posted Jul-18-2007 12:23 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by dfcameron:
OK... for whomever is running a 50, a 100, a whatever - the entire run will not only be aerobic - but really needs to be done below MAF the entire way (except maybe the last half mile).

The best way to train - esp. with 11 weeks - is to build a solid aerobic base through slow efforts. Even if its a fair amount of walking. Heck, I've run 3 50-milers. I've trained a fair amount of miles; and have walked about 2 hours worth of each of them.

The worst thing to do, IMO, would be to run too fast between now and then - you really need to build, maximize your aerobic base.

---

dfcameron,

Just wanted to piggyback on your response...Greg, in my opinion you should plan on a completely miserable experience. Unless there is training being done that I missed you're not ready for a 50. Good for you getting out there and goin after it. Yes, you'll probably complete the race, but it's not going to be the least bit pleasurable. I agree that Maf training is the way to go even this late in the game. Your body doesn't comprehend mileage, it understands time. Get as much time on your feet as possible, and the best way to do this with the lowest risk of injury is running at low HR.

FWIW, I have always used a Hadd-style program because my max HR is very low for my age. My max is 176 and my "Maf" equivalent periods are done at 125HR. In October 2006 I completed a 100k at an avg HR of 138.

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

"Pain is temporary. Regret hurts forever."
[URL=http://www.analytical-training.blogspot.com]

IP: Logged

posted Jul-18-2007 07:07 AM               

IP: Logged

posted Jul-18-2007 07:50 AM            

You have a relatively short-term goal of completing a 50M and a longer term goal of completing a 100M.

Instead of asking if there is enough time between now and the 50M to benefit from LHR training, why not take a longer term view and see today's training as a stepping stone towards your ultimate goal of doing a 100? If you look at it that way it's not too late to embrace LHR training, in fact, it's the perfect time.

You are asking a lot from your body in how you are attempting to accumulate a lot of training/racing mileage in a short period of time. You've had one injury that set you back. LHR training will give your body the best chance to adapt to the stresses of training/racing. Will it reduce the miles you cover in training in a set period of time? Perhaps. But at least you have a good chance to get to the starting line healthy. Would you rather be at Vermont having covered slightly fewer miles in training than planned, but healthy ... or would you prefer to cover the miles as planned and be at Vermont nursing an injury?

We all run for different reasons and chase different goals. I certainly can understand the appeal of long distance trail running and wish you the best. Listen to your body and drop any preconceived notions of what you "should" be doing in training.

IP: Logged

posted Jul-18-2007 08:16 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Who Dey:
How do I access the archived versions of this thread?

Thanks!

---

http://www.coolrunning.com/forums/Archives/Archive-000003/HTML/20060330-6-014522.shtml

http://www.coolrunning.com/forums/Forum6/HTML/018553-2.shtml

These are the URL's I've been using to access the last two threads... I mean books.

I hope that works for you. If it doesn't, then maybe someone else can link to them better.

Today with MAF I didn't fall into the 19's on my last mile! First time!

IP: Logged

posted Jul-18-2007 09:08 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gregolowe:
thanks for all the replies. Let me give a little more info. Last Saturday I did 18 miles. I have several 3, 4,5 and one six hour run planned before my taper. The six hour is a 50K race, 30 miles. My normal running schedule is to run 15 minutes, then walk three. I can eat during the run so I can refuel. This is one question I have about this training. From what I can tell, just burning fat for energy isn't the only draw. In an ultra, I can eat all I want so I can replenish glycogen and keep my sugar levels up, so I don't have a problem burning sugar as fuel. What I see as the true advantage to low heart rate training is it reduces lactic acid production from anaerobic energy production and thus allows you to run longer more comfortably. Yet, I wonder if the run/walk strategy that ultra marathoners use does not accomplish the same thing. Many will run 5 minutes/walk 1. Or, more commen, they will walk up the hills and run the flats and downhills. I wonder if the walking doesn't allow the cells to get flushed out and replenished.
I'm not planning on haveing a miserable experience. My brohter in law is running the race with me and he is not training at all! HE will be miserable for sure. I enjoy my long runs immensely and I believe the walking and eating keeps me fresh. My main question is whether I will lose too many miles in my training between now and the race if I use Maff. Ex: This morning I was supposed to run 8 miles. By keeping my heart at MAF 142, I had to run an 11:30 pace and lost 1.2 miles off my run. Next Saturday I'm supposed to do a 4 hour run. That will probably shave 3-4 miles off my run if I do MAF. Over a given week, that could reduce my miles significantly and that's what I'm worried about. The run walk strategy allows me to go faster and keep fresh. I want to build my aerobic base. I'm just wondering if I do it now, before my race, whether it would hurt my training. I'm just sharing my thoughts though it may sound like I'm argueing against MAF. I'm not. I'm just sharing my thinking.

---

Hey Greg,

Good info, you're doing more to prepare than I thought when I posted previously. I agree that your brother-in-law will be quite miserable. I don't think losing the mileage is a problem. You're not losing training time, which is all that matters. If you're going to put in 100 hours of training regardless of how it's done, why not make those 100 hours the best possible trianing for your goal event. Whether Maf training is the optimal method to use during those 100 hours is a decision you'll have to make, but I'll give another vote for its use.

The issue you raised about burning fat vs glycogen and replenishing glycogen stores during the race is one I've inquired about here in the past. Many physiologists will tell you that you cannot replenish muscle glycogen during a race by eating. What you CAN do is replenish your liver and blood glycogen stores which is what keeps you mentally fresh. I'm not one of those physiologists so somebody more educated will have to tell you exactly how it works. From what I've read however, your original store of muscle glycogen has to last the entire duration of the race. You're not going to deplete that glycogen in 20 miles like you might in a marathon because your intensity will be much lower and you'll be drawing much more energy from fat reserves. That's where low HR training can benefit, training your body to pull a fraction more energy from fat at the same speed and maintaining that muscle glycogen for a few more miles. Good luck, can't wait to hear how it goes!

