posted Nov-24-2006 08:15 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by aharmer:
Fellow Maffers,

Lactate Threshold = 5K race pace + 8% (meaning 8% slower)
Aerobic Threshold = Lactate Threshold + 8% (meaning 8% slower)
Marathon Pace should be relatively close to AT
Half-Marathon Pace should be about 5.5% faster than AT

---

When you say "AT" above, are you referring to aerobic threshold
or anaerobic threshold? Lactate threshold and anaerobic threshold
should be fairly close. Aerobic threshold has a very widely varying
definition but, for the most part, should be pretty close to MAF.
I run marathons at a pace way faster than almost any definition of
aerobic threshold, but obviously quite a bit slower than anaerobic
threshold. One of these days, I'll have to try to see how close to
anaerobic threshold I can get in a marathon. I have no interest
in burning out early or suffering, so we'll have to see how I can
get there asymptotically. Obviously I was experimenting with
50 mile pace last weekend. Maybe I'll play around with marathon
pace a bit tomorrow. My biggest concern is that my body will
finally give out after a year of torture.

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

IP: Logged

posted Nov-25-2006 08:48 AM               

IP: Logged

posted Nov-25-2006 09:36 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by leitnerj:
I'm sorry but they came available at 4 am this morning only
in select markets and they were sold out by 4:07 am. I understand
that due to the ruckus of people
trying to get them before they sold out that 42 people ended up
with severe ITB injuries and 3 with torn Achilles heels. Some
won't be running for at least 3 months (Taps playing in background).
I tried to play down the hype, but what can you do?

---

Use it. Bad publicity is good, too. Imagine the commercial:

ANNOUNCER: New from RunCo....Leitnerj! Want your kids to learn how to be aerobic monsters by the time they're 8? Lietnerj. The new action figure.

(Zoom in on the Leitnerj action figure, no shirt, cut v-shaped-body, heart rate monitor strap, and Garmin 301 replica on the wrist. Then cut to a scene of a 6 year-old boy in his running shorts, shoes, heart rate monitor, and Garmin in the living room running in slow motion. The Daddy comes in.)

DADDY: Ricky, why are you running in slow motion?

RICKY: I took two weeks off after racing too many races, Daddy, and now I'm rebuilding my slow twitch fibers!

DADDY: Staying under your heart rate ceiling?

RICKY: Let me check, Dad! Yup, I'm six beats below!

(Zoom in on the Leitnerj action figures face)

LEITNERJ: (SOOTHING VOICE) You're doing well, Ricky.

ANNOUNCER: Leitnerj approves. Leitnerj not only comes with a Garmin 301 GPS heart rate monitor watch and strap, but also one hundred voice commands that come out spontaneously in a soothing voice. You can program him to say your name!

(Cut to boy running outside in front of Leitnerj, who is standing on a wall. Leitnerj speaks in a voice similar to Hal (2001 Space Odyssey).

LEITNERJ: Ricky, you're burning too much sugar. Slow down.

Ricky, you forgot your heart rate monitor, go back in the house and put it on. NOW, Ricky.

RIcky, I know you ran 26 miles yesterday, and 26 miles the day before, but that's why they call it a triple marathon, now get off your tushy and get running.

Put the GU down, Ricky, you're not teaching your body to use fat.

Ricky, I know there's a bone sticking out of your leg, but you keep going, it's what I would do.

You must learn to pee while running, Ricky, now whip it out and just go, don't stop, good boy.

ANNOUNCER: Pushing your kids to new limits. Leitnerj is also an aerospace engineer...

LEITNERJ: Pressure is force per unit area, Ricky. P equals F backslash A. Which means you have to get rid of that baby fat, RIcky, or you'll be a candidate for plantar fasciitis. Like him.

(Cut to a shot of "JJWaverly", the already famous fat-boy action figure plopped on a couch rolling his foot on a golf ball)

ANNOUNCER: Leitnerj. Teach your kids to be outstanding aerobic citizens. Get yours now. Leitnerj.

