posted Apr-23-2007 05:22 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by slowgino:
Ok, something like this certainly makes sense to me in terms of how the equipment used in the test tells you where you are. Is there general agreement on what fat/carb percentages we have at the AeT? I found another source which says that the Aerobic Threshold is the point where the active muscles begin to use more glycogen than fatty acids to provide energy. Does that mean 50%,50% , and if so would that be an RQ of about 0.85?

As you can probably tell, my knowledge on this stuff is pretty meager... just a few things I've read and the AeT number printed out on the sheet from my VO2 test.

---

The one thing that is constant and consistent on definitions of
things such as aerobic threshold, anaerobic threshold, lactate
threshold, and so forth, is that the definitions are all different and
all over the place. Some equate anaerobic threshold to lactate
threshold and define it based on some level of blood lactate
concentration increase (not the same level, mind you). Some
will define aerobic threshold on various other quantities. To me,
what makes the most sense, at least if you correlate aerobic
conditioning with an ability to use fat as a fuel source, to base it
on RQ and perhaps it's .85, perhaps it's .78, whatever, but fat
should be the primary fuel source (and this is certainly the
intent of the MAF definition).

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

IP: Logged

posted Apr-23-2007 11:28 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by leitnerj:
... To me, what makes the most sense, at least if you correlate aerobic conditioning with an ability to use fat as a fuel source, to base it on RQ and perhaps it's .85, perhaps it's .78, whatever, but fat should be the primary fuel source (and this is certainly the intent of the MAF definition).

---

I think this is the key, "aerobic" refers to fat burning as a primary fuel. The problem is some people (many people in my experience) don't burn enough fat. So if someone is burning 50% fat and 50% sugar during an easy run, it may reflect a less efficient aerobic system compared to one doing the same run who can burn 70% fat. More important is that as training proceeds, one should be burning a higher percentage of fat and certainly not a lower (which would be indicative of overtraining).

IP: Logged

posted Apr-25-2007 11:26 AM            

The fat burning issue seems to be a real important one. I heard Mark Allen's caloric intake during his Ironman wins didn't match his energy expenditure. Now I realize that could be since his fat burning capability was great.

IP: Logged

posted Apr-25-2007 06:24 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by PB2:
A lot of these terms are clearly definable, but the question is what do we do with them?

The fat burning issue seems to be a real important one. I heard Mark Allen's caloric intake during his Ironman wins didn't match his energy expenditure. Now I realize that could be since his fat burning capability was great.

---

That doesn't surprise me at all. I don't need to take in any calories during
a marathon at a pretty good pace. calories in = 0, calories out = 3537.
Calorie deficit = 3537. No wall. In 50 and 100 mile races (more akin to
what you'd burn in an ironman), I'll have a bigger calorie deficit (but in
those cases, I do eat!) In those cases, however, I don't keep track of
calories - it's way too much trouble!

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

IP: Logged

posted Apr-28-2007 04:26 PM            

MAF Tests
______Mar 14 '07 Ap 12 '07 Ap 28 '07
Mile 1 11:29 131 10:37 134 09:54 133
Mile 2 11:50 132 11:06 135 10:15 135
Mile 3 12:09 133 11:28 135 10:32 136
Mile 4 12:12 133 11:41 134 10:40 136
Mile 5 12:27 133 11:44 136 10:42 136

I took seven days off because I have been having some recurring pain in my right knee after mile 4. I booked an appointment with a physio and wanted to rest it until I got an checked out. Since it was nothing (bursitis) I decided to go out for an MAF right after the appointment.

I am liking this MAF thing.

[This message has been edited by futura (edited Apr-28-2007).]

[This message has been edited by futura (edited Apr-28-2007).]

IP: Logged

posted Apr-28-2007 05:31 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by futura:
Just finished my third MAF test today and have made some significant progress. My first mile was even in the 9s. The sweet nines. This is on running about 30 miles a week all usually under 136 beats per minute.

