posted Jun-25-2007 11:50 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by jjwaverly42:
Your true MHR is probably higher. You need to warm-up for a long time before you start the hard stuff, and then you need to do that for awhile.
The first MHR test I ever did was on a track doing something similar to yours. I got 182 I think. Then 6 months later in a half marathon, as I sprinted the last half mile I got it to 197. The highest I've ever seen is 199, done in a recent 5k--I warmed up for 2 miles before the race. could probably get it higher, but not much. So what's a few beats anyway.

--Jimmy

Jog Log
zzzzzzz

---

I got this test from the HADD article. So do you think if I warmed up more & did it again I'd get a different result? Or should I count that as my Max HR?

IP: Logged

posted Jun-26-2007 12:23 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by tpenn40:
I got this test from the HADD article. So do you think if I warmed up more & did it again I'd get a different result? Or should I count that as my Max HR?

---

That's where I got first test a few years ago. I did that program for my first marathon. MHR is good to know for that. Yours is probably higher than 182, but erring on the low side is not going to hurt you. You could always try again if you want to. If you choose to do so, run a 5 miler first then run a few hard intervals then do the test, see what happens. If you can't get it over 182 with all that, then go with 182. Nothing wrong with 182, it's not the number but the motion they say.

Keep going!

--Jimmy

Jog Log
zzzzzzz

IP: Logged

posted Jun-26-2007 01:36 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by tpenn40:
... I’m 41 and started running 10 months ago.
<snip description of MHR run test>
... My max heartrate was only 182!!! This really wasn’t a fun test and I don’t want to do it again, but does this sound realistic?
<snip>
... Could my max heartrate really be only 182?

---

Sure it could. Why not?

I'm not a big fan of the simple formulas that are used to get MHR as a function of age, but they are pretty good at giving us the average MHR for a good-sized sample of people of a given age.

One old formula is 220-age. For age 41 that gives a 179 MHR.
The formula I like better (better research, etc) is
217 - 0.85 * age.
For age 41 that gives 182.

Nothing wrong with that. I know a guy 7 tears younger than I am with an MHR over 20 bpm lower than mine. No big deal. His heart is strong as a horse, and he can outrun me anytime he wants to. What you want to do with your training is to raise your Aerobic Threshold (AeT) and your Anaerobic Threshold (AT). That will let you run longer and faster. There is special (interval) training which can be done to increase the stroke volume of the heart, and specific training to increase the Lactate Threshold (LT.) You probably won't change your MHR a lot by training, except perhaps to lower it a little as you get into better shape (that's what happened to me.) MHR will not determine what your athletic performance will be, it's what you have conditioned your cardiovascular system to do at your training/racing heart rates that counts.

IP: Logged

posted Jun-26-2007 03:56 AM            

New here. Been doing MAF for almost 4 weeks now. Noticed 1:00mm progress after the first 3 weeks. Lack of sleep + heat have been messing me up for the past few days, so I won't consider a slow down.

I'm 35, female, with chronic hip injury (that BTW has been in dormant mode since I started MAF). So, with Jesse's help over my data lacking performance test, I am keeping it under 135 - avg 133. (180 - 35 - 10).

Dramatic in my hilly Raleigh neighborhood. Tons of walking (I know, I am getting over it and just getting the walking groove), some wogging and plenty of comfy running.

So far, I can control up to 6 miles, try to control from 6 to 10 and lose control after 10.

Avging 55mpw now, will peak at 70, training for MCM-Oct and Richmond-Nov.
I plan on adding speedwork as late as I can, so it will be probably 10 weeks before MCM (actually 8 weeks of speedwork, then taper).

I'm still working on reading the previous posts (which will probably take as long as my 23 miler will ), but will appreciate any input in controlling HR in hills from the ones willing to give. So far, I've been walking (the wogging didn't cut it).

Thanks and good runs,

Taciana (TY)

[This message has been edited by IEatHills4Meals (edited Jun-26-2007).]

IP: Logged

posted Jun-26-2007 07:01 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by IEatHills4Meals:
hi there,

New here. Been doing MAF for almost 4 weeks now. Noticed 1:00mm progress after the first 3 weeks. Lack of sleep + heat have been messing me up for the past few days, so I won't consider a slow down.

I'm 35, female, with chronic hip injury (that BTW has been in dormant mode since I started MAF). So, with Jesse's help over my data lacking performance test, I am keeping it under 135 - avg 133. (180 - 35 - 10).

Dramatic in my hilly Raleigh neighborhood. Tons of walking (I know, I am getting over it and just getting the walking groove), some wogging and plenty of comfy running.

So far, I can control up to 6 miles, try to control from 6 to 10 and lose control after 10.

