.

I mean, I have run in races, but I don't think I have ever raced them.

My best example of this is a recent 5k that I did, average heart rate 168. My MHR (tested) is 196. That's about 85% effort. Should I be racing harder than that?

Is there a list of % effort versus race distance available anywhere? I'd like to know a general rule of thumb for what I should be putting in at 5k - marathon, if there is such a thing. Obviously I will probably need to adjust a little bit, but is there something like this available?

IP: Logged

aharmer
Cool Runner
posted Mar-30-2007 02:37 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for aharmer   Click Here to Email aharmer     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
kponds,

Play around with this link, I think it's exactly what you're looking for.

http://www.teamoregon.com/publications/wizard.php

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

"Pain is temporary. Regret hurts forever."
http://www.hrmarathontraining.blogspot.com/

IP: Logged

DavidD
Cool Runner
posted Mar-30-2007 04:49 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for DavidD   Click Here to Email DavidD     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Originally posted by DavidD:
Maffetone's 180 formula does NOT take into account aerobic threshold, anaerobic threshold, max HR, resting HR, etc. So we can't use any of those numbers to compare with the 180 formula. I keep reading people's comments about the 180 formula says this but my max whatever is that -- apples and oranges.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[QUOTE]Originally posted by gregw:
Please tell us what the appropriate apples-to-apples comparison would be.

RQ would be the best relationship to what we can call a max aerobic HR, which is what we're talking about here (i.e., what the 180 formula or others supposed to provide). Most of these other indicators refer to max efforts, and not easier aerobic training.

quote:
I mentioned the accuracy of this formula because I've done many hundreds (probably thousands) of treadmill tests on many kinds of athletes and inactive folks, measuring RQ, HR, etc. When first hearing about the 180 formula years ago (I was very skeptical) I started comparing it with the treadmill tests, knowing the 220 formula was not very accurate.
This does not mean it's accuracy applies to everyone, but to a population of runners, for example. We are dealing with humans so, like any study or observation, nothing would apply to all.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[QUOTE]Originally posted by gregw:
I think you're saying you verified the 180 formula was accurate for something based on your treadmill tests, but you don't say what that is. What measurable quantity is the 180 formula an accurate predictor of? Is it HR at RQ=.78? You leave us to guess.

No, I didn't "verify" the 180 formula, just found it to be very accurate in comparing treadmill tests (and more accurate than any other general formula). When plotting RQ and HR, for example, you will usually see a slow elevation of RQ then at some level of intensity the RQ will more rapidly rise. This has been the point (before the rapid rise) I like to use for aerobic training. Maffetone's 180 formula more often than not (but not always) arrives at the same or similar number (within a couple of heartbeats).

The problem is the person with some type of problem - they sometimes don't fit the formula so well until they correct their problem. An overtrained athlete, for example, generally has a higher RQ which distorts the picture. Someone who is anemic will have a higher than normal heart rate, etc.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maffetone discusses more of the science in his textbook (Complementary Sports Medicine), and I heard him discuss how he came up with the formula at a medical conference (he also did many of the standard treatmill tests on the athletes he worked with).

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[QUOTE]Originally posted by gregw:
Does the maffetone book actually have some presentation of data that show a correlation of MAF heart rate and some measurable quantity? I see it on Amazon and I'm almost, but not quite, willing to plunk down $69 to see if there's anything there.

I don't think so. I'll take a look, it's been a while since I looked at it. He's a clinician and so his approach is to rationalize his theory, using data, the research of others, clinical experience, etc.. In science, our research approach is to gather data and publish it. Both approaches have their good and bad points. Maffetone presents his material at conferences, and the peer review is more lean than with a journal. I did just write to his website and asked if his textbook chapter could be posted.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[QUOTE]Originally posted by gregw:
Pace versus a given heart rate does give a good baseline for assessing progress. I don't think anybody doubts that. The question is why use the 180 formula. What evidence shows the 180 formula in particular be trusted and not some other means?

Why use any formula? Because it's convenient. I prefer looking at the numbers from a treadmill study, but most people can't do that.

The problem is that too many people are using the 220 formula or others that have basically no validity. Tradition is very powerful.

I think the assessment process is they key, so whatever training approach is used, if a person can now run a minute faster at the same heart rate on the same course compared to when they started, they're progressing.

IP: Logged

DavidD
Cool Runner
posted Mar-30-2007 05:00 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for DavidD   Click Here to Email DavidD     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
Originally posted by leitnerj:
Maffetone's formula is definitely not going to be valid
for people over about 55 or under about 20-25. I can
only assume that the linearity dies at these ends. Also,
as aharmer can attest, it's not good for people with very
low max heart rates (no science is required there). sclark2
has brought us another example - those who use a high
percentage of carb at low exertion levels will have issues
with it as well. (The latter two examples will have someone
working at too high of a heart rate using the Maffetone formula.)

