posted Jun-13-2007 05:20 PM               

Quit running for no good reason after i completed a race last May but got a lottery entry to NYC marathon and thought I better get back to it.

Moved to Flagstaff since last I was here and so am hoping the altitude will be of benefit in the 4.5 months I have to get ready... Not sure I can do it the Maffetone way again (enough time to peak in 4.5 months with low HR?) but will keep reading the successes that many of us have achieved using this methodology.

-Hurryin' Hoosier

------------------
------------------
About Me ~~~ My Log ~~~Find a Race

[This message has been edited by hurryinhoosier (edited Jun-13-2007).]

IP: Logged

posted Jun-13-2007 07:17 PM               

Now, if you really want to follow an approach like this (because
somewhere deep inside, you believe it's the right thing for you)
but you just don't buy into the 180-age formula or into Hadd's
formula, then what you really need to do is have a vo2max
test done where you are provided the range of RQ values through
the entire duration of the test and you are brought beyond a
value of 1 (you need to ask to make sure they provide you this -
many do not). You set the point where RQ = 1 as your AT and
you select your low HR training zone as the range of heart
rates between RQ of about .78 and .83, or alternatively 80-85%
of the AT as defined above.

The honest truth is that most people don't like the formula because
they don't like how slow they have to run to keep below the heart
rate. That's not the case with aharmer, for whom the formula will
have him running a race in every training run! The bottom line is
that there is a risk that a formula will give you too high of a training
heart rate, but there's pretty much no risk of it giving too low of
a HR.

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

[This message has been edited by leitnerj (edited Jun-13-2007).]

IP: Logged

posted Jun-13-2007 09:40 PM               

I'm glad you mentioned the age/AT linear relationship. All the reading I've done on this thread and I somehow overlooked that point. That fact immediately increases my confidence in the formula. Unfortunately it still doesn't work for me..LOL..but I've found a system that works for me so I'm happy. Wish me luck Saturday, if the weather is decent I'll finally find out how well my program really works.

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

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

IP: Logged

posted Jun-13-2007 09:57 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by aharmer:
Hey Jesse,

I'm glad you mentioned the age/AT linear relationship. All the reading I've done on this thread and I somehow overlooked that point. That fact immediately increases my confidence in the formula. Unfortunately it still doesn't work for me..LOL..but I've found a system that works for me so I'm happy. Wish me luck Saturday, if the weather is decent I'll finally find out how well my program really works.

---

As you know, whenever I see evidence that someone's max HR
is low, I always point them to the Hadd article for determining the
HR limit (I believe I have that in the FAQ as well).

Yeah, I'm anxiously awaiting your report from Grandma's! I know
you'll tear it up.

As for me, I just finished my last race of the first half of the year,
a half ironman on Sunday. I'm lucky to have finished all I had on
my plate (5 marathons, 3 50ks, 1 100 miler, an Olympic tri,
and a half marathon) since mid-February.

Alas, I'm scheduled for sinus surgery on
Friday after which I'm not supposed to do any aerobic exercise
or weights for 3 weeks! So, I'll probably be out of pocket for
at least a week or two here. The thread will either live on without
me or die a tired death!

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

IP: Logged

posted Jun-13-2007 10:06 PM               

You state that when RQ = 1 I'm running 100% anaerobic and using 100% glycogen as fuel.

Then you go on to state;
"You set the point where RQ = 1 as your AT and
you select your low HR training zone as the range of heart
rates between RQ of about .78 and .83, or alternatively 80-85% of the AT as defined above."

So I'm assuming (hoping) that if I have a vo2max test done the testers will give me a heart rate where my RQ = 1. I select a HR 78-83% of that and do all of my base training in that zone? Having never had a vo2max test done, that percentage seems high. I am (will) be running at a pace where I'm burning 78-83% of my fuel from glycogen and only 17-22% from fat?

IP: Logged

posted Jun-13-2007 10:57 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by corland14:
Jesse, I have a quick question for clarification. I appologize for the redundance.

