| Author |
Topic: Basebuilding, low heart rate training, a la Maffetone and Mark Allen |
bcul01
Member |
 posted Dec-12-2006 02:57 PM
   
Cashmason and leitnerjThanks for taking the time to respond and provide insight to me. It helps to bounce the ideas off of those that are involved in running and training more than I am. I will stay with your advice and enjoy watching him be 13 years old and full of energy.
IP: Logged |
leitnerj
Cool Runner |
posted Dec-12-2006 06:26 PM
quote:
Originally posted by dg9:
hi.
thanks so much for all the help that is given here. i feel guilty because i should read all the posts before asking questions, but i give up, there's too much.. i'll try to be concise.i'm 51, have been running since sept. maf hr: 180-51, 129.
...
> snip <
thank you again. i'm definitely intrigued by this discussion, & will keep reading more of the posts & answers. forever in your debt. (that was sincere)
Ok - here's my best quickie answer. First, since you're
over 50, you should be especially prepared to make adjustments.
With that said, I would keep it at 129 for a while, but since you're
over 50, don't worry about it creeping up to 134 here and there (not
because you've been doing some of the other activities). I don't
know much about what you need to do with your breathing in the
other cross-training activities. Stay on the hills, at least for some
(perhaps half) of your runs. Putter or walk up and pick up speed
going down. You'll learn efficient hill racing that way and you'll
get some fast turnover practice (i.e., aerobic speedwork) on the
downs. (Don't let your heart rate sink way down when you go
down - keep at right around MAF). Definitely ease into higher
mileage if you can.
------------------
MyRunningLog
MyStuff
Low Heart Rate Training FAQ
My marathons and ultras
My races and reports
IP: Logged |
bluecru
Cool Runner |
posted Dec-12-2006 11:41 PM
Another thread on Basic Training has me completely confused as to low HR training. It seems to indicate to me that low HR training will help you improve your pace in longer races/runs. I'm in the 12-15 mile a week group. Does this mean I should just keep running as I am (fairly moderate) until I've built up to a 20-25 miles a week average? Should I use the Parker method instead of the MAF method? Is this a type of catch 22 where you shouldn't do the low HR stuff until you're running the 20-25 miles a week? Can somebody point me in the right direction? I'd like to extend the distances I run but just do a few 10k's or maybe a couple of half marathons a year. It seems most folks experiences I see have run halfs or full marathons and THEN gone to low heart rate stuff. Can anyone clarify what a relative beginner like me should do? Here's the thread link http://www.coolrunning.com/forums/Forum6/HTML/022316.shtml [This message has been edited by bluecru (edited Dec-12-2006).]
IP: Logged |
willamona
Cool Runner |
posted Dec-13-2006 12:45 AM
This one is easy. It's your body and you get to choose. Honestly, at 12-15 mpw this is probably not for you. This is assuming that you would continue with the same mileage. Part of the benefit of this type of training is that it lets you fill up all the time you want to with running while being at relitively low risk for injury. You are the experiment, so in the end it is you that decides. If your goal is to build up to higher mileage (say 50-60 mpw), this is definatly an option. At 12-15 mpw it really is not worth buying the HRM in my opinion. I guess the problem is that you do not state your goals. You could probably get a better answer if people knew your goals. ------------------
***********
My myspace
My User Profile
IP: Logged |
Cashmason
Cool Runner |
posted Dec-13-2006 01:35 AM
Blu, the reason you see so many half and full marathoners turn to this is because they see that their long race times don't measure up to what they expect from their shorter races. Meaning they are fast in the short races but they don't have the endurance to carry that speed at longer distances.Maf type training allows you to carry your speed for a longer time thus giving you faster overall times at distance. It will work fine for you at shorter distances too. I lowered my 10k time by 18 minutes after 6 months of maf training. In the big picture, Parker, Hadd and Maffetone are all pretty similar and should give you relatively the same results. Yes there are differences, but they all use low heart rate training to make you faster over time. All will allow you to increase your mileage with a reduced chance of injury, but there is still a chance you could get injured. All of them will improve your endurance, but will hurt your pride by making you run slower than you thought it was possible for a human to run. Results seem to come after you have done x number of low heart rate miles rather than weeks of running. So I might see results after 6 weeks after running 30 miles a week and it might take you 12 weeks at 15 miles a week. Some people feel more comfortable with Parker, others Maffetone etc. And some try low heart rate training and hate it no matter which method they chose. So chose one that appeals to you and give it a try. If you have questions or want to post your results, will be glad to help or support you the best we can. Best wishes. Cash
IP: Logged |
bluecru
Cool Runner |
posted Dec-13-2006 09:47 AM
Thanks for the responses cash & willa. Because of work, family etc right now I'd like to run some 10ks and maybe a half marathon. I'm running between an 11-12 min mile on my runs. I'd like to run the above races and still feel fairly refreshed like I read a lot of other people do. Not that totally spent feeling. I enjoy running and mostly do it for fitness but there are a couple of races a year I'd like to focus on. I'm 52 so I'm not sure running @ an 80%HRR is the answer because it seems like that's still considered aerobic. Hope this clarifies things for you.