(Final close-up on Leitnerj's face)

FADE TO BLACK

--Jimmy

P.S. I think we could pull this off, Jesse. Anything is possible in America.

Profile

[This message has been edited by jjwaverly42 (edited Nov-25-2006).]

IP: Logged

posted Nov-25-2006 04:17 PM               

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

IP: Logged

posted Nov-25-2006 08:19 PM            

I started running seriously on the roads at the age of 21. After 5 years and consistent solid mileage I had 10k/Mar. PR's of 35:00/2:47:30. I averaged probably 80-90/ week - most of it at 6:15-6:45 pace. Since this was my marathon pace, or a little slower, I felt I was not training too fast. However, in 5 of the 6 marathons I ran, I slowed by at least one minute/mile over the last 10k - in spite feeling very easy over the first half. The last two of those years, though I was unable to improve on my marathon PR and my 10k PR dated from my second year of those 5. About then, I stumbled on Ernst Van Aaken's book. HIs approach to training is very similar to Maffetone, or it might be accurate to put it the other way around. There are slight differences worth mentioning, though. VanAaken recommends the same HR for everyone: 120-130, no higher than 150 except very very occasionally. I decided to take a chance on this new way of training. A freind had tired of one of the early polars (this was back in 91!) and I started training at between 115 and 135. I was 26 at the time so this would have been far,far below Maff. My pace on these runs was around 8:30/mile. I also increased my mileage to 120 miles/week ( on average). The first thing I noticed, and this happened almost immeadiately, was that my speedwork got better (vanAaken did not forbid sw; he recommended that it not exceed 5% of total mileage, though, and never faster than goal pace). Where before I would struggle on my mile repeats to go faster than 5:40 pace, I was now easily running 5:10. At this time, I was living in Eugene. There were a lot of 40 minute 10k types whom I knew and who would blow by me every day in training; I slogging along at 8 or slower, they blowing by at 6:30. I was lucky enough to win a 10k and collect some prize money even though my time of 32:30 was rather humble by Eugene standards (but a big PR for me...) When I saw them later, people asked me, increduloously, how I had run so much faster than they could. After all, they blew by me every day in training. I answered: " because every day you blow by me in training" I ultimately got my 10k Pr down under 32 and ran a marathon under 2:30 - maximizing, I think, my modest talent. O.K. that's my testimonial.

Here's my first question:
I want to try to get back into good condition. The last few years have the seen the birth of my two children, the completion of my PhD and a very busy work schedule. I've managed to run, but inconsistently and not very much. This month, I bought a Polar S210. I plan on trying to get back under 3 hours next year and I decided to upgrade my old polar. My problem (among a few others....) is that I often can't hear the target alarms. Has anyone else had this problem? Is it just my old ears? If you have, how did you remedy it?

Secondly, many on here have noted that there is a certain mileage level below which low HR training is no longer effective. I also think that letternj said something about a total number of miles being necessary to see a jump. My discussion question is this: Is it just the total, the average, a high average over time? Probably the latter, but can it be accelerated? That is, say it takes 1000 miles on average to see a 10% improvement in pace, with a minum of 35 mpw. Could someone see a similar improvement if they ran those 1000 in 10 weeks? In 8? In 5?!?!?! There's obviously a range somewhere, but I'm curious to know whether people have noticed patterns or whether data has been gathered on this subject. I had success in the distant past running very low hr but with mega mileage. The improvement came fast. I wonder if I can improve if I'm a bit more patient since I do not have the time anymore to run 120 mpw (especially now that 130 HR is about 11 minper mile).

Thanks to those who make it past this long, hastily written post.....

IP: Logged

posted Nov-26-2006 08:07 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by jiskra:

> ... interesting stuff deleted

Here's my first question:
I want to try to get back into good condition. The last few years have the seen the birth of my two children, the completion of my PhD and a very busy work schedule. I've managed to run, but inconsistently and not very much. This month, I bought a Polar S210. I plan on trying to get back under 3 hours next year and I decided to upgrade my old polar. My problem (among a few others....) is that I often can't hear the target alarms. Has anyone else had this problem? Is it just my old ears? If you have, how did you remedy it?