MAF Tests
______Mar 14 '07 Ap 12 '07 Ap 28 '07
Mile 1 11:29 131 10:37 134 09:54 133
Mile 2 11:50 132 11:06 135 10:15 135
Mile 3 12:09 133 11:28 135 10:32 136
Mile 4 12:12 133 11:41 134 10:40 136
Mile 5 12:27 133 11:44 136 10:42 136

I took seven days off because I have been having some recurring pain in my right knee after mile 4. I booked an appointment with a physio and wanted to rest it until I got an checked out. Since it was nothing (bursitis) I decided to go out for an MAF right after the appointment.

I am liking this MAF thing.

[This message has been edited by futura (edited Apr-28-2007).]

[This message has been edited by futura (edited Apr-28-2007).]

---

Aweome job futura! 1:30-2:00/mile improvement in 6 weeks, not too shabby. Don't get frustrated if the improvement slows or grinds to a halt for a while, you will continue to improve.

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

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

IP: Logged

posted Apr-28-2007 07:13 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by aharmer:
Aweome job futura! 1:30-2:00/mile improvement in 6 weeks, not too shabby. Don't get frustrated if the improvement slows or grinds to a halt for a while, you will continue to improve.

---

Thanks aharmer. I guess my rate of improvement isn't sustainable in the long run but I am hoping in the next 60 days I can get even my 5th mile of the MAF test in the mid 9s.

This process has left me wondering how much of my improvement is attributed to improved aerobic fitness and how much to improved physiological capacity?

Since I went from sitting behind a desk for 20 years to MAF training I get the double impact of improvements in aerobic capacity and improvements in muscle, tendon and bone capacity, not to mention improved running mechanics, while the already anaerobicly fit jogger trying MAF just gets the impact of improvements in aerobic fitness.

Maybe the plateau I am about to experience will be due to entering the steep part of the curve of my physioligical capacity limiting future gains to aerobic only?

IP: Logged

posted Apr-28-2007 10:43 PM            

For my genetically gifted friend, Ted, for instance - his HR is 17x his speed in MPH (at a run of 8 MPH, his HR is 8x17=136). This kicks in about 10 min into the run and stays there. If he has a bad day, or its really hot or really cold - the multiplier is closer to 18 - but no matter what the pace, the multiplier holds.

For me, when I'm in great shape, the multiplier is 20. At 6 MPH, my HR is 120 (20x6 MPH). At 7 MPH, my HR is 140 (20x7). At 8 MPH, my HR is 160. That's a little short of my anaerobic threshold, and the formula stops working there.

I'm 44. I've had HRMs for many years (15). My max HR at age 29 was 192. Its currently 180. Gradually drops over time. Regardless, when in great shape, the multiplier has been the same. I've only slowed down over the years because my anaerobic threshold (at my best) is 90% of my max and my max is gradually falling over the years.

I believe in the Van Aaken method, which is very similar to Maffetone. My threshold for HR in running is about 80% of max HR if I've been training a lot at an easy pace. When out of shape its closer to 70%. Shows the benefit of this sort of training.

IP: Logged

posted Apr-29-2007 03:59 AM               

Last year I ran Feb-Oct at at or below my Maff pace. When I started out I performed a max HR test - 193bpm according to my cheap Timex HR monitor. I'm 31 y/o now (30 then) and I take a med for blood pressure. I use 140 bpm for an upper limit.

I've run a few very hard runs since the end of Oct. I am no longer able to raise my HR above 180. If fact when I pushed HARD near the end of my fall Marathon I just crested 180. Is it possible that I've lowered my max HR?

The concern I have is with the 140 number. When I first began running it was difficult to stay under 140. Now - frequently when I run at 135-140 it feels too fast. I can't carry on conversation. Current Maff test pace is between 8:15 and 8:30. I know that running just above aerobic threshold is pretty much worthless. Should I slow down when I start my next base period in May?