Avging 55mpw now, will peak at 70, training for MCM-Oct and Richmond-Nov.
I plan on adding speedwork as late as I can, so it will be probably 10 weeks before MCM (actually 8 weeks of speedwork, then taper).

I'm still working on reading the previous posts (which will probably take as long as my 23 miler will ), but will appreciate any input in controlling HR in hills from the ones willing to give. So far, I've been walking (the wogging didn't cut it).

Thanks and good runs,

Taciana (TY)

[This message has been edited by IEatHills4Meals (edited Jun-26-2007).]

---

Well hi there Ty - good to meet ya

From your message, you sound like you look about 25. Is MAFing what's keeping you looking so hot?

IP: Logged

posted Jun-26-2007 07:28 AM               

Slowgino-Thanks for the idea about the ice... there's a few tracks around here(just gotta make sure there's no team practices going on or anything)... or I can just loop near my house.

IP: Logged

posted Jun-26-2007 08:11 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by tpenn40:
Well hi there Ty - good to meet ya

From your message, you sound like you look about 25. Is MAFing what's keeping you looking so hot?

---

LMAO.... silly Tony...Tks for the compliment, though,...
Yeah, it's all about MAF... Let's say I'm putting in more miles and cutting the inches off.

Although you're still in denial, it's good to see you surrender a tiny bit at a time...

IP: Logged

posted Jun-26-2007 10:11 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by martinjames:
What's wrong with 182? My top is 169 and there are lots of folks lower than that. It is what it is. I think Jimmy's right, you've probably got a few more beats in you but so what?

---

Well - as I said I'm still a new runner, and even newer at this heartrate thing, but I would have thought my average heartrate at 30 seconds slower than race pace wouldn't be that close to my max heartrate (159 would be just over 87% of my max HR).

Maybe I actually am running hard enough in my races...but I'm just slow. I was thinking if I'm not able to push it hard enough without wimping out, speedwork may help me get use to the pain of running hard.

IP: Logged

posted Jun-26-2007 12:17 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by martinjames:
What's wrong with 182? My top is 169 and there are lots of folks lower than that. It is what it is. I think Jimmy's right, you've probably got a few more beats in you but so what?

---

This site is crazy today...I posted a reply to this already, but it didnt' show up so here goes again.

182 is fine if that's my real max heart rate. I was just surprised that on a 10 mile run 30 seconds slower than race pace my average heartrate was that close to my max (159 which is just over 87% if 182 is my max).

I thought my established position as "middle of the packer" may be because I was wimping out and not running hard enough when it got tough, but it looks like I'm exerting...but just slow.

I thought I needed speedwork to make myself "get tough" so I would be able to run harder when it hurts, but apparently improving my aerobic fitness would be more helpful.

IP: Logged

posted Jun-26-2007 12:20 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by martinjames:
What's wrong with 182? My top is 169 and there are lots of folks lower than that. It is what it is. I think Jimmy's right, you've probably got a few more beats in you but so what?

---

This site is crazy today...I posted a reply to this already, but it didnt' show up so here goes again.

182 is fine if that's my real max heart rate. I was just surprised that on a 10 mile run 30 seconds slower than race pace my average heartrate was that close to my max (159 which is just over 87% if 182 is my max).

I thought my established position as "middle of the packer" may be because I was wimping out and not running hard enough when it got tough, but it looks like I'm exerting...but just slow.

I thought I needed speedwork to make myself "get tough" so I would be able to run harder when it hurts, but apparently improving my aerobic fitness would be more helpful.

IP: Logged

posted Jun-26-2007 12:51 PM            

------------------
***********
My myspace
No Complaining
Low Heart Rate Training FAQ Because many have asked...
I don't candy coat or BS. Get over yourself.

IP: Logged

posted Jun-26-2007 04:50 PM               

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

IP: Logged

posted Jun-26-2007 09:20 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Harper:
I thought I'd chime in with an update although I am no longer a MAF devotee.

Last August I started with low HR training, coming off an injury etc. My aerobic base was not so good. Low HR training helped me build my mileage back up, slowly. I made pretty good progress for the first 3 months. Then I stagnated for about 2 months before abandoning strict low HR training in favor of a different approach. It took me 3 months of experimenting to finally devise an approach that worked.

The new approach was to essentially increase my usual/easy HR range from a ceiling of HR 140 up to HR 150. I started doing tempo runs and I kept increasing my weekly mileage. Over the last 4 months I've seen a lot of progress.

