posted Apr-01-2007 09:33 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by aharmer:
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?

---

Don't know without a history and more info. But 28 after you've been awake for awhile? Perhaps you're in great shape and very healthy, or, you're overtrained and don't know it. Or, who knows, there are various other reasons for an abnormally low HR, if it is abnormal. The point I made about low HRs is that we tend to think lower is better. But it's more often a problem when they're really low, like below 35 or 40 in someone who is not a professional athlete (and therefore works at some job and has other stresses).

IP: Logged

posted Apr-03-2007 01:43 PM               

IP: Logged

posted Apr-03-2007 06:40 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by DavidD:
FYI -- I see the HR monitor chapter from Complementary Sports Medicine by Maffetone is on his website (www.philmaffetone.com). There's a link to it on the home page in the middle column.

---

I read through the chapter and didn't see any data. There was a reference to a Table 13.2, which is supposed to compare first-mile MAF test times to 5K results, but the table wasn't included. I assume that this is the same table as in Jesse's FAQ which just has MAF pace and 5K pace and not a representation of the data collected.

Not only did I not see any data, it was hard to discern any scientific (i.e. falsifiable) statement about what the 180 formula can be used for. The only possible one I could discern was the 5K time prediction, but this isn't even falsifiable because he offers an explanation if there isn't a correlation -- there's something wrong with the subject such as overtraining, mental/emotional distress, or any other physiological imbalance.

IP: Logged

posted Apr-04-2007 07:01 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by gregw:
I read through the chapter and didn't see any data. There was a reference to a Table 13.2, which is supposed to compare first-mile MAF test times to 5K results, but the table wasn't included. I assume that this is the same table as in Jesse's FAQ which just has MAF pace and 5K pace and not a representation of the data collected.
Not only did I not see any data, it was hard to discern any scientific (i.e. falsifiable) statement about what the 180 formula can be used for. The only possible one I could discern was the 5K time prediction, but this isn't even falsifiable because he offers an explanation if there isn't a correlation -- there's something wrong with the subject such as overtraining, mental/emotional distress, or any other physiological imbalance.

---

From hearing Maffetone lecture at a medical conference, the 180 formula correlates primarily with the change in RQ during a treadmill test (with a training goal of lowering the RQ (and increasing fat-burning). He relates that to a number of secondary things, including improving the aerobic base (faster pace at same HR), racing and general health (standard questionnaires).

As we discussed, his books are clinical in their approach, so there is no presenation of data but rather a rationale of his approach. He did present general data when I saw him speak -- mostly the gas analyzer/treatmill test results. I believe he had 700+ subjects, but don't recall if that was just for the correlation with 5K results (I think he also had 10K and marathon distances too). His approach would be to make observations, measure is practical for a clinician, and rely on us researchers to gather the hardcore data separately. He also had a standard approach to assessing the athlete's health, which is why he stated that there was a high correlation in those with an "imbalance" who would not fit the pattern.

(He had some impressive clinical results on using mild hyperbaric chambers on a group of 40 (?) runners, comparing their race results with runners in the same race who did not use hyperbaric therapy.)

He references the 220 formulas but none of those papers (or any others I've seen) present any real data on using these formulas either.

IP: Logged

posted Apr-05-2007 01:25 PM            

I'm a complete newbie. I ran cross country in highschool, but never very fast. I never had a problem coming in last in the meets because, to me, someone always had to be last and if I could let someone beat me and then they have a better day because of it, then so be it. I think my fastest 5K was like 32 or something to that extent.

I tore my ACL my junior year of highschool during a skiing accident and haven't run seriously since then. I started jogging to lose weight for my wedding (which didnt work, interestingly enough), but just recently I decided to do the Couch to 5K program to get back into it.

I'm on week 5 day 3 which is my first 'long' jog of 20min.