IP: Logged |
HeeHaw
Member |
posted Dec-13-2006 10:19 AM
Since there is alot of knowledgeable on this subject, I was hoping if someone could answer this for me. I have skimmed thru most of the thread but didn't see my particular problem with low H.R. training. I use to be a decent runner (3:09 marathon p.r. & low 18's 5k) but in recent years my times have gotten worse (3:31 marathon & 19-20 min. 5k's). It has been 5 years since I have run a decent race. In that time I have increased my mileage but haven't seen the results. Has anyone used the MAF method with success to get back to your old form. I am 33 years old so I feel like I should still have some time to get back to my old self. I am currently at 55-60 miles per week. When I set my p.r.'s I was doing 40-50 miles with 2 speedworks (400's & 3 mile tempo) a week all year round. I have read Stu Mittleman's book on the subject and hope that this method is the key to faster times again. Thanks.
IP: Logged |
dg9
Cool Runner |
posted Dec-13-2006 02:44 PM
quote:
Originally posted by leitnerj:
Ok - here's my best quickie answer. First, since you're
over 50, you should be especially prepared to make adjustments.
With that said, I would keep it at 129 for a while, but since you're
over 50, don't worry about it creeping up to 134 here and there (not
because you've been doing some of the other activities). I don't
know much about what you need to do with your breathing in the
other cross-training activities. Stay on the hills, at least for some
(perhaps half) of your runs. Putter or walk up and pick up speed
going down. You'll learn efficient hill racing that way and you'll
get some fast turnover practice (i.e., aerobic speedwork) on the
downs. (Don't let your heart rate sink way down when you go
down - keep at right around MAF). Definitely ease into higher
mileage if you can.
thanks. i'll do my best. better this am, but need to slow more quickly once i beep. 1/2 hills is no problem, the route was chosen w/hills as a goal, & as it's dark i don't want to change it too much right now. almost no flats. depressing to walk, but i'll grow up & quit complaining. it helps at least to hear it's ok to speed up downhill. do you agree w/ the 10% a week increase guidelines? i really want to increase mileage to speed up the process, & just because i want to. but (worst part of the running thing is i have to keep re-addressing the age thing, which i'd finally managed to forget  ) i know injuries are always possible, maybe more so with increased age. can i increase (mileage) more quickly because i'm going so slowly? recommended books? [This message has been edited by dg9 (edited Dec-13-2006).]
IP: Logged |
crb81
Cool Runner |
posted Dec-13-2006 06:13 PM
(3:31 marathon & 19-20 min. 5k's). A 19 minute 5k would result in a 3:05 marathon in someone aerobically fit. Your marathon time indicates poor aerobic fitness. I bet that 12-16 weeks of strict Maf training would result in a substantial reduction in your times at longer distances. My 5k PR is 21:15, I'm almost 48 and am shooting for a 3:30 at the Houston marathon. ------------------
Clay
IP: Logged |
leitnerj
Cool Runner |
posted Dec-13-2006 06:48 PM
quote:
Originally posted by dg9:
do you agree w/ the 10% a week increase guidelines? i really want to increase mileage to speed up the process, & just because i want to. but (worst part of the running thing is i have to keep re-addressing the age thing, which i'd finally managed to forget ) i know injuries are always possible, maybe more so with increased age. can i increase (mileage) more quickly because i'm going so slowly? recommended books?