Good point. I recall Maffetone saying it's age 65 at the high end, and age 16 or 17 at the low.

The problem is significant when there's an abnormal heart rate. Those with a very low HR may be overtrained (I think it's a classic sign of chronic overtraining, vs. higher heart rates which occur in the early stages of overtraining). So in this case, any formula will be less accurate because of this problem. Likewise with those burning too much carbohydrate at lower heartrates (high RQs).

IP: Logged

gregw
Cool Runner
posted Mar-30-2007 05:21 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for gregw     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
DavidD,

Thanks for your thoughtful response. It sounds like the bend in the RQ vs heart rate curve is the measurable quantity with which the 180 formula could be compared. I think what we're all looking for are the data with which to make that comparison.

You mentioned that a person with some sort of problem like overtraining or anemia could throw it off, but we've seen that the formula doesn't work for person who just has a low max heart rate?

When I asked "why use the 180 formula," I meant rather than some other forumula. It would be nice to see some evidence that it had a better correlation than some other non-laboratory means. Some would advocate a particular %MaxHR or %HRR. Is the 180 formula better than some %HR? Another that I think might work well is the % of average heart rate for racing some standard distance (the longer the better). The only way to answer this is with data.

By the way, you make a good point about overtraining and its effect on heart rate. I've seen it affect my heart rate. When I was doing tempo and interval runs before I was really ready, I ran a 10K @ 176 bpm. Then after about 6 weeks of only easy running, I ran an equivalent 10 mile time @183. Similarly, earlier this year I ran 5M @ 186 bpm and then 2 weeks later and the day after an 18-mile training run I ran 5M @ 182 in about the same time (5 sec/mi slower). 182 is normally what I run a HM at.

IP: Logged

aharmer
Cool Runner
posted Mar-30-2007 05:58 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for aharmer   Click Here to Email aharmer     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
Originally posted by gregw:
DavidD,

Another that I think might work well is the % of average heart rate for racing some standard distance (the longer the better). The only way to answer this is with data.
.



Greg,

I was interested in this idea a few weeks ago when you mentioned it. I'll give you my data here, compare it to yours and give me an idea of what you had in mind for %'s to use.

Max HR: 176
Avg HR HM: 159
Avg HR Marathon (goal HR, no real data yet): 152
Daily Training HR: 125

So my daily training HR is 78.6% of my HM HR, and 82.2% of my goal marathon HR.

As you know I use a "ladder" type progression of tempo runs that begin at lower intensities and increase in intensity until the final several weeks prior to a marathon where I'm running them at goal marathon HR. The different "steps" of my ladder compared to goal marathon HR are here:

136/152=89.5%
142/152=93.4%
147/152=96.7%
152/152=100%

While I've not done it yet, I plan to try this method with a half-marathon as well. The tempo runs will not be as long but the first "step" of the ladder will be more intense and will progress to my HM HR of 159. So my HM progression ladder would look like this:

142/159=89.3%
147/159=92.5%
153/159=96.2%
159/159=100%

The percentages are very similar training for either distance. Is this similar to what you had in mind? I'd like to see your data as well as others to see what kind of spectrum we're dealing with.

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

"Pain is temporary. Regret hurts forever."
http://www.hrmarathontraining.blogspot.com/

IP: Logged

jjwaverly42
Cool Runner
posted Mar-30-2007 06:10 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for jjwaverly42     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
What methods are there to figure out RQ (besides a vo2max test)?
This is very interesting.

--Jimmy

Jog Log
zzzzzzz

IP: Logged

gregw
Cool Runner
posted Mar-30-2007 07:23 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for gregw     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Adam,

I think I've posted this before, but when I was just doing MAF, I averaged something like 138 bpm (just a guess from scanning my logs). My marathon HR was either 172 or 173 in the 4 marathons I wore an HRM in. 138/172 is 80% so that's pretty close to your 82%. The 138 was just what I ended up running when I set my HRM alarm to 145 (which is 180-age).

What % would I suggest? Well, what made me think of using race heart rates was the part in Jesse's FAQ where he suggests using 80% of LT. Although I still don't know where the 80% LT came from. If you know some race heart rates, you can plug them in the teamoregon wizard and estimate a heart rate for a one hour race. Since LT is associated with how hard you could run for an hour, this heart rate should be close to LT.

For me if I plug in my last HM (1:39:12 @ 180), it predicts 44 min 10K @ 188 and a 68 min 15K @ 183. If I interpolate, I should roughly be able to do 60 minutes at 185. 80% of that is 148 which is pretty close to my MAF. For me 148 is 79% of 10K heart rate, 82% of HM heart rate, or 86% of marathon heart rate. All of those are probably reasonable metrics to use. For me they all correlate perfectly with the teamoregon prediction. I don't know how well it works for other. If they don't line up, I'd guess that using the % of marathon heart rate is probably best, but that's just intuition.

