posted Apr-15-2007 02:17 PM            

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

[This message has been edited by sansmap (edited Apr-15-2007).]

IP: Logged

posted Apr-15-2007 04:22 PM            

I always treated 180-age (145 for me) as a max. I'd set my HRM alarm to that and then try not to let it beep. I've lightened up some now and don't set the alarm (I'm not doing strictly low heart-rate anyway at the moment, but still stay well below MAF on recovery days). I will let it go over on some particularly steep hills as much as 5 bpm rather than resort to walking. On my MAF runs I would usually end up averaging 135-140 versus a MAF of 145. I pulled up a random log from last year on a 8.3 mile route I did most weekdays. My splits were 136 bpm (2.25 miles to the lake), 140 (3.8 miles around), and 140 (2.25 miles back). I always cheated on long runs, however. I would run the third hour over 145. Even when I ran the first 5 miles at 130 bpm average, I would go over 145 at the end to keep a steady pace.

Maffetone's book implies you're running at MAF though. He shows a 15 minute warm up, running at MAF heart rate and then a 15 minute cool down. Everybody here seems to have found their own sufficiently slow running pace. In my opinion, the important thing is to run slow enough that you can build time on your feet without getting injured. The thing that's going to get you to sub-5 is running more miles or better yet more time. I initially shot for 10 hours a week as slow as I needed to go to do that. If you can, don't even worry about writing down all your mile splits. Set the HRM to "slow" and run. If you want to check how you're doing, you can do a maffetone test every few weeks. (By the way, you should warm up for about 20 minutes before starting mile 1 of the test.)

Good luck,
Greg

IP: Logged

posted Apr-15-2007 08:45 PM            

IP: Logged

posted Apr-16-2007 01:25 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by futura:

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?

---

This is probably the biggest mistake made by endurance athletes. If you follow the formula, which I find most accurate when you see progress like you've seen, don't change it. If you're not progressing, or slowing down, it gives you a reason to re-think the formula. But with progress, don't be greedy. No reason you won't reach your goals.

IP: Logged

posted Apr-16-2007 01:28 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by futura:

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?

---

This is probably the biggest mistake made by endurance athletes. If you follow the formula, which I find most accurate when you see progress like you've seen, don't change it. If you're not progressing, or slowing down, it gives you a reason to re-think the formula. But with progress, don't be greedy. No reason you won't reach your goals.

IP: Logged

posted Apr-16-2007 01:30 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by futura:

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?

---

This is probably the biggest mistake made by endurance athletes. If you follow the formula, which I find most accurate when you see progress like you've seen, don't change it. If you're not progressing, or slowing down, it gives you a reason to re-think the formula. But with progress, don't be greedy. No reason you won't reach your goals.

IP: Logged

posted Apr-16-2007 01:34 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by futura:

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?

---

This is probably the biggest mistake made by endurance athletes. If you follow the formula, which I find most accurate when you see progress like you've seen, don't change it. If you're not progressing, or slowing down, it gives you a reason to re-think the formula. But with progress, don't be greedy. No reason you won't reach your goals.

IP: Logged

posted Apr-16-2007 01:39 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by futura:

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?

---

This is probably the biggest mistake made by endurance athletes. If you follow the formula, which I find most accurate when you see progress like you've seen, don't change it. If you're not progressing, or slowing down, it gives you a reason to re-think the formula. But with progress, don't be greedy. No reason you won't reach your goals.

IP: Logged

posted Apr-16-2007 01:42 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by futura:

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?

---

This is probably the biggest mistake made by endurance athletes. If you follow the formula, which I find most accurate when you see progress like you've seen, don't change it. If you're not progressing, or slowing down, it gives you a reason to re-think the formula. But with progress, don't be greedy. No reason you won't reach your goals.

IP: Logged

posted Apr-16-2007 09:10 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by DavidD:
This is probably the biggest mistake made by endurance athletes. If you follow the formula, which I find most accurate when you see progress like you've seen, don't change it. If you're not progressing, or slowing down, it gives you a reason to re-think the formula. But with progress, don't be greedy. No reason you won't reach your goals.

---

Thanks for the feedback, feedback, feedback.