Secondly, many on here have noted that there is a certain mileage level below which low HR training is no longer effective. I also think that letternj said something about a total number of miles being necessary to see a jump. My discussion question is this: Is it just the total, the average, a high average over time? Probably the latter, but can it be accelerated? That is, say it takes 1000 miles on average to see a 10% improvement in pace, with a minum of 35 mpw. Could someone see a similar improvement if they ran those 1000 in 10 weeks? In 8? In 5?!?!?! There's obviously a range somewhere, but I'm curious to know whether people have noticed patterns or whether data has been gathered on this subject. I had success in the distant past running very low hr but with mega mileage. The improvement came fast. I wonder if I can improve if I'm a bit more patient since I do not have the time anymore to run 120 mpw (especially now that 130 HR is about 11 minper mile).

Thanks to those who make it past this long, hastily written post.....

---

You have a smoking running background, without a doubt! Now that
I've looked up the meaning of desultory, I'm ready to try to tackle your
questions and I feel much more well-read. The Van Aaken approach
sounds very interesting and sounds like it works the same stuff we
talk about here, under the general philosophy "there's no too low of
a HR to run most of your mileage." I also believe the 5% rule on
speed work is probably a good one (but still it should wait for a good
period of exclusively low HR running). Nonetheless, one should keep
in mind the need to get in some fast turnover running, hopefully on
down hills. I can't answer your first question because I don't bother
with the alarms. It is quite possible that your ears are insensitive
to the particular frequency of the alarm. I am blessed with a very
high sensitivity to high frequency, annoying sounds and a low
sensitivity to normal conversational tones. That is, the noise comes
in clearly but the signal is a blur. Oh well. For your second question,
even with all the data in, there's nothing that seems to approach such
a magic number. On the average, you maybe looking at 25 mpw or
so, but there have been many successful with 15. Perhaps it depends
on how many hills you are getting into your runs and how much practice
at turnover you're getting. Nonetheless, if you're preparing for a marathon, you're going to want to do more than that anyway!

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

IP: Logged

posted Nov-26-2006 01:02 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by jiskra:
I've been luking in a desultory fashion on this and the older threads for a while now. I noticed that on the older threads there were some who doubted the effectiveness of low hr training. I imagine that there are some out there who are considering running this way, but have lingering doubts. I'd like to 'rise and testify' as they say around these parts. I'd also like to ask a couple question/ start a topic of discussion. I will try to be brief:

I started running seriously on the roads at the age of 21. After 5 years and consistent solid mileage I had 10k/Mar. PR's of 35:00/2:47:30. I averaged probably 80-90/ week - most of it at 6:15-6:45 pace. Since this was my marathon pace, or a little slower, I felt I was not training too fast. However, in 5 of the 6 marathons I ran, I slowed by at least one minute/mile over the last 10k - in spite feeling very easy over the first half. The last two of those years, though I was unable to improve on my marathon PR and my 10k PR dated from my second year of those 5. About then, I stumbled on Ernst Van Aaken's book. HIs approach to training is very similar to Maffetone, or it might be accurate to put it the other way around. There are slight differences worth mentioning, though. VanAaken recommends the same HR for everyone: 120-130, no higher than 150 except very very occasionally. I decided to take a chance on this new way of training. A freind had tired of one of the early polars (this was back in 91!) and I started training at between 115 and 135. I was 26 at the time so this would have been far,far below Maff. My pace on these runs was around 8:30/mile. I also increased my mileage to 120 miles/week ( on average). The first thing I noticed, and this happened almost immeadiately, was that my speedwork got better (vanAaken did not forbid sw; he recommended that it not exceed 5% of total mileage, though, and never faster than goal pace). Where before I would struggle on my mile repeats to go faster than 5:40 pace, I was now easily running 5:10. At this time, I was living in Eugene. There were a lot of 40 minute 10k types whom I knew and who would blow by me every day in training; I slogging along at 8 or slower, they blowing by at 6:30. I was lucky enough to win a 10k and collect some prize money even though my time of 32:30 was rather humble by Eugene standards (but a big PR for me...) When I saw them later, people asked me, increduloously, how I had run so much faster than they could. After all, they blew by me every day in training. I answered: " because every day you blow by me in training" I ultimately got my 10k Pr down under 32 and ran a marathon under 2:30 - maximizing, I think, my modest talent. O.K. that's my testimonial.