10% a week is a fair rule of thumb. If you stay under MAF, you can
probably get away with more, but you want to keep a good approach
of feedback within yourself to know when to cut back or rest. No books
I'd particularly recommend. You don't need to get too complicated,
really.
------------------
MyRunningLog
MyStuff
Low Heart Rate Training FAQ
My marathons and ultras
My races and reports
IP: Logged |
Mobius
Cool Runner |
posted Dec-13-2006 08:09 PM
Just thought I'd share my progress using MAF since about May 06. I find looking at the progress over time helps keep me in line on the bad days. The occasional low spike over the summer months is usually a race.(and I've never posted a picture here so this may not work!) 
IP: Logged |
BostBiker
Member |
posted Dec-13-2006 11:18 PM
So, according to willamona and the FAQ I'm pretty much wasting my time unless I'm running 20to 25 mpw? I'm using the Parker method and running 70%HRR at 13 minute miles. I should cnahge to something else? Now I'm confused.
IP: Logged |
willamona
Cool Runner |
posted Dec-13-2006 11:42 PM
You might see results in like a year at that mileage. Only you can decide. I really would not bother buying the monitor if I was only running 15 mpw, but that is me. If you are commited, go for it. Just understand that at that low of a mileage, it will take much longer to see results. There is nothing wrong with that. If you got the money honey, I got the time. It seems that it is taking a while for me and I am doing 60-65 mpw. ------------------
***********
My myspace
My User Profile
IP: Logged |
Midnightsun
Member |
posted Dec-14-2006 12:23 AM
Here is a technique that might be useful if you want to be a MAFer, but just too slow when running strictly at MAF. I started strict MAF training in May 06 running a 13 min mile and gradually got it down to about 10:10/mi by Aug. I was running about 30 mpw. Well, life got busy and I only ran occasionally for about 6 weeks and my fitness dropped dramatically to about 12:30/mi. I was not happy running so slow, so I tried something a little different when I could run frequently again. I picked a pace of 11:00/mi using my Garmin 305 and just accepted whatever HR that gave me. It was fast enough that I didn't feel like I was walking and slow enough that I never went anaerobic (at least I never got sore muscles). My MAF is 142 bpm and I was averaging 152 during my first runs. Over a month period I was able to watch my average drop to 142 while running about 25 mpw. I can now switch back to letting my HR dictate my pace and run strictly MAF. I realize my carb to fat ratio burn rate was higher when letting my HR go above MAF while getting my fitness back, but it sure beats getting passed by mothers speed walking with double baby strollers (really happened to me once)!! I found this was a satisfying compromise until my conditioning improved. Thanks for this thread. It has greatly enhanced my joy of running.
------------------
Midnightsun
IP: Logged |
Sparrowface
Cool Runner |
posted Dec-14-2006 07:13 AM
quote:
Originally posted by Midnightsun:
Here is a technique that might be useful if you want to be a MAFer, but just too slow when running strictly at MAF. I started strict MAF training in May 06 running a 13 min mile and gradually got it down to about 10:10/mi by Aug. I was running about 30 mpw. Well, life got busy and I only ran occasionally for about 6 weeks and my fitness dropped dramatically to about 12:30/mi. I was not happy running so slow, so I tried something a little different when I could run frequently again. I picked a pace of 11:00/mi using my Garmin 305 and just accepted whatever HR that gave me. It was fast enough that I didn't feel like I was walking and slow enough that I never went anaerobic (at least I never got sore muscles). My MAF is 142 bpm and I was averaging 152 during my first runs. Over a month period I was able to watch my average drop to 142 while running about 25 mpw. I can now switch back to letting my HR dictate my pace and run strictly MAF. I realize my carb to fat ratio burn rate was higher when letting my HR go above MAF while getting my fitness back, but it sure beats getting passed by mothers speed walking with double baby strollers (really happened to me once)!! I found this was a satisfying compromise until my conditioning improved. Thanks for this thread. It has greatly enhanced my joy of running.