You state that when RQ = 1 I'm running 100% anaerobic and using 100% glycogen as fuel.

Then you go on to state;
"You set the point where RQ = 1 as your AT and
you select your low HR training zone as the range of heart
rates between RQ of about .78 and .83, or alternatively 80-85% of the AT as defined above."

So I'm assuming (hoping) that if I have a vo2max test done the testers will give me a heart rate where my RQ = 1. I select a HR 78-83% of that and do all of my base training in that zone? Having never had a vo2max test done, that percentage seems high. I am (will) be running at a pace where I'm burning 78-83% of my fuel from glycogen and only 17-22% from fat?

---

Hi corland,

Unless I'm mistaken I don't think Jesse claimed that you will be 100% anaerobic at an RQ of 1.0. I'm also quite sure that the RQ values are not linear with glycogen burn rates. RQ values of .78 and .83 do not correspond with 78% and 83% glycogen burning. Be sure prior to you test to let the tester know what you want, but yes they should have data sheets for you to leave with that show RQ values for the entire test with corresponding HR's.

IP: Logged

posted Jun-14-2007 12:07 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by aharmer:
Who Dey,

I understand where you're coming from. Here's my opinion for what it's worth. Running as a % of max HR is not as valuable as other methods for the reason Jesse mentions. If two people decide to run at 70% of their max HR, the first person might be in tremendous shape and be running at 80% of their aerobic threshold, while the second person might be a new runner and could be running at 95% of their aerobic threshold. These two individuals with the same max HR and the same training HR appear to be training identically...in reality they are training in very different ways.

With that said, I'm a person that doesn't believe the Maff formula does a good job of defining a training HR for most people. In my opinion, sorry Jesse, Maff's formula is as arbitrary as using max HR. What Maff WILL do for almost everybody, is get them to slow the hell down. Using the maff formula doesn't bring everybody to their ideal training HR most likely, but it almost universally slows people down, which is what many people need...depending on their running goals and aspirations.

I don't claim to be an expert on anything other than my own body, but after researching many methods I settled on using 70% of max HR for a majority of my training miles and mixing higher intensity work for about 10%. It's very possible that as my condition has improved, by AT has improved as well and I could be getting better results with a different training HR. Maybe that's another experiment, that's what I love about this stuff.

Ideally everybody could walk into their neighborhood laboratory and have a VO2max test and blood lactate testing done on a quarterly basis. If this were the case we wouldn't have anything to discuss and/or argue about on this forum...what fun would that be?

---

I don't think the 180-age is arbitrary. Maffetone developed it after years of working with athletes. Correlating their heart rates with their respiratory quotients. His formula evolved from that.

Dave has posted about his experiences with running treadmill tests on people and finding the same thing Maffetone found.

You saying "I believe the MAF formula doesn't do a good job of defining a training heart rate for MOST people" is an interesting statement. What's it based on?

Just going on posts alone, which is all I have to go on, I could say the following about MAF training:

--some people don't have the patience to go through the "paying dues" period. They're aerobic system is so underdeveloped, that it is going to take a year or more, maybe two, to see real progress. They give up after 16 weeks, but needed 100. Hell, it took Mark Allen 4 months to see a minute of progress, and one year to see 3 minutes. That was an elite athlete. It's a simple program, but a very demanding program that asks for a lot of changes (give up running fast, and no races?), which is too much for some.

--volume building is part of it. Someone trying this who runs few miles per week is going to see very, very slow progress.

--it's "out there." Way out there on the fringe. All some people see is "it's running slow." It's NOT running slow. It's teaching your body to run faster and faster while using fat as fuel. Once someone sees no progress for a few months, then try a race and see no progress, they say "see it's true--run slow, race slow." they give up. Take Mark Allen again. He started MAF training at 8:15 per mile, and ONE year later ( a long time in a runner's world) he was running 5:20 at the same HR, and he was healthy. I was talking to an old friend who come to find out has been runnig marathons. When I told him I qualified for Boston with a 3:22, he asked me how fast I was training. When I told him that 100% of my miles for 8 weeks were between 10:30-12:30 (ceiling of 129), and then after that 90% of my miles were the same. he didn't believe I could get a 3:22 on that type of training. The prevailing belief is "run slow, race slow", but this training is about "burn fat, train faster an faster, then race fast."