The point is that I'm a 25 year old female, very overweight (5'4" tall, 250ish lbs). I have hypothryoidism and struggled with chronic fatigue problems and fibromyalgia on top of everything in the last year. I also have been shown to be mildly insulin resistant (a precursor to diabetes type II, after quite some time modifying my diet, I think I've got that beat). I'm finally feeling able to get to exercising and I really love running. I'm also monitoring my eating a lot better now. It seems I really have to stick it to my cals, etc, to lose anything. Its an ongoing battle, but I think I'm winning. Slowly but surely.

I have no idea what my HR is right now, but my dad bought me a Garmin 305 and it should be delivered by May 1-15.

I'm planning on running a few 5K's this summer, mostly with the goal of just finishing the races without wanting to die. Eventually, I'd love to be a marathoner, but I know that will take at least a year or more to build up the mileage. After reading through this thread though, I came upon something a bit concerning to me that seems to be a bit of a paradox. It's been mentioned several times that if you don't have a lot of mpw, then Maffetone type training won't benefit you... But then (on p 18 of the current thread) someone asked about his wife finishing couch to 5k and then going straight to maffetone type training. c25k ends with 9ish mpw IF you are at 10:00m/m pace. What gives there? It seems contradictory to tell the man to let his wife start Maffing, but also to say she won't get any benefit from it because she isn't running enough miles. But, at the same time, it seems like a BETTER idea to start Maffing right after C25K to avoid the 'humiliating' experience of slowing down to 12m/m.

Also, since I'm 25 with chronic health problems (fibro, hypothyroid, very heavy, etc etc) what should I follow? I know that 180-age +/- 10 falls apart at the low and high ends of the age spectrum and I also know that if you have a low max HR, then it falls apart, but where do i begin?

Well, let me answer my own last question: I should get my Garmin, play around this summer just recording heart rates and 'racing' in 5K's just to accomplish something, then go from there after this summer is over? Maybe what I'll really do is just try to build a milage base with 'easy' runs and still compete in 5K's just for experience... I know that's not really Maff type basebuilding, but remember, I'm just coming off of C25K.

Also, it would seem to me that in order to lose a large amount of weight you would WANT to Maff pretty hardcore, especially with all the talk about RQ's and so forth (I need to get a book to digest all the information, but I think I have a handle on what's going on). Does that sound accurate?

IP: Logged

posted Apr-05-2007 02:57 PM               

Congrats on your decision to make the lifestyle change, you'll feel better and better every day. Just my opinion, but I would just focus on going slow. Running at 12:00 pace as a beginner should not be humiliating at all. A guy here that you've read quite a bit about (jesse) just finished top 10 in a 100M race and he started out walking at 17:00 pace.

Just focus on going slow and gradually increasing your mileage all the time. If you feel unusual aches and pains back off until they're gone and continue to push upward. Again just one opinion but I'd use the Maf formula minus about 10 beats due to your history. Go out with the Garmin and see what kind of pace you can hold at this HR. Just remember, you don't have to be running fast in training to do 5K races. Keep it slow and steady for now and continue to enjoy training injury free!

Best of luck, keep us updated with your progress.

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

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

IP: Logged

posted Apr-05-2007 03:34 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Aetheana:
What gives there? It seems contradictory to tell the man to let his wife start Maffing, but also to say she won't get any benefit from it because she isn't running enough miles. But, at the same time, it seems like a BETTER idea to start Maffing right after C25K to avoid the 'humiliating' experience of slowing down to 12m/m.

---

As aharmer said, congratulations on changing your lifestyle! You won't regret it.

I think the thing that is confusing is that many people who are trying low heart rate training are coming from prior high intensity training where they might have been running say 30 mpw at a high intensity. When they decide to run at a lower intensity (ie MAF), then they likely have to up their mileage beyond 30 mpw to see improvement. Sticking to a low heart rate helps them do that without getting injured and interrupting training (hence the "basebuilding" in the thread).

You, however, are starting relatively fresh and your main goal is long-term health and not short-term speed. You're basebuilding from scratch. In that case, I think you've come to the right place. There are only three variables I can think of in training: frequency, duration, and intensity. For now, I'd emphasize the first two over the third. Sticking to a low heart rate zone is a good way to ensure you can maximize the time on your feet (burning calories) while not getting injured. Don't worry about the pace displayed on that fancy 305. Just look at the time and heart rate.