You are right of course, since progress is being made why risk ruining it with fine tuning

IP: Logged

posted Apr-17-2007 06:27 PM               

Jesse's Boston 07

You can make plenty of assertions, but here's a little bit of narration:
For the first few miles, I could barely keep up a pace because of the
crowds and how I was feeling, I would have preferred to knock off about
6 miles at around 6:45-6:55 before my heart rate would catch up. Therefore
it's slightly lower than it would normally be for me at first. You may want
to take a few perspectives, such as looking at "laps" or "heart rate" and
plot elevation and speed as well. You'll see the steady drift upwards as
I try to maintain pace. The slower laps later on were at heartbreak hill
and another sizable hill. Once again, I'll point at that my anaerobic
threshold is around 177 and my typical training HR is around 140.

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

IP: Logged

posted Apr-17-2007 08:57 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by leitnerj:
Ok, now that I've gotten good readings in a good performance (for me)
with my forerunner 305, here's my data from the Boston marathon
yesterday:

Jesse's Boston 07

---

James (martinjames) mentioned in his response to your race report that he sees much less drift than what you saw.

Your heart rates (and the drift) look very similar to the NCR marathon I ran last November (you ran it too, of course). The difference (besides your much faster pace) is how low your heart rate was for the first 4 or 5 miles even though you were running at about your average for the race. The elevation profile might explain that. Midway my average was 172 for mile 13. Yours was 170. My last 4 splits were 176, 177, 177, and 181. Yours were 177, 176, 178, and 181. Overall my average was 172 vs 170 for you.

I saw a much different heart rate profile for Cherry Blossom this year than last (and different than annapolis). This year my heart rate was basically constant from mile 2 through 9 (between 180 and 182) and my all out effort at the end only mustered a 184 average in the last mile. Last year, my last three splits were 188, 189, and 191! Somehow I think the tempo running I've been doing lately has lowered my heart rate during races and made it less "pliable." It will be interesting to see what happens at the Frederick marathon for me.

IP: Logged

posted Apr-17-2007 09:03 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by gregw:
James (martinjames) mentioned in his response to your race report that he sees much less drift than what you saw.

---

Certainly elevation profile is a factor as potentially was the
fact that I may have been running closer to AT than he was
and the drift occurred at a faster pace. I know that I experience
very little drift at the lower paces. It's also possible that my
being a bit overdressed was a factor - I was dressed properly
for all of the waiting time, but not for the running time and I
didn't have anything conveniently disposable. Just guesses,
which is probably the best I'll ever come up with!

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

IP: Logged

posted Apr-17-2007 09:54 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by leitnerj:
Certainly elevation profile is a factor as potentially was the
fact that I may have been running closer to AT than he was
and the drift occurred at a faster pace. I know that I experience
very little drift at the lower paces. It's also possible that my
being a bit overdressed was a factor - I was dressed properly
for all of the waiting time, but not for the running time and I
didn't have anything conveniently disposable. Just guesses,
which is probably the best I'll ever come up with!

---

Ahh, you're over here now. My question was whether the drift is typical for you. It's really just curiosity.

In my case, I ran the first 18 miles at basically the same HR (147-149) and 7:30 pace. The next 6 miles I drifted up a touch, 150-52, which is consistent with the hills. Except for one brutal mile uphill, and another downhill mile, the pace was virtually constant. I don't know my anaerobic threshold, but my max HR is 169 and I ran my last 10k at a 155 average (6:55 pace in October), so you can see why those HR numbers scared me as I ran along. Had I drifted like you, I think I would have cracked and cursed myself for going for broke. Maybe I just got lucky. Or maybe your numbers are skewed because you run so many miles at a lower HR.

IP: Logged

posted Apr-17-2007 10:10 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by martinjames:
Ahh, you're over here now. My question was whether the drift is typical for you. It's really just curiosity.

In my case, I ran the first 18 miles at basically the same HR (147-149) and 7:30 pace. The next 6 miles I drifted up a touch, 150-52, which is consistent with the hills. Except for one brutal mile uphill, and another downhill mile, the pace was virtually constant. I don't know my anaerobic threshold, but my max HR is 169 and I ran my last 10k at a 155 average (6:55 pace in October), so you can see why those HR numbers scared me as I ran along. Had I drifted like you, I think I would have cracked and cursed myself for going for broke. Maybe I just got lucky. Or maybe your numbers are skewed because you run so many miles at a lower HR.