--I don't think many coaches and elites have tried this program for the reasons above. Many of them still say it won't work, even though they haven't tried it. Mark Allen and Mike Pigg are the only two that I know of.
I'm sure not many will be converted very soon.

Just my take on the many posts and articles that I've read. True for some, I IMAGINE. Doesn't mean it's true though. Just jamming. I know it's worked for Mark, Mike, Jesse, myself, and a few others who post here. They have all fully committed, followed the rules, built volume, and gone through the dog days. Doing what it takes. That's not many to go on.

On to the dog days!

--Jimmy

Jog Log
zzzzzzz

IP: Logged

posted Jun-14-2007 12:23 AM            

IP: Logged

posted Jun-14-2007 12:54 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by leitnerj:

... The bottom line is that there is a risk that a formula will give you too high of a training heart rate, but there's pretty much no risk of it giving too low of a HR.

---

Based on what I've seen, I'd agree that there's more risk that a formula will give too high a training HR, but there's also some risk that it'll give too low a training HR (well, if there is such a thing...)

The data I looked at were from VO2 tests which did not give the whole RQ vs HR picture but gave an AeT (exact RQ used by the equipment wasn't available, but my guess is .85, i.e. where fats and carbs each provide 50%) and an AT (RQ = 1).

OK, I have no data to indicate what individual adjustments would need to be made to the Maffetone "180-age" formula based on injury/ilness/medications or the height of the elephant grass in Kenya. With that in mind, here are the deviations of the measured AeT from 180-age, for tested people in their 20s through 50s. I have left out anyone in their teens or 60s, since those are known to deviate from formulas.

Deviations of measured AeT from 180-age:

Age 20-29:
+5, 0, +17, 0, -32, -19, -13

Age 30-39:
-17, +15, +7, +15, -19, +15, -12, -9, +12, +22, +24,
-11, 0, -8, -19, +7, -36, -33, +22, -34, +21

Age 40-49:
-24, +13, +20, -29, +21, -9, -10, -5, +20, -5, -27, -31,
-19, +19, -18, +14, -25, -11, +3, -11, -12, -18, -18, -39,
-10, -34, -21, +1

Age 50-59:
-17, -18, +12, -10, -14, +9, +26, -15, +1, +15, -10, -6,
+7, +1, -3, -7, +4, +12, -37, -24

An interesting summary of "large" deviations is:
8 of 76 are more than 30 below 180-age
10 of 76 are 19 - 29 below 180-age
9 of 76 are 19 or more above 180-age

So 24% had an AeT 19 or more BELOW 180-age
and 12% had an AeT 19 or more ABOVE 180-age.

Many of the folks tested above were in running programs with local clubs, some were triathletes, and there might have been some who were cyclists only. I imagine some were very fit and/or experienced and some were beginner to intermediate.

I ran the data against other formulas, i.e. %(220-age), or "best least squares fit to a0+a1*AGE", etc. In almost all of these the average deviation from the formula was about 15 bpm (absolute value.) The closest was the fit of a linear function of age to the AT,... the average deviation there was 13.

Well, FWIW, it seems like there's certainly a risk (12% chance) that the measured AeT will be 19 or more above the "180" formula when it's used without any adjustments or corrections.

BTW, 18% of those tested had an AeT 20 or more bpm above the value predicted by .745(220-age), which was the best fit to %(220-age).

I guess if we knew the actual RQ where the equipment gave an AeT value we could better evaluate those deviations from the formulas. An RQ of .78 (about 75% fat, 25% carbs) certainly should be at a lower HR than an RQ of .85 (50%,50%).