By the way as I mentioned above, I've seen my race heart rate lower during races where I was tired even when I managed to run equivalent time. I would think you'd want to make sure you were fresh for the race you used as a baseline. Of course, if you were tired, you'd just use a lower value and you'd be fresh soon enough.

Jesse,

Where did the 80% of anaerobic treshold come from in FAQ #22. I couldn't find it in Training for Endurance.

Greg

IP: Logged

aharmer
Cool Runner
posted Mar-30-2007 08:27 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for aharmer   Click Here to Email aharmer     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Thanks for the info Greg! I noticed that in #22 Jesse mentions 80% of Anaerobic Threshold. In another post on the subject he makes reference to anaerobic threshold as being the intensity that is equivalent to RQ of 1.0. This is just a few beats higher than what a runner should be able to maintain for the marathon distance. When I use Team Oregon and plug my data in, I'm right in between 80% of LT (1 hr pace) and AT (close to marathon pace).

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

"Pain is temporary. Regret hurts forever."
http://www.hrmarathontraining.blogspot.com/

IP: Logged

sclark2
Cool Runner
posted Mar-31-2007 01:58 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for sclark2   Click Here to Email sclark2     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
As some of you may remember, I had received a VO2 max/RQ test a few weeks ago and found out that I had been training all wrong.

My VO2 max potential is very good, but my aerobic base is quite poor. I am now focusing my efforts on Maff-like training. Through the testing, it was determined that in order to develop my aerobic capabilities (fat burning capabilities) I need to keep my HR between 118 and 130.

The problem that I have run into is actually keeping my HR in that range when I'm exercising outdoors. Recently, I have been on a treadmill or elliptical machine at the gym because of the weather. It has been very easy to monitor my HR on these machines and change the speed and/or intensity to maintain the necessary HR range of 118-130. However, outdoors I do not have this "luxury". When I walk, it doesn't matter how fast I move, I can't get my HR above 115, and when I jog, no matter how slow I move I can't get my HR under 135. My HR literally jumps from 115 to 135 within seconds when i go from "power walking" to very slow jogging.

Does anyone have recommendations or experiences with this? Or do I just need to stick it out until I improve?

Thanks,

Shannon

IP: Logged

DavidD
Cool Runner
posted Mar-31-2007 04:27 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for DavidD   Click Here to Email DavidD     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
[QUOTE]Originally posted by gregw:
[B]DavidD,
Thanks for your thoughtful response. It sounds like the bend in the RQ vs heart rate curve is the measurable quantity with which the 180 formula could be compared. I think what we're all looking for are the data with which to make that comparison.

gregw -- yes, that deflection point would be a good way to compare. It would be nice to have a lot of data to put a study together. I have quite a bit, and I know Maffetone probably has a lot too. The problem in doing this type of retrospective study is how the data was collected, especially how the subjects were prepared for the test (warm up time, etc.). And, we would need a proper history (to get an accurate 180 formula HR), with each subjects having answered the same questions. A prospective study would be easier as these issues could easily be compiled. In this case, one would not need a lot of tests.


You mentioned that a person with some sort of problem like overtraining or anemia could throw it off, but we've seen that the formula doesn't work for person who just has a low max heart rate?

gregw -- you mean a low max heart rate without any problems? I would consider a real low max HR to be the result of a problem most of the time. For example, a 40 year old with a max HR of 165 would be a sign of a possible problem. Or, there were errors in obtaining the max HR (although if you do enough of them this is less likely to be a problem).


When I asked "why use the 180 formula," I meant rather than some other forumula. It would be nice to see some evidence that it had a better correlation than some other non-laboratory means. Some would advocate a particular %MaxHR or %HRR. Is the 180 formula better than some %HR? Another that I think might work well is the % of average heart rate for racing some standard distance (the longer the better). The only way to answer this is with data.

gregw -- I played around with other formulas over the years. Before I read about Maffetone's 180, I had already given up using formulas since there was so little correlation with the treadmill tests I did, and in speaking with others doing similar work. Sometimes it correlated, but there was no consistancy.

IP: Logged

DavidD
Cool Runner
posted Mar-31-2007 04:31 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for DavidD   Click Here to Email DavidD     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
Originally posted by jjwaverly42:
What methods are there to figure out RQ (besides a vo2max test)?
This is very interesting.
--Jimmy

RQ = CO2/O2. It is obtained using a gas analyzer which accurately measures carbon dioxide output and oxygen uptake. Most importantly, RQ reflects the mix of sugar and fat burning. I don't know of any other accurate way of obtaining this information.