---

Well, another factor might be your lower max heart rate. In some
sense, your aerobic envelope may just be squashed into a smaller
packet (perhaps a 3x5, rather than a 5x8 or something). I know that
on cool long runs of 20 miles, I drift very little at MAF. However,
thinking back to the details of the race, I think it was more elevation
variation. Normally for the first 5 or 6 miles of the marathon, I get
a lot of pace for low HR and I usually take advantage of it. I wasn't
able to at Boston because of the crowd. Hence my HR was just
low and my pace was the same as later. The after the 5 or 6 fast
miles, I move into my steady state heart rate (which I did, but in
this case I leveled out the pace). I really wasn't thinking much about
pace when I was running, just heart rate and I actually plan a steady
increase throughout until the end, starting between mile 10 and 15.
After about 15, the real uphills starting showing up and after a few
hills where I didn't slow down very much, my baseline heart rate would
rise and it wouldn't come down since I didn't take any recovery time
and I always speed up a lot on the downs.

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

IP: Logged

posted Apr-18-2007 12:51 PM               

It's related to a number of things, but aerobic base may be the most important factor (stress hormone and previous meal are also key factors).

This is another important tool we can use to monitor our progress and be informed of a pending problem.

IP: Logged

posted Apr-19-2007 12:27 AM            

treadmill (1.0% incline) set for kilometers
17:39 105 warm-up

split....avehr/hr....dist......speed
1:34....117 /117....200m....7.6
1:29....118/120....200m....8.1
1:23....124/128....200m....8.6
1:20....129/129....200m....9.0
1:16....133/136....200m....9.4
1:13....141/143....200m....9.8
1:11....144/144....200m....10.2
1:07....147/155....200m....10.6
1:05....154/154....200m....11.0
1:03....160/160....200m....11.4
1:01....163/166....200m....11.8
0:59....171/172....200m....12.2
0:57....174/174....200m....12.6
0:55....175/179....200m....13.0
0:53....179/179....200m....13.4
0:52....183/183....200m....13.8
0:50....186/187....200m....14.2
0:49....189/189....200m....14.6
0:48....190/190....200m....15.0
0:46....192/195....200m....15.4
0:46....196/197....200m....15.8
0:44....197/199....200m ...16.2

I tried plotting a graphs for both the ave. and the "present" heart rates.
For average there is a leveling abot 175 (88% MHR). For the "present" heart rates, it levels at 179 ( 90%MHR). The test calls for "present" heart rates.

Pete Pfitzinger gives a lactate threshold range as somehwere between 80-90% MHR.

I've read a few places that you can push marathon close to lactate threshold on average. The one marathon where I wore a monitor, I averaged 179 bpm in the second half!

Anyone ever try or administer this test?
If so, what do you gather from my stats?

--Jimmy

Jog Log
zzzzzzz

IP: Logged

posted Apr-19-2007 05:07 AM            

The result was a lactate threshold of 173. It wasn't that meaningul since my marathon heart rate was 172. Later, I also averaged 183 for 10 miles over 79 minutes, so 173 was a little low for the heart rate I could hold for an hour.

IP: Logged

posted Apr-19-2007 08:19 AM            

Using a % of LT as a marathon pace is not something I've done consciously. I just use the Team Oregon and McMillan calculator as a goal to shoot for based on recent race times. Also using the most recent marathon PR as a goal to beat. I don't use HRM's in races to guide my pace. I have worn it a few times to gather info to look at after the race--for training. If I happen to see my HR, I wouldn't let it slow me down or speed me up. Just try to hold my goal pace.

That 179 I hit in the second half of that marathon was an average.

13) 7:38 175
14) 7:46 175
15) 7:47 173
16) 7:35 172 downhill
17) 7:25 174 downhill
18) 7:46 176
19) 7:36 179 downhill
20) 7:51 181
21) 7:58 181
22) 8:17 180
23) 8:18 179
24) 7:54 183
25) 7:33 187
25.2) 1:42 189
26.2) 7:33 189

Notice I began to slow when I hit 179-181, there was a plateau. In order to get back to pace, I had to work harder. My HR went to where it is during a 5k race in the last 2.2 miles. That's how it felt, and my breathing was like a 5k.

The 179-181 seems to coincide with my Conconi test (179).