IP: Logged

posted Apr-29-2007 07:54 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by corland14:
I have a couple of questions for the experienced Maffers:

Last year I ran Feb-Oct at at or below my Maff pace. When I started out I performed a max HR test - 193bpm according to my cheap Timex HR monitor. I'm 31 y/o now (30 then) and I take a med for blood pressure. I use 140 bpm for an upper limit.

I've run a few very hard runs since the end of Oct. I am no longer able to raise my HR above 180. If fact when I pushed HARD near the end of my fall Marathon I just crested 180. Is it possible that I've lowered my max HR?

The concern I have is with the 140 number. When I first began running it was difficult to stay under 140. Now - frequently when I run at 135-140 it feels too fast. I can't carry on conversation. Current Maff test pace is between 8:15 and 8:30. I know that running just above aerobic threshold is pretty much worthless. Should I slow down when I start my next base period in May?

---

Hi corland,

Was the HRM you used to record 193 fairly accurate and reliable at the time? If so it would be hard to lower your max HR down to the 180 range. However, the way your describe the feel of your 140bpm runs a 180 max would make sense.

Either way, running at a lower HR of 125-130 will not have a negative effect. The physiological changes you're looking for when basebuilding will still happen at the lower HR. Just my opinion but when in doubt always move the training HR down for the basebuilding period. Good luck, let us know how the experiment goes.

Oh, one final thought. You mention Maf training pace of 8:15-8:30. Do you have any recent race data to compare these paces to? This might help in determining whether your training paces are in line with race performance.

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

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

[This message has been edited by aharmer (edited Apr-29-2007).]

IP: Logged

posted Apr-29-2007 08:45 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by corland14:
I have a couple of questions for the experienced Maffers:

Last year I ran Feb-Oct at at or below my Maff pace. When I started out I performed a max HR test - 193bpm according to my cheap Timex HR monitor. I'm 31 y/o now (30 then) and I take a med for blood pressure. I use 140 bpm for an upper limit.

I've run a few very hard runs since the end of Oct. I am no longer able to raise my HR above 180. If fact when I pushed HARD near the end of my fall Marathon I just crested 180. Is it possible that I've lowered my max HR?

The concern I have is with the 140 number. When I first began running it was difficult to stay under 140. Now - frequently when I run at 135-140 it feels too fast. I can't carry on conversation. Current Maff test pace is between 8:15 and 8:30. I know that running just above aerobic threshold is pretty much worthless. Should I slow down when I start my next base period in May?

---

I don't know the answer. I do know that since MAFing for a couple of
years, I never come close to my max heart rate in any race. I think
it's really because I have no interest in pushing that hard. Has MAFing
turned me into a major wimp? Perhaps, but the new wimpy me can
whip the old me's butt in long races now, hardly being tired at the end.
In either case, I don't know that you really need to make a hard downward
adjustment, but there's nothing wrong with taking most (if not all - personal preference) of your weekly runs at a lower baseline. I run
most of my long runs with a friend and the right pace for her has
me about 20 beats below my MAF heart rate. And I can assure you
I've only seen positive effects from this form of training. I still do
many, if not most, runs on my own and I'll run up against the MAF
ceiling just to get some higher paced efforts.

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

IP: Logged

posted Apr-29-2007 02:43 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by corland14:
I'm 31 y/o now (30 then) and I take a med for blood pressure. I use 140 bpm for an upper limit.

---

If the medication you take for your blood pressure is a beta-blocker (Atenolol would be a common example) then absolutely, your max HR will be lowered.

IP: Logged

posted Apr-29-2007 10:22 PM            

------------------
***********
My myspace
No Complaining
My User Profile
Low Heart Rate Training FAQ Because many have asked...

IP: Logged

posted Apr-29-2007 11:03 PM            

1. Your medication could temporarily lower your max HR; although if you no longer needed it - it would rebound.

2. The average max HR loss for people is 1 beat per year. When I first got a HR monitor at age 29 my max HR was 192. At age 44, its currently 180. No amount of training seems to slow that trend. I've just adjusted my training HR down as I've aged. I can pretty well tell my MAF from years of running close to it. Currently its about 144.