Good luck!
Greg

IP: Logged

posted Apr-05-2007 03:41 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Aetheana:
I'm planning on running a few 5K's this summer, mostly with the goal of just finishing the races without wanting to die. Eventually, I'd love to be a marathoner, but I know that will take at least a year or more to build up the mileage. After reading through this thread though, I came upon something a bit concerning to me that seems to be a bit of a paradox. It's been mentioned several times that if you don't have a lot of mpw, then Maffetone type training won't benefit you... But then (on p 18 of the current thread) someone asked about his wife finishing couch to 5k and then going straight to maffetone type training. c25k ends with 9ish mpw IF you are at 10:00m/m pace. What gives there? It seems contradictory to tell the man to let his wife start Maffing, but also to say she won't get any benefit from it because she isn't running enough miles. But, at the same time, it seems like a BETTER idea to start Maffing right after C25K to avoid the 'humiliating' experience of slowing down to 12m/m.

Also, since I'm 25 with chronic health problems (fibro, hypothyroid, very heavy, etc etc) what should I follow? I know that 180-age +/- 10 falls apart at the low and high ends of the age spectrum and I also know that if you have a low max HR, then it falls apart, but where do i begin?

Well, let me answer my own last question: I should get my
Also, it would seem to me that in order to lose a large amount of weight you would WANT to Maff pretty hardcore, especially with all the talk about RQ's and so forth (I need to get a book to digest all the information, but I think I have a handle on what's going on). Does that sound accurate?

---

Certainly lowering your RQ will help burn more fat. And, it never hurts to be conservative regarding the HR you choose, unless you're a pro and every second in a race could mean more endorsements. If your primary goal is health, don't worry about pace, go by time.

Have you read Maffetone's Two Week Test? Might be something to look at -- perhaps a good match for your training to speed up the fat-burning.

IP: Logged

posted Apr-05-2007 05:50 PM            

At age 37 I decided to attempt a heathly lifestyle. I'd been obese since kindergarden and studiously avoided exercise (5'5" 250+ lbs).

In spring 2004, I started jogging, ate about 2/3 of what I was used to (and no junk food, candy, soda), and forced myself to sleep regularly. All good so far. Since I had limited time each morning to run, I figured I should make the most of it, so I simply ran as hard as I could six mornings per week (whether my knees liked it or not). 24 months later, I weighed about 180 pounds - and could not lose any more.

In fact, in June of 2006, I logged 143 miles and lost no weight despite eating reasonably and sleeping well. In my desperate attempt to break through this plateau, I doubled my running while on vacation one week in July 2006. I logged 59 miles in a week (which for me seemed herculean) and didn't lose one ounce.

So I quit.

Several months (and many pounds) later, my wife cajoled me into talking to a runner friend of hers, who introduced me to some of the concepts discussed here. After some homework (reading Mark Allen, Maffetone, etc.) I decided to give it another shot. It turns out my dad had a heart rate monitor (that he used for a while after his heart attack!), so I borrowed that.

Before I started MAF, as a benchmark, I ran a 09:09 mile with the monitor on - average HR of 178 and a high of 191. Yow. My average HR for 3 miles was 170. My resting heart rate is pretty good for a 200 lb fat guy - it's 48-51 most mornings (so that high intensity work wasn't all bad). But even walking my heart rate was 20+ bpm higher than my dad's (and my post-heart-attack dad is not exactly the picture of health).

I've been at MAF for almost 4 weeks now. I'm walking briskly on a treadmill. It sucks. My knees are happy though.

I've taken the MAF leap of faith that I will at some point be able to run again and that this change will contribute to me being able to reach a healthy weight. After doing more reading, I've made further changes to my diet (fewer carbs especially at night, smaller more frequent meals, etc), and have scheduled a physical for my 40th bday to make sure I don't have other issues.