Here's my first question:
I want to try to get back into good condition. The last few years have the seen the birth of my two children, the completion of my PhD and a very busy work schedule. I've managed to run, but inconsistently and not very much. This month, I bought a Polar S210. I plan on trying to get back under 3 hours next year and I decided to upgrade my old polar. My problem (among a few others....) is that I often can't hear the target alarms. Has anyone else had this problem? Is it just my old ears? If you have, how did you remedy it?

Secondly, many on here have noted that there is a certain mileage level below which low HR training is no longer effective. I also think that letternj said something about a total number of miles being necessary to see a jump. My discussion question is this: Is it just the total, the average, a high average over time? Probably the latter, but can it be accelerated? That is, say it takes 1000 miles on average to see a 10% improvement in pace, with a minum of 35 mpw. Could someone see a similar improvement if they ran those 1000 in 10 weeks? In 8? In 5?!?!?! There's obviously a range somewhere, but I'm curious to know whether people have noticed patterns or whether data has been gathered on this subject. I had success in the distant past running very low hr but with mega mileage. The improvement came fast. I wonder if I can improve if I'm a bit more patient since I do not have the time anymore to run 120 mpw (especially now that 130 HR is about 11 minper mile).

Thanks to those who make it past this long, hastily written post.....

---

First, thanks for using the word "desultory."

In training for my most recent marathon, I attempted to keep my HR under 130-131, as I jumped up to 100-mile weeks. Seemed like a good idea. Even though I was working lower than ever, I still progressed quite nicely. During that period, several club members had asked me to go running with them, and when I told them just how slow i was running at the time, they took a pass. They liked to do they're medium long and long runs in the vacinity of marathon race pace, if not faster. Come marathon time, these members who regularly leave me in the dust in short races (e.g. one beats me in 5ks by 2-3 minutes), I've crept up on them in marathons, tieing some, beating others, and off by only a few minutes with others. It's not that I'm faster than them, or equal in talent, it's just that I spent a good long time working on endurance. I'm able to hold my speed for a LOT longer. They tank in the last 13.1, I don't. So, I'm having that same experience. I don't expect to convert a soul, as belief systems about "train fast, race fast" are deep-rooted.

Alarms on watches. Blow them up. Trune them off--there is always a setting (under "blow up the damn alarm" under SETTINGS). The heart rate monitor kind of has a broad range sometimes. You could be holding a 125-127 micely, and for some reason it will get "blippy" and rise to 135 for no apparent reason. I find it best just to eyeball it once in awhile when on flattish ground. If I'm running up a hill, a little more often. Also, if I make my ceiling 130, I'll allow 132 with blips of 133, usually a zone of 128-132 will average 130. I always go for average bpm per mile (maxing out at the average HR ceiling), not a specific exact never blipping above the ceiling method. Be worried about your old ears if you start to hear the watch beeping, if you've turned it off.

As far as mileage goes. 1 mile per week won't do anything, 2 nnothin, 3 same, I'm pretty sure about that. What is the low point? For me, I started the year at 26 miles per week, and built over 12 weeks to 60 mpw. I saw progress all along the way. My belief is that slow-twitch fibers not only need to be exercised, but they need to be exhausted, so that they can rebuild stronger and better. This equals endurance. Thus in order to build endurance, you have to give those fibers something to endure. They probably get used to 20 miles per week pretty quickly, and if you stay at 20 mpw, they aren't going to develop, because you aren't exhausting them. You aren't challenging them. My experience is that building mileage on 3 hard days per week is key. I'll peak at 2 or 3 15-16 milers pe week, with one 20+miler every other week. In between days are easier recovery runs or rest. Is 100 miles per week necessary? No, I think you can get away with a lot less, especially if you are exhausting the slow-twitch fibers at least 3 days per week.