Gino

IP: Logged

posted Jun-14-2007 01:10 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by corland14:

So I'm assuming (hoping) that if I have a vo2max test done the testers will give me a heart rate where my RQ = 1. I select a HR 78-83% of that and do all of my base training in that zone? Having never had a vo2max test done, that percentage seems high. I am (will) be running at a pace where I'm burning 78-83% of my fuel from glycogen and only 17-22% from fat?

---

You might misunderstand the RQ. It is determined by the ratio of O2 and CO2 measured and uses the fact that fat-burning and glycogen-burning mechanisms (chemistry) produce different ratios.

.70 is what pure fat-burning produces,
1.00 is what pure glycogen-burning produces.

From here it's just simple arithmetic.
50% fat, 50% glycogen gives an RQ of .85
75% fat, 25% glycogen gives an RQ of .775
etc.

I.e. at 75% fat, 25% glycogen the RQ will be 3 times closer to .70 than it is to 1.00 . (forgive me, I guess this is too obvious.)

IP: Logged

posted Jun-14-2007 05:22 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by aharmer:
Hi corland,

Unless I'm mistaken I don't think Jesse claimed that you will be 100% anaerobic at an RQ of 1.0. I'm also quite sure that the RQ values are not linear with glycogen burn rates. RQ values of .78 and .83 do not correspond with 78% and 83% glycogen burning. Be sure prior to you test to let the tester know what you want, but yes they should have data sheets for you to leave with that show RQ values for the entire test with corresponding HR's.

---

Beyond an RQ of 1, you are indeed in a 100% anaerobic state.
0.78 corresponds to about 25% glycogen/75% fat and 0.83 is
about 50/50.

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

IP: Logged

posted Jun-14-2007 05:31 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by slowgino:
Based on what I've seen, I'd agree that there's more risk that a formula will give too high a training HR, but there's also some risk that it'll give too low a training HR (well, if there is such a thing...)

The data I looked at were from VO2 tests which did not give the whole RQ vs HR picture but gave an AeT (exact RQ used by the equipment wasn't available, but my guess is .85, i.e. where fats and carbs each provide 50%) and an AT (RQ = 1).

OK, I have no data to indicate what individual adjustments would need to be made to the Maffetone "180-age" formula based on injury/ilness/medications or the height of the elephant grass in Kenya. With that in mind, here are the deviations of the measured AeT from 180-age, for tested people in their 20s through 50s. I have left out anyone in their teens or 60s, since those are known to deviate from formulas.

Deviations of measured AeT from 180-age:

Age 20-29:
+5, 0, +17, 0, -32, -19, -13

Age 30-39:
-17, +15, +7, +15, -19, +15, -12, -9, +12, +22, +24,
-11, 0, -8, -19, +7, -36, -33, +22, -34, +21

Age 40-49:
-24, +13, +20, -29, +21, -9, -10, -5, +20, -5, -27, -31,
-19, +19, -18, +14, -25, -11, +3, -11, -12, -18, -18, -39,
-10, -34, -21, +1

Age 50-59:
-17, -18, +12, -10, -14, +9, +26, -15, +1, +15, -10, -6,
+7, +1, -3, -7, +4, +12, -37, -24

An interesting summary of "large" deviations is:
8 of 76 are [b]more than 30 below 180-age
10 of 76 are 19 - 29 below 180-age
9 of 76 are 19 or more above 180-age

So 24% had an AeT 19 or more BELOW 180-age
and 12% had an AeT 19 or more ABOVE 180-age.

Many of the folks tested above were in running programs with local clubs, some were triathletes, and there might have been some who were cyclists only. I imagine some were very fit and/or experienced and some were beginner to intermediate.

I ran the data against other formulas, i.e. %(220-age), or "best least squares fit to a0+a1*AGE", etc. In almost all of these the average deviation from the formula was about 15 bpm (absolute value.) The closest was the fit of a linear function of age to the AT,... the average deviation there was 13.

Well, FWIW, it seems like there's certainly a risk (12% chance) that the measured AeT will be 19 or more above the "180" formula when it's used without any adjustments or corrections.