So kudos to you for starting at age 25 and for doing your homework first. I don't know if this training is right for you, but I can say that 2 years of solid "high intensity" work, was at least for me, not the smartest course of action.

Ken

IP: Logged

posted Apr-06-2007 07:02 AM            

You guys are all so great. I now really get why having high mileage per week is more important for people coming off of high intensity training rather than people starting from scratch. I also do have to look at the Maffetone website to get some more information (though with all the pros on here I'm glad its where I started!)

And as far as not watching the pace, I really don't have a problem with that. I know it'll be so wonderful to get to a good pace with a low heartrate. It just makes sense, to me at least, that the best way to run, injury free, is to keep your ticker in a place its happy at. Like I said before, I have no qualms in finishing last. Right now it's more important to me to be able to get out there and just hit the pavement.

I'm a graduate student getting my PhD in chemistry. I need running for stress relief!

Again, thanks so much you guys. I'll keep checking back. I just wish my Garmin would get here faster! Like someone else said, I, also, really like to geek out with numbers and things like that (hence the PhD).

IP: Logged

posted Apr-10-2007 09:21 PM            

Second MAF Test, April 10, 2007
Mile 1 10:37 134
Mile 2 11:06 135
Mile 3 11:28 135
Mile 4 11:41 134
Mile 5 11:44 136

I just did my second MAF test tonight.
After that first test I averaged around 27 miles a week all at my MAF heartrate of 136.

So far so good.

IP: Logged

posted Apr-10-2007 09:21 PM               

I'm starting Maffetone (or whatever) and was looking for some feedback (hoping for some veteran advice). I'm 40 so my MAP HR is around 140. I figure my Max HR is either 165 or 175 (pledge of allegiance test and others but I think the higher number is more accurate) so this is a little lower than average but I've been running 40+ mpw for 2-3 years (up to 65 in the last several months), marathons, 50Ks, 10Ks etc... so that makes me add 10 so I've decided that my MAP HR is around 145. I'm doing my "test runs" on a track at 142 to be "safe" and I try to keep my HR below 140 on all my other runs (140 turns into 143-145 when you figure in hills and the fact that I'm human and sometimes miss when my HR goes "too high"). When I run a 10K I try to peg my HR at 162-165 and hold it there (seems to work pretty good).

I ran my first "test" on a track and in the 5th mile my HR was 142 on the nose and my pace was 8:09. I would give you all my split times (each at 141/142 HR) but my GPS battery died and because I wasn't watching my pace I didn't realize it until the 5th mile at which point I timed myself by the track. I did a marathon two weeks ago at an 8:05 pace. It was not a "training run" (my average HR was 152 but the temp was 20-30 degrees higher). Given these data points (I have lots more) I'm not convinced that my MAP is correct. I seemed to run a bit fast to be "running slow". Have I figured everything correctly? Should I slow down more and if so what are some suggested MAP numbers?

Thanks,
John

P.S. Anyone know how to convert running MAP HR to biking MAP HR?

IP: Logged

posted Apr-10-2007 09:59 PM            

I've been lurking on this thread for a long time, and I have wanted to try low heart rate training for a long time. I've just recently started, but I'm really not seeing any progress and getting very discouraged. I'm posting so that someone can give me some hope.

About me: 26 years old, female, have been running 4-5 years, mostly in 18-20 mpw range, sometimes more sometimes less. I started using an HRM last fall, and regularly ran with my HR in the 180's. I think my max hr is somewhere around 196 (highest I have ever seen it- was after running about 1 mile all out).
Also, I ran a marathon in february in 5:11, which I trained for on pretty low mileage (I know), but I felt fine throughout the race. However, my half marathon time is 2:08, so I should have been able to finish in 4:30 or so. So, I figured I'd be a good candidate for MAF training.

After the marathon I ran a little- about 12mpw, some weeks less due to travel and illness. The last two weeks I have been back in the low 20's.

The MAF heart rate I am using is 149 (180-26- 5(for allergies). I usually stay around 142-147 because I hate the sound of my Garmin. I started about 6 weeks ago at 17:30 mm, and I am still there! Sometimes I can get into the 16:00s, sometimes stuck in the 18:00s.....