If you take a 3 hard day a week philosophy into your training, taking it easy (low mileage or rest) on the in between days i think you can experiment succesfully with what works for you. It might be 35 mpw, it could be 60.

One thing to take into account is that there might be a period in the beginning of this training where you get worse. This happened me back at the end of 2005 when I first began this training. I seemed to go backwards for awhile, then it turned around and went the other way. This wasn't mileage dependent either. I have an unsubstantiated theory that when you switch to training your slow-twitch fibers, the fast twitch fibers you were working with most of the time get out of shape, and your speed declines for a little while, until your increasingly growing slow-twitchers turn the tide the other way. Then when you get to the business of 20 mile long runs, your body actually recruits some of the fast-twitch fibers and begins to exhaust them, thus giving you some more speed as they recover. I've read in a few places that there are certain fast-twitch fibers that can take on slow-twitch characteristics and duties. These might have been the ones that get out of shape in the beginning, and then reemerge powerful when you begin to do a few long runs per week.

So, don't be surprised if nothing happens, or your paces get worse instead of better for awhile. It will eventually turn around and go the other way, if you build mileage.

I wish you the best with this new "phase" in your running life. Keep us posted on your progress, lack of progress, race successes and failures, and Brangelina, Jennifer Aniston, and whether or not Lance and Cheryl are considering getting back together or not.

--Jimmy

2006 Training Log
Profile

MAF training source:
Training for Endurance by Phil Maffetone

IP: Logged

posted Nov-26-2006 01:33 PM            

"My whole teaching in one sentence is: "Run slowly, run daily, drink moderately, and don't eat like a pig."
--Dr. Ernst van Aaken

When applied over time, I think that gets you about 90% of your potential. Doesn't sell a lot of copies of Runner's World though.

IP: Logged

posted Nov-27-2006 12:17 PM            

I am now down to my MAF of 140. I have gotten there by "tapering" into it, sticking with 150 for a week, then 145. Giving up the psychological effects of a good hard run has been the most difficult part, but I am sold on the benefits. I am currently running 40-50 mpw.

Couple of questions coming in:

I had been focused on a late February marathon, but am now thinking late March might be better. Or is that too soon to really put the work in? I guess what I am wondering is what kind of experience others have had in phasing out of Maffetone training--MP runs, speed work, how many weeks?--or none at all, and go right into a race from Maff with an ideal pace in mind, but no real speed check? Any thoughts, especially from those who can think back to their first Maff base building experience?

Second, I ran a 17 mile long run yesterday, first long run strictly at MAF, mostly on a three mile loop, averaging ten minute miles and for the most part holding easily at or below 140, walking briefly a few times on uphills to keep my rate on target. I did not drink any water (fountain is now off for the winter), and found my heart rate rising the last four miles, probably just dehydration, and consequently had to slow down to about 10:30 to stay on target. Would the zero calorie electrolyte solutions be recommended for long runs or just plain water?

Last, I'm thinking I should up my cross-training a lot. I currently spend about an hour to an hour and a half on an elliptical trainer and a bike. I have to push it to get over 140 bpm on these, and could comfortably stay below MAF for a long time. Any drawbacks if I am not doing this to replace road miles?

IP: Logged

posted Nov-27-2006 07:18 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sightseer66:

I had been focused on a late February marathon, but am now thinking late March might be better. Or is that too soon to really put the work in? I guess what I am wondering is what kind of experience others have had in phasing out of Maffetone training--MP runs, speed work, how many weeks?--or none at all, and go right into a race from Maff with an ideal pace in mind, but no real speed check? Any thoughts, especially from those who can think back to their first Maff base building experience?