BTW, 18% of those tested had an AeT 20 or more bpm above the value predicted by .745(220-age), which was the best fit to %(220-age).

I guess if we knew the actual RQ where the equipment gave an AeT value we could better evaluate those deviations from the formulas. An RQ of .78 (about 75% fat, 25% carbs) certainly should be at a lower HR than an RQ of .85 (50%,50%).

Gino[/B]

---

The problem with a lot of the tests out there is that they seem to
use somewhat arbitrary definitions of AeT and AT. If one is going to
follow this approach, then it has to be very clear what those quantities
are in terms of RQ - otherwise, you won't see the benefits. Whenever
people give me their data now, I completely ignore anything about
AeT or AT unless (1) the test has been brought beyond an RQ of 1
and (2) the values of RQ at all intensities are provided. That's
not to say you can't use the results otherwise, but it is to say that
for this approach, you won't have the data you need. I'm not sure
of the range of ages in the empirically derived 180-age formula, but
I would guess it's mostly late 20s to early 50s and the linearity breaks
down at both sides, which is why I tell people outside of that range
not to count on such a formula. Nonetheless, I truly believe that
the only risk (of slowing down) one would encounter from using too
low of a HR is if they don't get enough downhill running in, where they
pick up the pace to maintain some running economy. A lot of people
tend to try to maintain even pace no matter what and/or use the downs
as a recovery. That's a habit that must be broken to achieve the most
success here.

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

IP: Logged

posted Jun-14-2007 05:32 AM               

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

IP: Logged

posted Jun-14-2007 08:02 AM            

Although I'm only in week 7, I'm commited to following this approach. I admit that following this path in the heat of summer is not easy, but I'm going to stay with it.

Thanks again to everyone for sharing their experiences. Learning how this approach has helped others eases my mind a bit as I'm being passed repeatedly in the slow lane.

Run well.

IP: Logged

posted Jun-14-2007 08:39 AM            

I took off three months this year and only started back at the end of April. I am about 30-45 second off where I was back in January when I stopped.

Since I did not get into NYC marathon in Nov, my next goal race in Boston 08. So I was planning on doing 4 6-week segments (as you do), plus a 2-week taper segment before the 4/21/08 race. I believe I would start on 10/21/07, so I have until then to get my mileage up, which I believe is plenty of time. I would like to be up to 70-80 miles a week. Right now this week might be my first 30 mile week since the layoff. I've had to battle a calf injury and a cold since I started up again.

I am doing all of my runs at MAF, though my averages are well below MAF (my average HR for a run is usually between 3-10 beats below MAF).
My segments I will gradually build up my HR for each segment. I was planning on doing (150,155,160,165) for each segment. And for each week doing a run of (4,6,8,10,12,14) at that HR. I would do the segment at the end of my long run.

My first two runs when I started up back at the end of April where at 11:40 mpm. I am now down to the 9:05-9:20mpm range. It'll be interesting to see where I'll be in 4 months of pure MAF (with some races thrown in). I'm hoping to be in the low 8's. My goal for Boston is 2:55:00, which would be a PR by 11:06. I was thinking of trying to run a half marathon right before my 10/21/07 training start date.

Following your lead I also started a blog of my training. Its at:

http://dcv2002apv2005.blogspot.com/

The early posts just show some of my stuggles dealing with illness and such.

quote:

---

Originally posted by aharmer:
Hey Jesse,

I'm glad you mentioned the age/AT linear relationship. All the reading I've done on this thread and I somehow overlooked that point. That fact immediately increases my confidence in the formula. Unfortunately it still doesn't work for me..LOL..but I've found a system that works for me so I'm happy. Wish me luck Saturday, if the weather is decent I'll finally find out how well my program really works.

---

IP: Logged

posted Jun-14-2007 01:05 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by leitnerj:
Oops - thanks, slowgino, for correcting me - 0.85 is 50/50 fat carb
(not .83 as I mentioned above).