So, I guess my question is whether I am doing something wrong? Or just haven't run enough miles yet? Or will MAF training not benefit me because of low mpw? Should I be using a different number? (I take birth control, but I didn't subtract 5 for that).
I have been getting about 1-2 miles down hill per week. Is that enough?

Any advice appreciated!

IP: Logged

posted Apr-10-2007 11:47 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by GAJohnRunner:
Hi,

I'm starting Maffetone (or whatever) and was looking for some feedback (hoping for some veteran advice). I'm 40 so my MAP HR is around 140. I figure my Max HR is either 165 or 175 (pledge of allegiance test and others but I think the higher number is more accurate) so this is a little lower than average but I've been running 40+ mpw for 2-3 years (up to 65 in the last several months), marathons, 50Ks, 10Ks etc... so that makes me add 10 so I've decided that my MAP HR is around 145. I'm doing my "test runs" on a track at 142 to be "safe" and I try to keep my HR below 140 on all my other runs (140 turns into 143-145 when you figure in hills and the fact that I'm human and sometimes miss when my HR goes "too high"). When I run a 10K I try to peg my HR at 162-165 and hold it there (seems to work pretty good).

I ran my first "test" on a track and in the 5th mile my HR was 142 on the nose and my pace was 8:09. I would give you all my split times (each at 141/142 HR) but my GPS battery died and because I wasn't watching my pace I didn't realize it until the 5th mile at which point I timed myself by the track. I did a marathon two weeks ago at an 8:05 pace. It was not a "training run" (my average HR was 152 but the temp was 20-30 degrees higher). Given these data points (I have lots more) I'm not convinced that my MAP is correct. I seemed to run a bit fast to be "running slow". Have I figured everything correctly? Should I slow down more and if so what are some suggested MAP numbers?

Thanks,
John

P.S. Anyone know how to convert running MAP HR to biking MAP HR?

---

When you say MAP HR, are you referring to MAF (maximum
aerobic function)? I assume so. I think you're probably right -
I would guess you have a bit of a low max heart rate and you
may want to target a lower heart rate for MAF. Of course, it
could just be that you are well-conditioned aerobically (I don't
see any evidence in your post of aerobic problems.) If it is
the case that you have a low max heart rate, then I would
suggest one of two things: (1) the cheap approach - get a
best estimate of your max heart rate and find the heart
rate recommendations in the Hadd article, which is in
the FAQ, or (2) the costly, but more accurate, approach -
have a vo2max test done, making sure that they will bring
you beyond an RQ of 1 and provide the range of RQ values
for the duration of the test, along with the associated heart
rates.

As a side note, if you are well conditioned aerobically, it
will eventually get to a point where it becomes quite challenging
to get your heart rate up while running and you find you have
to push a bit hard. I actually like running at about MAF-15
or MAF-20 now.

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

IP: Logged

posted Apr-10-2007 11:54 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by chase3543:
Hi Everyone,

I've been lurking on this thread for a long time, and I have wanted to try low heart rate training for a long time. I've just recently started, but I'm really not seeing any progress and getting very discouraged. I'm posting so that someone can give me some hope.

About me: 26 years old, female, have been running 4-5 years, mostly in 18-20 mpw range, sometimes more sometimes less. I started using an HRM last fall, and regularly ran with my HR in the 180's. I think my max hr is somewhere around 196 (highest I have ever seen it- was after running about 1 mile all out).
Also, I ran a marathon in february in 5:11, which I trained for on pretty low mileage (I know), but I felt fine throughout the race. However, my half marathon time is 2:08, so I should have been able to finish in 4:30 or so. So, I figured I'd be a good candidate for MAF training.

After the marathon I ran a little- about 12mpw, some weeks less due to travel and illness. The last two weeks I have been back in the low 20's.