IP: Logged

aharmer
Cool Runner
posted Mar-31-2007 04:37 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for aharmer   Click Here to Email aharmer     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
David,

Where would you place me...for my sake I hope it's not in the "problem" area.

I'm 36yo male with a max HR of 176. That's the top number I've seen on two occasions when the workout has been as hard as I am capable of going. My resting HR is also very low. Just this morning sitting at my computer I took it at 30 (measured for an entire minute). I've measured it as low as 28 in the past. I have no health problems that I'm aware of, and never get sick. I never thought these numbers were that unusual, what do you think?

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

"Pain is temporary. Regret hurts forever."
http://www.hrmarathontraining.blogspot.com/

IP: Logged

DavidD
Cool Runner
posted Mar-31-2007 04:40 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for DavidD   Click Here to Email DavidD     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
Originally posted by sclark2:
As some of you may remember, I had received a VO2 max/RQ test a few weeks ago and found out that I had been training all wrong.
My VO2 max potential is very good, but my aerobic base is quite poor. I am now focusing my efforts on Maff-like training. Through the testing, it was determined that in order to develop my aerobic capabilities (fat burning capabilities) I need to keep my HR between 118 and 130.
The problem that I have run into is actually keeping my HR in that range when I'm exercising outdoors. Recently, I have been on a treadmill or elliptical machine at the gym because of the weather. It has been very easy to monitor my HR on these machines and change the speed and/or intensity to maintain the necessary HR range of 118-130. However, outdoors I do not have this "luxury". When I walk, it doesn't matter how fast I move, I can't get my HR above 115, and when I jog, no matter how slow I move I can't get my HR under 135. My HR literally jumps from 115 to 135 within seconds when i go from "power walking" to very slow jogging.
Does anyone have recommendations or experiences with this? Or do I just need to stick it out until I improve?
Thanks,
Shannon


To me, this is another sign of great potential. Yes, it's frustrating because you're in between walking and running. You basically will do a fartlek workout -- walk a bit, run a bit, etc., etc., following your heart rate. Even if the run part is 30 seconds, it's a starting point. You should start getting faster at your max aerobic HR, so with time there would be less walking and more running. If it's hilly where you are, it means walking up hills, but getting to run down them.

130 is your max aerobic HR? Did you say earlier you were 23 years old? Did your test come with a graph like we talked about above?

OK, sorry to clog up the server with my stuff.

IP: Logged

leitnerj
Cool Runner
posted Apr-01-2007 04:47 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for leitnerj   Click Here to Email leitnerj     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
Originally posted by gregw:

Jesse,

Where did the 80% of anaerobic treshold come from in FAQ #22. I couldn't find it in Training for Endurance.


Nope, it was not from Maffetone, at least not that I know of. This has
probably been about the median number I see from a number of triathlon
coaches that emphasize aerobic base training. It will turn out to be pretty
close to RQs that give between 50 and 75% fat for fuel if you compare
to vo2max test results.

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

IP: Logged

leitnerj
Cool Runner
posted Apr-01-2007 04:51 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for leitnerj   Click Here to Email leitnerj     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
Originally posted by sclark2:
As some of you may remember, I had received a VO2 max/RQ test a few weeks ago and found out that I had been training all wrong.

My VO2 max potential is very good, but my aerobic base is quite poor. I am now focusing my efforts on Maff-like training. Through the testing, it was determined that in order to develop my aerobic capabilities (fat burning capabilities) I need to keep my HR between 118 and 130.

The problem that I have run into is actually keeping my HR in that range when I'm exercising outdoors. Recently, I have been on a treadmill or elliptical machine at the gym because of the weather. It has been very easy to monitor my HR on these machines and change the speed and/or intensity to maintain the necessary HR range of 118-130. However, outdoors I do not have this "luxury". When I walk, it doesn't matter how fast I move, I can't get my HR above 115, and when I jog, no matter how slow I move I can't get my HR under 135. My HR literally jumps from 115 to 135 within seconds when i go from "power walking" to very slow jogging.

Does anyone have recommendations or experiences with this? Or do I just need to stick it out until I improve?

Thanks,

Shannon


Back when I had a similar problem (about 2 years ago), I basically
did about 85% indoor training. You may want to mix in some bike
and elliptical to get your volume up without having to fight so much
to control your heart rate.

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

IP: Logged

willamona
Cool Runner
posted Apr-01-2007 08:40 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for willamona     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
sclark2,

I would suggest what we called bee-bopping back in the day. You are at or below a walking pace, but still bouncing like you are running. Your body gets the idea. I know it is really slow, but it's ok, you will make it through.

------------------
***********
My myspace

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

IP: Logged

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

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

race directors shop my profile
Sponsored By

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