Cool and interesting, but what do you mean by "compromise?" What were you compromising? And why did compromise become a factor?
IP: Logged |
Ad Nihilum
Cool Runner |
posted Dec-14-2006 11:16 AM
What is working for me:I spent 4 months doing strict MAF training at MAF-5. Then I read Stu Mittleman's book, Slow Burn. Half the book is pseudo-science nonsense on muscle testing, but part of the book has a great description of 3 different zones related to MAF training. I think of it as Advanced Maffetone. Rather than staying with a single number and zone, you have a lower zone (MAP) and a middle faster zone (MEP). Spending more time in the MEP, Mittleman says, will yield the most progress. (The third second is SAP, a faster near-anaerobic zone I have not yet wandered into.) For me: MAF=145, but my MEP is 140-150 and my MAP is 127-139. I have seen great improvements from running at HR that would be maybe 5 bpm higher than my strict MAF # of 145. So, if you've been doing MAF for awhile, try some experimenting based on listening to your body. Get a hold of Slow Burn and read the descriptions of the different zones to help you.
IP: Logged |
martinjames
Cool Runner |
posted Dec-14-2006 01:55 PM
Backasswards question. According to the McMillan calculator, my 10k time and my marathon time match up pretty well. My best 10k projected to a 3:21:30 and I ran the MCM in 3:26ish w/a tough wind through last 5-6 miles. That suggests -- but I am too new to know -- that I'm OK aerobically but need to get faster over the short haul to improve. Agree? How have you Maffers accomplished this?My operating plan is to follow a Pfitz-type schedule but to keep recovery runs at <70% max HR, general runs <75%, to include one day of "speed work" consisting of a 40-minute tempo runs or some hill intervals (or both) and do long runs at an escalating pace w/HR approach 85% max. [I'm also playing ice hockey 2x/week]
IP: Logged |
Cashmason
Cool Runner |
posted Dec-14-2006 03:33 PM
MartinJames, I would agree with you.Maffetone basically says, when your times line up, you are in good condtion and its time for some speedwork and racing. Once you have improved your speed you will need to go back to maffing to get your long distance times to line up with your new speed. Its a cycle build base, get faster, then build a new higher base to support your new faster times. Rinse repeat. Midnightsun, sounds like you came up with a good compromise. I used to be so slow at maf pace that I wanted to run at night and put a bag over my head so no one would recognize me.
IP: Logged |
fuzz
Cool Runner |
posted Dec-15-2006 01:58 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Cashmason:
Maffetone basically says, when your times line up, you are in good condtion and its time for some speedwork and racing. Once you have improved your speed you will need to go back to maffing to get your long distance times to line up with your new speed. Its a cycle build base, get faster, then build a new higher base to support your new faster times. Rinse repeat.
I certainly hope to see a ratcheting-up effect. I used MAF for base building from April to August (I didn't buy the book, just used the good info on these threads -- thanks to you all). I followed that with Pfitzinger's 18/55 schedule and PRed by 29 minutes in the marathon last Sunday. My marathon pace was :06/mi faster than in a 10K I ran back in early September. It was surprising how the speed built in October and November. Actually, "speed" isn't quite the correct term (hey, I'm slow); it'd be more precise to say "endurance at marathon pace." I'm hoping this next round of MAF base building will be at a half-minute per mile faster pace than the last. As Cash said, "rinse repeat."
IP: Logged |
HeeHaw
Member |
posted Dec-15-2006 02:28 PM
quote:
Originally posted by crb81:
(3:31 marathon & 19-20 min. 5k's). A 19 minute 5k would result in a 3:05 marathon in someone aerobically fit. Your marathon time indicates poor aerobic fitness. I bet that 12-16 weeks of strict Maf training would result in a substantial reduction in your times at longer distances. My 5k PR is 21:15, I'm almost 48 and am shooting for a 3:30 at the Houston marathon.