The MAF heart rate I am using is 149 (180-26- 5(for allergies). I usually stay around 142-147 because I hate the sound of my Garmin. I started about 6 weeks ago at 17:30 mm, and I am still there! Sometimes I can get into the 16:00s, sometimes stuck in the 18:00s.....

So, I guess my question is whether I am doing something wrong? Or just haven't run enough miles yet? Or will MAF training not benefit me because of low mpw? Should I be using a different number? (I take birth control, but I didn't subtract 5 for that).
I have been getting about 1-2 miles down hill per week. Is that enough?

Any advice appreciated!

---

Hi there! First, I wouldn't bother subtracting 5 for allergies, although
I do recommend getting in a good percentage of mileage in as low
as possible. And I really don't think you need to subtract for
taking BC pills! Since it's slowing down your pace so much, subtracting 5 may
end up being counterproductive at first. There's no doubt that the
low mileage is always a factor, although many have been successful
with as low as 15 mpw. I really think you need to do at least 25 to
really see some progress. I have a feeling your poor scaleability of
your half marathon time to marathon time is more to do with your very
low mileage. Some people can get away with it, but most cannot.
Some people just seem to have an inherent endurance. I think you
should play around with adding 10 beats (and not subtracting any)
for about 25-30% of your mileage, also because you're on the young
side. You should be prepared to experiment and it's good that you're
asking questions at this point. Also, try to make sure that you are
picking up the pace on downhills (and slowing down on the ups).
These are just some of my late night thoughts for now.

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

[This message has been edited by leitnerj (edited Apr-10-2007).]

IP: Logged

posted Apr-11-2007 12:50 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by leitnerj:
Hi there! First, I wouldn't bother subtracting 5 for allergies, although
I do recommend getting in a good percentage of mileage in as low
as possible. And I really don't think you need to subtract for
taking BC pills! Since it's slowing down your pace so much, subtracting 5 may
end up being counterproductive at first. There's no doubt that the
low mileage is always a factor, although many have been successful
with as low as 15 mpw. I really think you need to do at least 25 to
really see some progress. I have a feeling your poor scaleability of
your half marathon time to marathon time is more to do with your very
low mileage. Some people can get away with it, but most cannot.
Some people just seem to have an inherent endurance. I think you
should play around with adding 10 beats (and not subtracting any)
for about 25-30% of your mileage, also because you're on the young
side. You should be prepared to experiment and it's good that you're
asking questions at this point. Also, try to make sure that you are
picking up the pace on downhills (and slowing down on the ups).
These are just some of my late night thoughts for now.

---

Thanks, leitnerj. I think I'll finish this week at 142-147, then starting next week, try running anywhere from 142-160 and see how that goes.

IP: Logged

posted Apr-12-2007 01:58 PM            

IP: Logged

posted Apr-13-2007 09:41 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by futura:
First 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

Second MAF Test, April 10, 2007
Mile 1 10:37 134
Mile 2 11:06 135
Mile 3 11:28 135
Mile 4 11:41 134
Mile 5 11:44 136

I just did my second MAF test tonight.
After that first test I averaged around 27 miles a week all at my MAF heartrate of 136.
So far so good.

---

I went out tonight on a trusty loop and did 5.61 miles at 10:44/mi.

This is a full minute faster per mile than the MAF test I did on Tuesday of this week. I attribute it to rest.

I am very pleased with the results of this MAF training. It allows me to see a tangible measure of fitness improvement while I train safely.

Those first 90 miles were a little painful though, as I had to go so slow to maintain 136bpm, but tonight the pace felt a little better. It is still slow to me though and I am looking forward to running in the 9s at the same 136bpm.

Here comes the old question. I am thinking if I can raise my MAF target heartrate to 141. I am 44, 5'10, 160lbs. I want the +5.

Any thoughts from the experts?

IP: Logged

posted Apr-13-2007 09:59 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by futura:

Here comes the old question. I am thinking if I can raise my MAF target heartrate to 141. I am 44, 5'10, 160lbs. I want the +5.

Any thoughts from the experts?