---

Oops - thanks for reminding me that the 0.70 RQ for fat metabolism is just a good average approximation anyway. If we look at chemical formulas for different fats it could go from maybe 0.67 to 0.71 or above . It would depend on whether the fat was saturated, unsaturated, etc, and probably on the number "n" in the formula.

In a general formula I saw for saturated fats in
www.tiem.utk.edu/~gross/bioed/webmodules/respiratoryquotient.html
(CH2O)3 (CH2)3 n(CO2H)3 [numeric digits are subscripts]
the RQ would be computed as
(3n+6)/(4.5n+3.75)
which would approach 0.667 as n gets large, but would, e.g., be 0.710 for n=17 (glycerol tristerate.)

The 0.667 would give your 0.83 for RQ at 50% fat-burning.

IP: Logged

posted Jun-14-2007 02:10 PM            

As for me...I'm lovin' the cooler morning temps this week due to the rain system that has moved in!

Comparing a run yesterday with one 2 months ago:

April 13
Weight: 195
Avg. HR: 144 (MAF exactly for me now...age 36)
Distance: 9.5 miles
Pace: 9:06/mile
Temp: 54

June 14
Weight: 193.8
Avg. HR: 138
Distance: 10.4 miles
Pace: 8:49
Temp: 63 with 93% humidity

Pretty much the same run...same 2 big hills and such.

On flat ground, I am pushing 8:30 miles for MAF now (unless it's hot out, of course....ugh), which amazes me in that I'm there already. In January, I was shooting for the end of this year for that pace. In 2 months I'm seeing improvements like I was last fall when I was losing a pound a week. I'm starting my 10th month of MAF'ing, and about one year of running.

As my BQ goal requires a 7:29 pace, I'm confident I can get there by 10/7. In fact, I might not be far off now. In the past, when my MAF pace was, say, 1 minute above my marathon pace goal....I have been able to achieve that speed in the marathon, and then some.

I realize that not all of my recent gains are due to MAF, but I feel it's obviously helping tremendously. Especially since I've run 1100 miles now this year.

IP: Logged

posted Jun-14-2007 03:29 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by leitnerj:
... the AT is much closer
to linear with age +/- 10 beats or so.
...
The linearity only seems to be trustworthy in roughly the
~27 - 53 age range, give or take a few years.

---

Ok, the test data I have definitely have the AT set at RQ =1, and I just did a least-squares fit of the age 27-53 testee's data to a linear function of Age.

The 65 people in that age range give a "best fit" formula of AT as a function of age as:
AT = 196 - .96842 * age

How well does this "best" formula work? You be the judge.
21 of 65 people were more than 15.0 bpm off the formula
(11 of those were more than 20 bpm off),
13 of 65 were 11.0 - 14.9 bpm off the formula prediction.
Thus over half had a measured AT 11 bpm or more off what the formula would predict.

You can see why even though I'm a formula lover, I just don't think these formulas are such great predictors.

Anybody else got a favorite formula for AT as a function of age? I'll give it a try on the data I have.

IP: Logged

posted Jun-14-2007 04:13 PM               

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

IP: Logged

posted Jun-14-2007 04:51 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by slowgino:
Ok, the test data I have definitely have the AT set at RQ =1, and I just did a least-squares fit of the age 27-53 testee's data to a linear function of Age.

The 65 people in that age range give a "best fit" formula of AT as a function of age as:
AT = 196 - .96842 * age

How well does this "best" formula work? You be the judge.
21 of 65 people were more than 15.0 bpm off the formula
(11 of those were more than 20 bpm off),
13 of 65 were 11.0 - 14.9 bpm off the formula prediction.
Thus over half had a measured AT 11 bpm or more off what the formula would predict.

You can see why even though I'm a formula lover, I just don't think these formulas are such great predictors.

Anybody else got a favorite formula for AT as a function of age? I'll give it a try on the data I have.