Thanks Clay for the advice. Good Luck in Houston.
I am a former 800 meter guy so I always gravitate to the faster stuff. I plan on doing the MAF workouts until March or so. Yes my endurance does need some improving. Based off my half-marathon p.r., my marathon time should be at least 15 minutes faster. Does anyone mix in the downhill repeats or the MEP runs into their base schedule? I plan on doing both along with the MAP test every other week replacing the downhills.
IP: Logged |
StealthRunner
Cool Runner |
posted Dec-16-2006 10:31 AM
Hello everybody, I'm back again after running the Las Vegas Marathon this past weekend. Another five minute PR for me. Well my times are slowly comming down, but they are a long way out from my 5K times. Time to get back to Maffing to see if I can get a better chunk of time off. At least this time around I was smart enough to run it very close to even splits if the half marker was in the right place! I did slow down a bit the last couple of miles. Had to put in a couple of short walk breaks. The wind had taken its toll on me. If you have read any of the LV RR, you will know that it was pretty windy. Anyway, I have discovered that if I increase my foot turn over rate, I have no issues with my hamstrings. The only thing is that it increases my HR. So, my plan is to try and keep as fast as turnover as possible with baby steps. I hope this works, since I had to stop slogging at the lower HR because I was having upper hamstring pain on both sides. Not fun. I'm sure it was because of the long contact time with the ground. My MAF is 126. My HR at the marathon was 140-145 first half. 145-150 second half to 160 the last .2 sice I gave it all I had left. I do not have any split times because the mile markers were off at the marathon. Also, my foot pod went out on my Polar distance monitor. I need to get it fixed. It's not the battery.  The up side of this is I won't know my MAF rate. That will probably be a good thing! Cathy
IP: Logged |
roy c
Cool Runner |
posted Dec-21-2006 05:34 PM
Well done Cathy on your PR. This training is brilliant. Last Sunday I set out to run a 15 miler being my longest run to date. I ended up doing 18 no problem. I could have went further but didn't want to up the mileage too much and my HR had started to climb above MAF. Finished up average 7 above MAF.
Roy
IP: Logged |
leitnerj
Cool Runner |
posted Dec-21-2006 05:37 PM
quote:
Originally posted by StealthRunner:
Hello everybody, I'm back again after running the Las Vegas Marathon this past weekend. Another five minute PR for me. Well my times are slowly comming down, but they are a long way out from my 5K times. Time to get back to Maffing to see if I can get a better chunk of time off. At least this time around I was smart enough to run it very close to even splits if the half marker was in the right place! I did slow down a bit the last couple of miles. Had to put in a couple of short walk breaks. The wind had taken its toll on me. If you have read any of the LV RR, you will know that it was pretty windy. Anyway, I have discovered that if I increase my foot turn over rate, I have no issues with my hamstrings. The only thing is that it increases my HR. So, my plan is to try and keep as fast as turnover as possible with baby steps. I hope this works, since I had to stop slogging at the lower HR because I was having upper hamstring pain on both sides. Not fun. I'm sure it was because of the long contact time with the ground. My MAF is 126. My HR at the marathon was 140-145 first half. 145-150 second half to 160 the last .2 sice I gave it all I had left. I do not have any split times because the mile markers were off at the marathon. Also, my foot pod went out on my Polar distance monitor. I need to get it fixed. It's not the battery. The up side of this is I won't know my MAF rate. That will probably be a good thing! Cathy
It's great to see your steady, consistent progress, Cathy! ------------------
MyRunningLog
MyStuff
Low Heart Rate Training FAQ
My marathons and ultras
My races and reports
IP: Logged |
StealthRunner
Cool Runner |
posted Dec-21-2006 11:59 PM
Roy, are you training for a marathon?
Cathy
IP: Logged |
StealthRunner
Cool Runner |
posted Dec-22-2006 12:10 AM
I have decided to add some drills to my running program. I need to add some springiness and pwer to these older leg of mine.Cathy
IP: Logged |