---

Well, there's nothing wrong with tailoring things to your own
needs. However, it sounds like you're making nice progress,
so why muck around with it? Maybe take one or two runs a
week where you allow it to go 5 beats higher. I eventually
got to the point where I could run a pace I was happy with
at 20 beats below MAF, but it took a lot of persistence.

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

IP: Logged

posted Apr-13-2007 11:32 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by leitnerj:
Well, there's nothing wrong with tailoring things to your own
needs. However, it sounds like you're making nice progress,
so why muck around with it? Maybe take one or two runs a
week where you allow it to go 5 beats higher. I eventually
got to the point where I could run a pace I was happy with
at 20 beats below MAF, but it took a lot of persistence.

---

Thanks for the feed back. I will hold it at 136 and not mess with my progress but will do one medium run a week at 141. This will help me with leg turnover as I am finding it hard to go faster than 9:15 down hill at 136.

How long did it take you to get to running at a pace you liked at 20 beats below MAF, total distance run and how many months? And what was that pace?

IP: Logged

posted Apr-14-2007 05:56 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by futura:

How long did it take you to get to running at a pace you liked at 20 beats below MAF, total distance run and how many months? And what was that pace?

---

It was probably about 9 or 10 months, averaging about 65 mpw and
probably 80-120 mpw of biking and 4 mpw of swimming. I don't know
that you need all that, but I might as well put it all on the table.
That's about an 8:50 pace on flat ground. I run at between 7:55-8:10
now on flat ground at MAF-10 and about 7:30-7:45/mile on the treadmill
at MAF-10. But, after a lot of racing, I have to rebuild occasionally.

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

IP: Logged

posted Apr-14-2007 11:59 AM            

One big factor is wind, which was steadily in my face on the way out and at my back on my return (and this is often the case on this route). This probably explains a lot of it, but I also wonder if there are other factors at work here. Has anyone noticed the same difference between running indoors and out? Does the cooler outdoor temperature (45F here today) or cooling effect of the wind generally make much difference? I'd guess the body has to work less hard to get rid of the excess heat, but not sure how significant this might be.

Thanks!

John
http://sub-5.blogspot.com/

IP: Logged

posted Apr-14-2007 01:00 PM               

You're right about the TM and wind resistance. My times would erode badly on the TM until I placed a big fan in front of the TM. Now I don't have that problem at all. In addition, I find that around mile 5-6 my HR tends to start going down very gradually, allowing me to speed up a bit.

IP: Logged

posted Apr-14-2007 02:38 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by sansmap:
my pace falls off gradually over 5-6 miles from about 8 min/mi to about 10 min/mi, as expected.
http://sub-5.blogspot.com/

---

I do terribly on treadmills for some reason and see the same kind of effect you see (albeit much less dramatic). I think, as Adam said, it's a matter of heat dissipation.

Looking at your blog, I also think that you're probably starting off too fast. Try to shoot for an even pace even if it means you'll be below your target heart rate for the first couple of miles. Your last treadmill run was 6 in 55:44 (9:17 min/mi avg, 8:12 first mile, 10:09 last). If you start your next run at your average page (9:17 min/mi), I'll bet you see less slow down and a lower average heart rate.

IP: Logged

posted Apr-14-2007 03:42 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by leitnerj:
It was probably about 9 or 10 months, averaging about 65 mpw and
probably 80-120 mpw of biking and 4 mpw of swimming. I don't know
that you need all that, but I might as well put it all on the table.
That's about an 8:50 pace on flat ground. I run at between 7:55-8:10
now on flat ground at MAF-10 and about 7:30-7:45/mile on the treadmill
at MAF-10. But, after a lot of racing, I have to rebuild occasionally.

---

Very impressive results.

I am in week four of MAF training with only 100 miles under my belt so I have a ways to go. I am hoping on getting down 9:30-9:59/mile in four months at 136 bpm.

So far so good though. I am doing about 27-30 miles a week and will add only 10% per week.

I had a tinge in my right knee last week because I think I was doing too much too soon. So I rested this week (only 15 miles so far) and my pace per mile shot up on my last outing.

IP: Logged