---

By the way, unless there was some way to fix the fitness level
(good luck doing that), I don't think you would fit will to a linear
equation anyway. I do believe that the +/-5n is important if you
really want something that appears accurate in some sense. In
other words, you can't just nicely take all of the data and
regress it against an affine equation; you would have to have
some way of separating out the +/- 5n to really get a good fit.
And, in that case, if you're including a number of highly fit
runners, you'd probably have to go up 10 or 15 beats just to
get a good match.
Given that most of my mileage is probably 15 beats below whatever
definition of MAF you use I don't think too low is a big deal. As we
know, for many people, too high is definitely a big deal. Along those
lines, I believe the "insult to injury" aspect about all of this is that
once you've really got a solid aerobic base (by MAFing or just good
training or talent), you probably can handle 20 beats above 180-age
and still make great aerobic progress. A couple of years back, I
noticed that after a marathon, it would take me a couple of weeks
to get my low HR pace back. Now, the day after marathon or another
long race, my pace is actually improved at the low HR!

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

IP: Logged

posted Jun-14-2007 08:29 PM            

First, I want to say that this site and this thread in particular have been very informative and helpful to me as I have ventured into the land of low HR training.

I have a couple of questions for anyone who doesn't mind:

I have been following Hadd for about 9 weeks now. I actually follow it somewhat loosely in the sense that I do the vast majority (85%) of my runs at 70% max HR. I do probably 10% at 72.5% max HR and the other few at 75%. Those numbers for me are as follows:

70% - 140 HR
72.5% - 145 HR
75% - 150 HR

My MAF would be 156 based on my age. My question is this: Am I hurting myself not to be running at the HR of my MAF? Or if I am patient enough to do so, is is better to run under it like I have been?

I have my second Hadd test coming up soon but from what I can tell so far, my pace at 140 HR has already dropped about 45 seconds.

Thanks for any help you can offer.

IP: Logged

posted Jun-14-2007 08:39 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by chrisfield:
Hello all.

First, I want to say that this site and this thread in particular have been very informative and helpful to me as I have ventured into the land of low HR training.

I have a couple of questions for anyone who doesn't mind:

I have been following Hadd for about 9 weeks now. I actually follow it somewhat loosely in the sense that I do the vast majority (85%) of my runs at 70% max HR. I do probably 10% at 72.5% max HR and the other few at 75%. Those numbers for me are as follows:

70% - 140 HR
72.5% - 145 HR
75% - 150 HR

My MAF would be 156 based on my age. My question is this: Am I hurting myself not to be running at the HR of my MAF? Or if I am patient enough to do so, is is better to run under it like I have been?

I have my second Hadd test coming up soon but from what I can tell so far, my pace at 140 HR has already dropped about 45 seconds.

Thanks for any help you can offer.

---

First of all, it sounds like you've basically answered your question:
"so far, my pace at 140 HR has already dropped about 45 seconds."
This is exactly what you want to see. Next, it's actually a great thing
to vary your target heart rate just as you're doing and it doesn't matter
if you go up to the max at all. I'm generally 15 beats or more below
in most of my training runs. The MAF is just a limit, and a fuzzy
one at that. The more you keep under it, the more you train yourself
to use fat as a fuel source and as long as you are getting faster
at those low heart rates, everything's working just as it should.

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

IP: Logged

posted Jun-14-2007 09:18 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by leitnerj:
... In other words, you can't just nicely take all of the data and regress it against an affine equation; you would have to have some way of separating out the +/- 5n to really get a good fit. And, in that case, if you're including a number of highly fit runners, you'd probably have to go up 10 or 15 beats just to get a good match.

---

Yes, I agree one would want to include other factors for those "+/- 5n" type of adjustments. A number of the formulas have those. Maffetone's are one example, and I don't knock Maffetone's "180-age" formula as a decent fit to the data I have for AeT. After all, "175-1.04*age" from the data I have is about as close to 180-age as you could get. I just don't think all the adjustments in the world are going to get close for some people.

In that group of 65 tests here are how some of the people's AT differed from the best fit linear function of age:
age 33 AT 139 off by -25
age 35 AT 187 off by +25
age 40 AT 122 off by -35
age 43 AT 121 off by -33
age 46 AT 127 off by -24
Ok, these were the folks off by the most.