Start of MAF, Aug 2006
MAF: 140
Weekly mileage: 30 mpw
Fastest pace at MAF 140: 11:30 min/mile

End of strict MAF, Dec 2007
MAF: 140
Weekly mileage: 40 mpw
Fastest pace at MAF 140: 10:15 min/mile

Current: June 2007
Usual/easy training HR ceiling: 150
Weekly mileage: 55-75 mpw
Fastest pace at HR 140: 9:00 min/mile
Fastest pace at HR 150: 8:18 min/mile
Tempo paces from 6:00 to 8:00, from 5 to 15 miles

During my weekly tempo runs I've actually set new PRs: I've run a 20-minute 5K, a sub-43-minute 10K and a 1:38 half marathon. These times match up well with "race predictions", indicating I'm much more aerobically fit than before, when my times were awful. During these longer tempo runs I've never felt winded or out of breath; the limiting factor seems to be muscular endurance. My first attempt at a tempo was an 8:00 min/mile for 20 minutes. HR was 175. Today I can run an 8:00 pace with my HR 155-160, and I can maintain it for 2 hours.

Back in the summer of 2006, I recall trying to do "speedwork" and running a mere 800m at a 7:00 pace about killed me. Now I can run a 6:15 pace for 3 miles and not feel winded. That is the difference between having an aerobic base and wishing you had one. What a difference a year makes!

My perspective on MAF training: I think it's great for beginners, the injured, or those who need to build an aerobic base. I'm not convinced that one can just keep MAFing and reaping progress. I think after 3 months of MAF training that my body "outgrew" it and needed an additional challenge/stimulus. I attribute a lot of my progress to my tempo runs. I am convinced, though, that low HR training is great for building and maintaining a base, and the majority of my runs would probably be consistent with the MAF approach. I think, in the end, the best way to train is going to be different for everyone and we have to figure it out on our own.

---

Harper: I have had a VERY similar experience. I don't have all the data organized, but did start out with Maff for 11 weeks. After I was no longer seeing any improvement I switched over to John Parkers training program. Initially, my Maff pace was 11:00/Minute + miles. I can now run RECOVERY miles....about 5 beats BELOW maff at 8:50-9:10/min miles. I also have had SIGNIFICANT PR's at every distance I have raced. My most recent marathon was a 40 minute PR....qualified for Boston with 7 minutes to spare, 10th female master, and won my age group. I just placed 4th overall in a very hot hilly 5k race. Ran the 5k at a conservative 7:30 pace and felt like I had a LOT left in the tank. I didn't really know how fast to run the 5k since I don't usually run that distance. Everybody was moaning and groaning about the hills and heat.....I should have run faster because I felt very comfortable at the finish.

This post isn't intended to boast about myself, though I am thrilled with my improvement , but rather to encourage others to keep at it. IT WORKS!

I am running times that I never dreamed possible. I no longer feel like a wannabee
Karen

[This message has been edited by Ksabbo (edited Jun-26-2007).]

IP: Logged

posted Jun-26-2007 10:47 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by tpenn40:
Well - as I said I'm still a new runner, and even newer at this heartrate thing, but I would have thought my average heartrate at 30 seconds slower than race pace wouldn't be that close to my max heartrate (159 would be just over 87% of my max HR).

Maybe I actually am running hard enough in my races...but I'm just slow. I was thinking if I'm not able to push it hard enough without wimping out, speedwork may help me get use to the pain of running hard.

---

I think your instincts are right. HR can be a fickle creature. Heat and humidity play a big role, so can fatigue. It's not always apples to apples. I think you're making the right decision to limit speedwork and developing the aerobic capacity.

IP: Logged

posted Jun-26-2007 11:46 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Harper:
I thought I'd chime in with an update although I am no longer a MAF devotee.

Last August I started with low HR training, coming off an injury etc. My aerobic base was not so good. Low HR training helped me build my mileage back up, slowly. I made pretty good progress for the first 3 months. Then I stagnated for about 2 months before abandoning strict low HR training in favor of a different approach...
<snip>
The new approach was to essentially increase my usual/easy HR range from a ceiling of HR 140 up to HR 150....
<snip>
Start of MAF, Aug 2006
MAF: 140
Weekly mileage: 30 mpw
Fastest pace at MAF 140: 11:30 min/mile
<snip>
Current: June 2007
Usual/easy training HR ceiling: 150
Weekly mileage: 55-75 mpw
Fastest pace at HR 140: 9:00 min/mile
Fastest pace at HR 150: 8:18 min/mile
Tempo paces from 6:00 to 8:00, from 5 to 15 miles
<snip>
Today I can run an 8:00 pace with my HR 155-160, and I can maintain it for 2 hours.
<snip>
My perspective on MAF training: I think it's great for beginners, the injured, or those who need to build an aerobic base. I'm not convinced that one can just keep MAFing and reaping progress.