IP: Logged

posted Apr-29-2007 11:51 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by aharmer:
Hi corland,

Was the HRM you used to record 193 fairly accurate and reliable at the time? If so it would be hard to lower your max HR down to the 180 range. However, the way your describe the feel of your 140bpm runs a 180 max would make sense.

Either way, running at a lower HR of 125-130 will not have a negative effect. The physiological changes you're looking for when basebuilding will still happen at the lower HR. Just my opinion but when in doubt always move the training HR down for the basebuilding period. Good luck, let us know how the experiment goes.

Oh, one final thought. You mention Maf training pace of 8:15-8:30. Do you have any recent race data to compare these paces to? This might help in determining whether your training paces are in line with race performance.

---

Couple of things:

The HR monitor I used then was not very reliable. It used to bounce around a bit. However, I recall that run and remember working my way up through the 180's to 193. I was able to hold it at 193 for several seconds before I finally gave out. I didn't notice any odd readings with that run.

As far as the race data goes... I did some base work again Jan-Feb then I added speed work in March until present this year. I have a 25k scheduled for 5/12. My (pie in the sky) goal is a sub 2 hour run (7:40/mile). This would be another huge PR for me. My first 25k was 2 hours 33 mins. My second (last year) was 2:17. I'm running about the same weekly mileages this year, 25-35 mpw.

MED: I've been on it for at least 10 years, same dosage (5mg). My doctor describes it as a partial beta-blocker and partial diuretic. Its definitely a diuretic. I would have thought that it would have lowered my max HR prior to last year.

Thanks for all the responses. I'll probably lower the training pace to the 130 ball park. 130 would have to be a safe aerobic pace given my age and fitness level.

IP: Logged

posted Apr-30-2007 10:03 AM            

My Garmin 305 arrived the other day and I ran my first run with an HRM. I'm 47 yrs old, so my MAF is 133 (180-47). I wasn't trying to conduct a MAF test, but maybe I did so inadvertently (?). Here are my paces and HR data for a 9 mile run on a pretty much flat course:

Mile 1 ... 9:46 ... 127 (warm up)
Mile 2 ... 9:40 ... 133
Mile 3 ... 9:39 ... 133
Mile 4 ... 9:59 ... 134
Mile 5 ... 10:28 ... 133
Mile 6 ... 10:26 ... 132
Mile 7 ... 10:30 ... 132
Mile 8 ... 10:35 ... 133
Mile 9 ... 10:54 ... 133

I was struck how quickly my paces slowed. Is this normal? I was prepared for a slow pace (in fact I was surprised that I was sub-10 at the beginning), but I had no idea that the pace would fall off so dramatically during the run.

This was my longest run in several months, so maybe that was part of it. Also, while my HR was relatively constant, the later miles felt more comfortable breathing-wise than the first few.

I didn't know if a MAF of 133 was a good target or if I should go 5 bpm below that at least initially. Also, if you're trying to run at your MAF, what differentiates a MAF test from any other regular run?

I'd appreciate any insights into what the data reveals and if I approached the training correctly.

Thanks.

IP: Logged

posted Apr-30-2007 12:31 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Who Dey:
Also, if you're trying to run at your MAF, what differentiates a MAF test from any other regular run?

---

Well, I at least answered this one question during my lunch time run on a course with rolling hills. I can see that the MAF test should be done on a flat course ... e.g., a track.

I was surprised with how quickly my HR rose on hills and how much faster I had to run on extended downhills to keep my HR up. As the run progressed, I got better at anticipating the rise and fall of my HR.

When one's HR increases on a hill, is it best to slow to a walk and keep walking if that allows one to reach the target HR or is it better to attempt to run albeit very slowly?

Thanks.

IP: Logged

posted Apr-30-2007 05:18 PM            

1. Is 5-6 months of basebuilding sufficient, or does it take longer.

2. Do you keep this basebuilding up all the way until race day, or do you begin mixing in pace runs as the big day approaches.