Second, I ran a 17 mile long run yesterday, first long run strictly at MAF, mostly on a three mile loop, averaging ten minute miles and for the most part holding easily at or below 140, walking briefly a few times on uphills to keep my rate on target. I did not drink any water (fountain is now off for the winter), and found my heart rate rising the last four miles, probably just dehydration, and consequently had to slow down to about 10:30 to stay on target. Would the zero calorie electrolyte solutions be recommended for long runs or just plain water?

Last, I'm thinking I should up my cross-training a lot. I currently spend about an hour to an hour and a half on an elliptical trainer and a bike. I have to push it to get over 140 bpm on these, and could comfortably stay below MAF for a long time. Any drawbacks if I am not doing this to replace road miles?

---

I generally like to start with the most pessimistic assumptions - that
it will take 12-16 weeks, maybe more to see some real results.
Nonetheless, many have seen significant improvements on much
less. It all depends on how your longs and shorts connect right
now and how "good of a fatburner" you currently are. Sketch some
plans together for yourself, but be prepared to ditch them based on
what happens and don't rest your life on your next marathon showing
that all of your ills are cured.

As far as water, low-cal electrolyte drinks, or standard sports drinks
go, it really doesn't matter as far as this approach goes, as long as
you're not taking in carbs before your runs or in the first 10 minutes
or so. I personally prefer to avoid carbs entirely during training runs,
based mostly on McMillan's advice, but I doubt it has any effect on
my MAF performance.

I do a lot of cycling and swimming. I do notice that my running
performance does diminish just a bit when I cut my cycling back.
That's the only answer I can give to that question.

Maybe others would like to chime in.

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

IP: Logged

posted Nov-28-2006 12:40 AM            

I always stay hydrated with 14-20 oz of water per hour. No food, carbs, sports drink, or Gu before or during training runs.

Worked famously for my most recent marathon. No wall. Haven't seen the wall or any significant slowing down in the final 6 miles in the last 4 marathons. Something's working. And I don't think it's the speedwork, because I barely do any.

Burn that fat!

Good luck!

--Jimmy

2006 Training
Profile

IP: Logged

posted Dec-03-2006 12:35 PM               

on my next run i will hit 800 miles since i started again last april, and most of them have been MAF since last may. i ran two 5Ks this fall. i just signed up for my first half marathon in may 2007. i am confident i can do the distance (i ran 9 miles last summer, and 8 miles more recently), but wonder if there is any chance that i will come in under 3 hours - i know that sounds weird, but my average pace is in the 14 minute range, and i need better than that for 3 hours.

so, i'm not quite sure how to phrase this. if i keep training at MAF, starting with the 30 miles a week i run now, with my current long run at 8 miles, how do i plan this for an under 3 hour half marathon in may? my MAF has been 126 (by the age formula); as of tomorrow, when my age group changes (55!), does that mean that my MAF should be 125? and because i have hills, should i be aiming for the average of 125? i am running in the snow (and single digit temps) which has automatically slowed the pace, being careful about the ice (i have "studded" running shoes!), but i have several hills on every run, which i try to keep below my HRR, which is 133. then again, yesterday, i ran out of daylight and found myself pushing to get home in the dark - couldn't see my HRM and hit 152, with average HR of 129 - so it still wasn't that high, though the last mile was all above HRR.

any advice appreciated in my half-marathon planning,

------------------
susan

IP: Logged

posted Dec-03-2006 12:54 PM            

------------------
***********
My myspace
My User Profile

IP: Logged

posted Dec-03-2006 02:45 PM               

I targeted a race heart rate of 165-168 and ran at that rate n matter what the pace. It did drift up the last 3 miles

IP: Logged

posted Dec-03-2006 02:48 PM            

Want to give a big thanks to 'Jimmy' and his progress postings; also to Leitner (sp?) with his postings and explanations on Maffetone.

Tinkering with the idea of bumping AVG HR to 142-148 (67-72% max HR) for December runs; good or bad idea?

ron

IP: Logged

posted Dec-03-2006 03:13 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cashmason:
Susan, I maf at the same heart rate you do. My normal pace is 12 :30 per mile. I ran my half last month at a pace of 9:45 and ran it in 2 hours 7 minutes.