---

If you define "MAF training" as getting a HR number from the "180" formula and using that forever, then I can see why you're no longer a devotee. I think this is why "MAF training" is underrated and sometimes gets the short end of the stick.

I think it's much better to think of "MAF training" as "Maximum Aerobic Function training" where the Maximum Aerobic Function is determined by your individual fitness and physical condition, not just by some formula. VO2 tests will either come right out and give you an Aerobic Threshold (AeT) heart rate (based on that test's programming as to what % of fat burning to use - somewhere in the 75% to 50% range), or will give you complete HR vs RQ graphs so you can choose your own percentage. Perhaps I should refer to this as "Tested Maximum Aerobic Function" or TMAF. This can change dramatically over the course of your LHR training.

Here's an example. I know a guy who has been running for years and has done a number of marathons, who decided to see what a really strict LHR program could do for him. He got VO2 tested and found out his AeT, AT, etc. For six months he followed a strict program of NEVER allowing his heart rate to go above his AeT in any of his runs. Then he got VO2 tested again. HIS AeT HAD GONE UP 30 BPM! Wow. Now his easy "LHR" runs can be done 20-30 bpm higher, with no problem. He's also doing core strengthening, form efficiency training, and speedwork. PRs will surely follow.

I don't know how you got your 140 MAF (formula?), but just think: suppose it really was your TMAF, but after 3 -5 months of aerobic training your TMAF had gone up 20 bpm to 160. You could be doing all your easy runs at 160 and still be doing good old Aerobic Function LHR training. This is the sense in which it seems that one can continue to reap benefits from "MAF training" - if your Aerobic Function training level is defined by testing, as opposed to a formula that might not properly take into account your training history and individual fitness.

Maybe you're still doing aerobic LHR training, and just don't know it.

It seems like you've got a great program going and it's really working. Congratulations, and good running.

IP: Logged

posted Jun-27-2007 09:13 AM               

IP: Logged

posted Jun-27-2007 10:33 AM               

IP: Logged

posted Jun-27-2007 12:00 PM               

IP: Logged

posted Jun-27-2007 12:12 PM               

IP: Logged

posted Jun-27-2007 12:55 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Long Run Nick:
Hey did y'all get the triple post? Good. What is going on at Cool running? I think the soft ware has a bad case of overdoing MAF training. Nick

---

Only click once. Sometimes this thread takes a long time to load. Click.
Open a new TAB in your browser and go on your journey. It will post.

--JJ

IP: Logged

posted Jun-27-2007 12:59 PM            

Bill

------------------
Bill's Profile

IP: Logged

posted Jun-27-2007 01:02 PM            

Bill

------------------
Bill's Profile

IP: Logged

posted Jun-27-2007 01:07 PM            

All in favor?

I think its just the sheer size of this thread that's starting the double/triple post issues....

I'd like to post more, but i'm getting leery of trying anything on this thread because it takes so long to see if it went or not.

Let's start a new thread.

IP: Logged

posted Jun-28-2007 08:51 PM               

The last run I did prior to my surgery where my HR monitor
wasn't going haywire was a treadmill run on June 11:

7:55/126, 7:10/135, 7:09/140, 7:08/xx, 7:20/141,
7:24/141, 7:29/142, 7:30/143, (~.11 mile: 0:54/xx)

(The two xx's are miles where the monitor went ballistic).

Today was my first run since the day before my surgery on
June 15. Not a great comparison since it was outside in
88 degree high humidity on hilly roads, but it's the best I've
got (I'm usually about 1 min/mile different on treadmill
than on hilly roads):

9:41/140, 9:56/141, 10:24/144, 10:47/144, (~0.1 mile: 1:01/139)

I know what you're thinking, "he just had surgery, shouldn't be
be down at 138??" You're darn right! Tomorrow I'm hittin' the
treadmill to get my pace and HR under control. Let's see where
this goes. How long until I regain my pre-surgery fitness?
Will I be able to regain my presurgery fitness before my series
of fall races? How many times will this message post?

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

IP: Logged

posted Jun-28-2007 09:01 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by 13squared:
I hereby propose that new LHR/MAFF topic be started immediately!

All in favor?

I think its just the sheer size of this thread that's starting the double/triple post issues....

I'd like to post more, but i'm getting leery of trying anything on this thread because it takes so long to see if it went or not.

Let's start a new thread.

---

It is getting to be that time. We usually do it when it hits about
50 pages, so we're close. I like to make sure I get the old one
copied first, then start the new. I'll work that this weekend and
we'll get a new one rolling to appropriately anger the masses!

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

IP: Logged