IP: Logged

posted Apr-30-2007 06:12 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by willamona:
I am a little behind, I just got back from my second marathon. I do not have an official time yet as it has not been posted, but I believe that I PR'ed by around an hour. I am not complaining.

---

Only an hour?? It sounds like you've gotta work harder!
Nice job!

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

IP: Logged

posted Apr-30-2007 06:15 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Who Dey:

I was struck how quickly my paces slowed. Is this normal? I was prepared for a slow pace (in fact I was surprised that I was sub-10 at the beginning), but I had no idea that the pace would fall off so dramatically during the run.

This was my longest run in several months, so maybe that was part of it. Also, while my HR was relatively constant, the later miles felt more comfortable breathing-wise than the first few.

I didn't know if a MAF of 133 was a good target or if I should go 5 bpm below that at least initially. Also, if you're trying to run at your MAF, what differentiates a MAF test from any other regular run?

I'd appreciate any insights into what the data reveals and if I approached the training correctly.

Thanks.

---

This is completely normal and I would even all it textbook data!
Furthermore, you're at a great starting point! Nothing wrong with
seeing how you do for a while shooting at a lower target, at least
for a good percentage of your mileage. I always run at lower.

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

IP: Logged

posted Apr-30-2007 06:18 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Who Dey:

When one's HR increases on a hill, is it best to slow to a walk and keep walking if that allows one to reach the target HR or is it better to attempt to run albeit very slowly?

Thanks.

---

For myself, I prefer to shift to what I call a "wog," which is a
very slow putter up the hill. This has really helped me deal with
the hills in hilly ultras as well. Now I can control my heart rate
much better by wogging than walking.

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

IP: Logged

posted Apr-30-2007 07:49 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by corland14:
MED: I've been on it for at least 10 years, same dosage (5mg). My doctor describes it as a partial beta-blocker and partial diuretic. Its definitely a diuretic.

---

I feel the need to comment on this. Ok, I AM NOT A PHYSICIAN, let's make that clear.

You should talk to your doctor about appropriate hypertension drugs for athletes and active patients. In general, diuretics and beta-blockers are NOT recommended for endurance athletes (or college athletes.) You will find lots of details in

Managing Hypertension in Athletes and Physically Active Patients
(paper can be accessed via the following)

www.aafp.org/afp/20020801/445.html

In particular, look at Table 4
Summary of Pharmacologic Treatment for Hypertension in Ath;letes and Other Physically Active Patients

Note the following:
Thiazide diuretics decrease stroke volume and cardiac output and significantly decrease plasma volume. They may decrease training effect.

Beta blockers significantly decrease heart rate and cardiac output while increasing vascular resistance. They have a significant decrease on training effect.

On the other hand,
ACE Inhibitors slightly increase heart rate, and they increase stroke volume and cardiac output while lowering vascular resistance.

It's definitely worth talking to your physician about all this.

Good luck, and good running...

IP: Logged

posted Apr-30-2007 09:17 PM            

IP: Logged

posted Apr-30-2007 10:25 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by 13squared:
leitnerj, I'm interested in the whole Maffetone thing, and also interested in your great race improvements. Could you post some more info about yourself, to give a better idea of what type runner you are? i.e. height, weight, age, build.

---

Give Leitnerj a little time to reply, he's usually flying high on fat and loses his sense of time and space.

--Jimmy

@@@@
jog log

IP: Logged

posted May-01-2007 03:32 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by slowgino:

You should talk to your doctor about appropriate hypertension drugs for athletes and active patients. In general, diuretics and beta-blockers are NOT recommended for endurance athletes (or college athletes.)

---

Thank you slowgino. I read the article you posted and did some research for myself.

This is at least partially my fault for not doing my homework sooner, however my doctor could have pointed out this information long ago. The drug I take was his first choice.... very aggravating! He knew I was running a marathon last fall, he's known I've been running (off and on) for years. It seems to me that given my fitness level and age something less drastic will probably work equally as well in controlling the problem.

Thanks for the responses

IP: Logged