I targeted a race heart rate of 165-168 and ran at that rate n matter what the pace. It did drift up the last 3 miles

---

cash,
that's very encouraging - but what made you choose the 165-168 HR and how did you know you could keep it up for the entire race? (which is one of my fears - how ill i know how fast i can go through 13 miles!)

------------------
susan

IP: Logged

posted Dec-03-2006 03:18 PM               

IP: Logged

posted Dec-03-2006 04:44 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by fjordrunner:
this thread has been quiet for a while, so maybe a question will bring it back to life.

on my next run i will hit 800 miles since i started again last april, and most of them have been MAF since last may. i ran two 5Ks this fall. i just signed up for my first half marathon in may 2007. i am confident i can do the distance (i ran 9 miles last summer, and 8 miles more recently), but wonder if there is any chance that i will come in under 3 hours - i know that sounds weird, but my average pace is in the 14 minute range, and i need better than that for 3 hours.

so, i'm not quite sure how to phrase this. if i keep training at MAF, starting with the 30 miles a week i run now, with my current long run at 8 miles, how do i plan this for an under 3 hour half marathon in may? my MAF has been 126 (by the age formula); as of tomorrow, when my age group changes (55!), does that mean that my MAF should be 125? and because i have hills, should i be aiming for the average of 125? i am running in the snow (and single digit temps) which has automatically slowed the pace, being careful about the ice (i have "studded" running shoes!), but i have several hills on every run, which i try to keep below my HRR, which is 133. then again, yesterday, i ran out of daylight and found myself pushing to get home in the dark - couldn't see my HRM and hit 152, with average HR of 129 - so it still wasn't that high, though the last mile was all above HRR.

any advice appreciated in my half-marathon planning,

---

I'm not sure you've provided enough data to really make the
call, but perhaps a little clarification would help. When you talk
about average pace around 14 mpm, is that in your training
runs, all at MAF heart rate? If so, there's absolutely no doubt
that you'll be able to do much better than that, most likely
far better than 2:30. You're not going to want to run your
race at MAF - you should be able to handle somewhere
between 20 and 40 beats above that for a half marathon,
as cashmason alludes to. If 14 mpm is how fast you've raced
in a 5k, being completely exhausted at the end and running
at a HR of 30-40 beats above MAF then, well, some further
analysis is in order.

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

IP: Logged

posted Dec-03-2006 04:46 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by willamona:
You will finish your half in under 3 hours no problem. I was at 14 min. miles when I did my half in September and I finished in just under 2:14. Keep in mind you have a ton of training to do between now and then also. That will help. I will let the pros deal with the rest.

---

Sounds like you're as much a pro as any others of us here! I think
the qualifications to be a pro in this thread are (1) tried MAF-style
running for a a good few months, (2) ran a race afterwards.

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

IP: Logged

posted Dec-03-2006 04:51 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by runyak:
Ran the Fiesta Bowl Half Marathon today and ended up with a 1:41 and some change time (AVG HR@163) which is 5 minutes better than my previous best. Accomplished it with steady diet of 1 to 3.5 hour runs and 45-60 mpw since June predominantly at MAF (134). Only "speed" work was 8x100m strides tacked on the end of a 1 hr run one day a week.
Went to MacMillan calc and now am on target with associated times between 5K to half marathon; only hope that it will translate properly to the AZ marathon in January.

Want to give a big thanks to 'Jimmy' and his progress postings; also to Leitner (sp?) with his postings and explanations on Maffetone.

Tinkering with the idea of bumping AVG HR to 142-148 (67-72% max HR) for December runs; good or bad idea?

ron

---

Congrats on the nice results. I think after their first dose, everyone
moves into a "what's next - how do I go to the next step" mode and
there's no doubt that things get more individualized. My suggestion
would be for you to still do most of your runs at the MAF heart rate
you've been using, but perhaps experiment with some higher stuff
for one or two runs a week. I know that a while ago, I started running
at higher heart rates for most of my runs and I really lost a lot of the
ability I had a lower heart rates. I didn't see the results I was hoping
to see. Nonetheless, I think it's always helpful to sample the waters
and see what kind of additional stimulation you can find.