--Jimmy

Jog Log
zzzzzzz

[This message has been edited by jjwaverly42 (edited Apr-19-2007).]

IP: Logged

posted Apr-19-2007 08:59 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by jjwaverly42:
Interesting explanation. Especially the info about MHR changing on the Pfitzinger page. I've always read it was fixed. Seems to be within a few beats, as the past few years I've been 198-199. Any clue where he got that information from?

---

I don't know, but I've seen others say it can change with training also. Now, I wrote that a year ago and with the benefit of hindsight, what I've seen that is when I'm tired or in the midst of hard training, I'll run an all out race at an equivalent time, but at a lower heart rate than when I'm tired. Last spring I ran a 10K in 47:21 @ 176bpm during the height of the Pfitz 55mpw program (which I wasn't really prepared for). About a month later after taking it easy for the two weeks after the marathon, I ran 10 miles @ 183bpm in 1:19:25 which is an almost exactly equivalent time. More recently I ran 5 miles two weeks apart in 34:20 and 34:45. The first was at 186 bpm and the second (done the day after an 18 miler) was at 182 bpm. In a sense my MaxHR was lower because were I to measure it on the tired days, I'm sure I wouldn't hit the 200 I've seen when I'm well rested. I suspect that is what is going on with whatever studies that show lower max heart rate with training. I haven't seen the studies though, so I can't say for sure.

On the racing by HR think, I don't really set out a target heart rate anymore, but I go by a combination of goal pace based on past races and feel (breathing for instance). Once I've established a heart rate after the first mile, I do look at and use it as a guide letting it inch up during the race. This has let me pace pretty evenly. It also keeps me from dogging it in the middle miles, which I'm apt to do. If my last split average was 180 and I see myself at 179, I know that I'm slacking off. It usually turns out that I'm close to the oregon pace wizard, but I don't plan it that way.

IP: Logged

posted Apr-19-2007 09:39 AM            

For several years overuse injuries have disrupted my training and kept me from achieving my goals. I think it's time to try something different.

I have no idea what my HR is when I run what I think is a slow pace. I'm a little scared to discover how slow I might end up running (at least initially) using this method.

Anyway, I'm close to purchasing a Garmin 305 and I'm anxious to get back to running!

Thanks for all of you who take the time to share your experiences in this forum. I find inspiration both in the individual tales and in the sense of community I see here.

IP: Logged

posted Apr-19-2007 09:49 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by gregw:
I don't know, but I've seen others say it can change with training also.

---

I don't WANT it to be true! It would throw my whole world into a freefall. I don't like freefalls. No.

Now, it is highly possible to get lower readings on certain days, but their is a limit to the highest you can get (e.g. it won't get to 300 bpm). So far so good with using the highest I've seen. I've added a few beats from 197 to 199. Doesn't make a difference really. I am curious about using % LT for training instead, as that might be more of a true number.

--Jimmy

Jog Log
zzzzzzz

IP: Logged

posted Apr-19-2007 10:26 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Who Dey:

For several years overuse injuries have disrupted my training and kept me from achieving my goals. I think it's time to try something different.

---

Welcome! I think you'll like it here. If your training has been disrupted by injuries, then it's definitely time to try something new and slowing down is a good place to start. I don't think there's a substitute for running consistent mileage over time. Let us know how you're doing.

Greg

IP: Logged

posted Apr-19-2007 11:51 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by jjwaverly42:
Now, it is highly possible to get lower readings on certain days, but their is a limit to the highest you can get (e.g. it won't get to 300 bpm). So far so good with using the highest I've seen. I've added a few beats from 197 to 199. Doesn't make a difference really. I am curious about using % LT for training instead, as that might be more of a true number.

---

Lactate parallels other things, including heart rate. I measured blood lactate a lot way back when (spent a lot of time on the track pricking athlete's fingers to get readings). The actual numbers, of course, don't fit well with the formulas. I still say why make it so complicated when we have convenient (albeit old technology) heart rate monitors.

A lot of lactate variation exists because of factors discussed here regarding RQ (fat burning), but a real imporant one is the level of thiamin (vit B1) which helps break lactate down. Thiamin levels can vary significantly throughout the day.

IP: Logged

posted Apr-19-2007 12:27 PM               

Good seeing this is still around! Nice following, Jesse!

------------------
Steve
My User Profile

My Photo Page

IP: Logged