Given that most of my mileage is probably 15 beats below whatever definition of MAF you use I don't think too low is a big deal. As we know, for many people, too high is definitely a big deal.

Absolutely. That's why I worry about folks taking any formula too literally, expecting it to be exact. Here are some folks who would need a lot of adjustment to the 180 formula value. The AeT values here were all measured with the same machine... I suspect that they are for an RQ of 0.83 or thereabouts, it's whatever the manufacturer programmed in:
Age 28 AeT 120
Age 38 AeT 106
Age 39 AeT 108
Age 39 AeT 107
Age 41 AeT 110
Age 43 AeT 106
Age 46 AeT 116
Age 47 AeT 94
Age 48 AeT 98
Some of these people have an AeT WAY below 180-age. And if this really is for an RQ of 0.83 that makes it even worse.

Along those lines, I believe the "insult to injury" aspect about all of this is that once you've really got a solid aerobic base (by MAFing or just good training or talent), you probably can handle 20 beats above 180-age and still make great aerobic progress.

Sure. There's a 51 year old in my data with an AeT of 155 and a measured VO2 of 57.6 at an HR of 170 (lower than his max.) Another guy is 43 with an AeT of 156, an AT over 20 bpm higher than that, with measured VO2 over 67 at HR 181. Then there's that other 43 year old with an AeT of 106...

As you have pointed out, of course, anyone outside the age parameters might not fit the formulas too well. I know a guy who's 62 and can cruise right along at 110 bpm doing 10 minute miles. Wish I could do that. We know my age puts me outside some of the formulas. My measured AeT is 42 bpm higher than Maffetone's formula with all the appropriate adjustments, but without compensating for age. Maybe I just have a weak heart and it has to beat faster to do the job. My waking HR in the morning sure isn't 36 - 37 like it used to be 30 years ago.

Anyway, I love this LHR training I started 3 weeks ago. Now I'm really committed to it. I recommend it to everyone I talk to on group runs. A number of folks I told about it on the Half M Saturday couldn't quite get used to the idea of going slower and longer and loving it.

A couple of years back, I noticed that after a marathon, it would take me a couple of weeks to get my low HR pace back. Now, the day after marathon or another long race, my pace is actually improved at the low HR!

Hey, I'll have to look forward to that.

Gino

IP: Logged

posted Jun-14-2007 09:46 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by hurryinhoosier:
Well I havent logged on here in a year and this thread is still on the first page

Quit running for no good reason after i completed a race last May but got a lottery entry to NYC marathon and thought I better get back to it.

Moved to Flagstaff since last I was here and so am hoping the altitude will be of benefit in the 4.5 months I have to get ready... Not sure I can do it the Maffetone way again (enough time to peak in 4.5 months with low HR?) but will keep reading the successes that many of us have achieved using this methodology.

-Hurryin' Hoosier

---

Glad to have you back floating around - sorry to hear that you quite
running for a while! Hopefully you'll be back in full force shortly.

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

IP: Logged

posted Jun-14-2007 11:39 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by leitnerj:
As you know, whenever I see evidence that someone's max HR
is low, I always point them to the Hadd article for determining the
HR limit (I believe I have that in the FAQ as well).

Yeah, I'm anxiously awaiting your report from Grandma's! I know
you'll tear it up.

As for me, I just finished my last race of the first half of the year,
a half ironman on Sunday. I'm lucky to have finished all I had on
my plate (5 marathons, 3 50ks, 1 100 miler, an Olympic tri,
and a half marathon) since mid-February.

Alas, I'm scheduled for sinus surgery on
Friday after which I'm not supposed to do any aerobic exercise
or weights for 3 weeks! So, I'll probably be out of pocket for
at least a week or two here. The thread will either live on without
me or die a tired death!

---

Excellent 1st half, Jesse.
Good luck with your surgery.
As individuals, none of us are important, only this thread.
The thread will live on.
Breath easy, headache free.

--Jimmy

Jog Log
zzzzzzz

IP: Logged