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

IP: Logged

posted Dec-03-2006 04:53 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by roy c:
Hi
Just like to say I have been MAF training now a few months. Ran a race today a relay marathon, last year my time was 1:28:14 this year 1:20:12 (unofficial)
I didn't wear my HR monitor but felt fairly ok. So it really does work. Back to MAF pace tomorrow or maybe the next day.
Thanks
Roy

---

That's a spectacular improvement - congrats on that performance!

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

IP: Logged

posted Dec-03-2006 04:58 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by leitnerj:
I'm not sure you've provided enough data to really make the
call, but perhaps a little clarification would help. When you talk
about average pace around 14 mpm, is that in your training
runs, all at MAF heart rate? If so, there's absolutely no doubt
that you'll be able to do much better than that, most likely
far better than 2:30. You're not going to want to run your
race at MAF - you should be able to handle somewhere
between 20 and 40 beats above that for a half marathon,
as cashmason alludes to. If 14 mpm is how fast you've raced
in a 5k, being completely exhausted at the end and running
at a HR of 30-40 beats above MAF then, well, some further
analysis is in order.

---

hi jesse,
sorry for the lack of clarity. my traning runs average agout 14.40; i ran two 5K races, the second one i reduced my time to 36.10 gun time (it was probably less, because i was way at the back), and my best mile (3)was 10.25; mile 1 was 11.06 and mile 2 was 11.36. mile 2 had a Very Long Tall Hill - so of course mile 3 was partly downhill. avg HR for the race was 155;max 176.

also, my runs which average 14+ have lots of hills (they were 18+ last may); if i run to town (one way) my average is 13 something - on mostly level ground, with some downhill and a little uphill.

does that help?

IP: Logged

posted Dec-03-2006 05:10 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by fjordrunner:
hi jesse,
sorry for the lack of clarity. my traning runs average agout 14.40; i ran two 5K races, the second one i reduced my time to 36.10 gun time (it was probably less, because i was way at the back), and my best mile (3)was 10.25; mile 1 was 11.06 and mile 2 was 11.36. mile 2 had a Very Long Tall Hill - so of course mile 3 was partly downhill. avg HR for the race was 155;max 176.

also, my runs which average 14+ have lots of hills (they were 18+ last may); if i run to town (one way) my average is 13 something - on mostly level ground, with some downhill and a little uphill.

does that help?

---

Yep, and same answer still applies. I think you should be able
to handle faster than 2:30. It does take some trial and error
to learn how to race after doing MAF for a while - most people don't
get the optimal results on the first race or two.

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

IP: Logged

posted Dec-03-2006 05:46 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by leitnerj:
Yep, and same answer still applies. I think you should be able
to handle faster than 2:30. It does take some trial and error
to learn how to race after doing MAF for a while - most people don't
get the optimal results on thefirst race or two.

---

so that means i'll want to aim for a HR during the race of 146 - 166, 20- 40 bpm above the 126 i run now.

now i "just" have to figure out my plan...
thanks, jesse, and cashmason, and willamona,

------------------
susan

IP: Logged

posted Dec-03-2006 06:29 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by fjordrunner:
so that means i'll want to aim for a HR during the race of 146 - 166, 20- 40 bpm above the 126 i run now.

now i "just" have to figure out my plan...
thanks, jesse, and cashmason, and willamona,

---

Yeah, you'll have to experiment a bit to find out what a good
heart rate range is. There's no general answer. If you had
any idea what your lactate threshold or anaerobic threshold
was, I could get you a really good target. But, 20-40 beats
will be a great start - starting at 20 and increasing if you
feel good.

I noticed you mentioned running with steel-studded shoes -
are you running with icebugs (which also happen to be
Swedish)?

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

IP: Logged