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

"Pain is temporary. Regret hurts forever."
[URL=http://www.analytical-training.blogspot.com]

IP: Logged

posted Jul-18-2007 11:57 AM               

IP: Logged

posted Jul-18-2007 12:43 PM               

Looking back, the run/walk concept allowed me to run at a comfortable pace--the walk seemed to help. I trained by running 27 minutes/walking 3. My focus was on time. If you are going to be moving fo 10 hrs--get use to moving for 6-7 hrs. I think reducing your pace too much via MAF--right now may not be the quick solution. I kinda think that my HR back then--with my ez running and walk breaks probably was below my MAF. Never gave it much thought--actually I had never heard of MAF back then.

My point: train by running and walking. As I have put on the years(soon to be 64) I do some long runs --run 10 min/walk 1 minute. I attribute a lot of EZ running over the years--2-3 minutes less than race pace-- to allowing me to amass over 64,000 miles in just over 31 yrs of relatively injury free running.

I honestly believe if folks would run a little slower than they think they should and take gentle walk breaks--there would be a lot more people running Ultras and more folks having FUN--just being out running 30-40+ mile runs. Nick

IP: Logged

posted Jul-18-2007 02:44 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by willamona:
Since when did DanMoriatity post here?

---

I just started posting a week or so ago.

I don't run all my runs at low HR, but I've gone back and forth between using the HRM to slow me down on easy days a few times over the last 2 years or so.

After Boston this year I decided to go back on the monitor because i) I'm sick of having my marathon time suck relative to my other times and hope that running below MAF on my easy days will help me burn fat more efficiently and not crash and burn at 20 miles as I always seem to do in the marathon.

And ii) I've noticed that my periods of best improvement in the last couple of years have come after using the HRM on easy days for a few months.

2 winters ago, for example, I used the monitor ( following Parker's suggestion of 70% max HR based on the Karvonen formula which is within a couple of beats of MAF for me ) all winter, and had a major breakthrough at 30km ( 1:59:27 ) in March, then got a little greedy and started disregarding the monitor and pushed the pace a little more on my easy days and ran a marathon in May in 3:07, which was a PR, but not in the same league as my 30k time from 2 months prior which was at 2:48 marathon pace.

Over last summer I went back to using the monitor to govern my pace and even though I got injured and missed a few weeks of training in August, I had a big PR at 10 miles in November, running 60:11. Again, I got a little cocky and stopped wearing the monitor and pushed very hard for Boston '07 and was extremely disappointed with my 3:08 there, even considering that the weather wasn't ideal.

My training is probably closest to what Parker recommends in his book HRM Training for the Compleat Idiot. I usually do 2 faster workouts per week, either intervals, tempo runs or hills and run below 70% on my easy days ( 140 based on Parker's recommendations, Maffetone would be 142 or 147 depending on whether I add the +5, which I usually don't unless it's a really hot day ).

I don't know if I believe there's any particular 'magic' HR formula or number but I do know from wearing the monitor and disregarding it at times that once I start running significant portions of my easy runs at 150 or higher, I end up paying the price sooner or later.

Anyway, I thought maybe I could learn something from this thread and decided to follow along and see how it goes.

IP: Logged

posted Jul-19-2007 12:44 PM               

I initially started running in January of 2006 in order to "get in shape" and used as motivation the goal to run/walk (Galloway style) a marathon in November. I followed the Galloway schedules pretty well and ran/walked the marathon (finishing in 5:09) and then took some time off due to a leg injury. I decided I wanted to start trying to build up running miles and get away from the strictly run/walk routine, and I came across this thread then.

After receiving a basic heart rate monitor for Christmas, I began MAF training on January 1. As for my MAF rate, I'm 36 years old and I subtracted an extra 5 beats for running less than a year and coming off my leg injury for a MAF of 139 (180-36-5=139).

My MAF tests are run outdoors in the early morning in whatever conditions I find myself in and on a 1/2 mile road loop that has a total of 10 feet of rise (and 10 feet of fall). I try to run a MAF test once a month.

Here are my MAF test results:
January 7 (temp=52, dewpoint=50)
Mile 1 - 13:21 - 137 avg HR
Mile 2 - 13:23 - 136 avg HR
Mile 3 - 13:19 - 138 avg HR

January 28 (temp=47, dewpoint=41)
Mile 1 - 12:35 - 139 avg HR
Mile 2 - 12:50 - 140 avg HR
Mile 3 - 12:40 - 138 avg HR

February 25 (temp=51, dewpoint=41)
Mile 1 - 12:05 - 140 avg HR
Mile 2 - 12:23 - 140 avg HR
Mile 3 - 12:24 - 139 avg HR
Mile 4 - 12:20 - 139 avg HR

March 25 (temp=59, dewpoint=53)
Mile 1 - 10:34 - 139 avg HR
Mile 2 - 10:52 - 139 avg HR
Mile 3 - 11:00 - 139 avg HR
Mile 4 - 11:14 - 139 avg HR
Mile 5 - 11:03 - 140 avg HR

April 29 (temp=57, dewpoint=51)
Mile 1 - 10:08 - 140 avg HR
Mile 2 - 10:24 - 139 avg HR
Mile 3 - 10:35 - 140 avg HR
Mile 4 - 10:36 - 140 avg HR
Mile 5 - 10:44 - 139 avg HR

May 31 (temp=70, dewpoint=59)
Mile 1 - 10:26 - 140 avg HR
Mile 2 - 10:38 - 141 avg HR
Mile 3 - 10:51 - 141 avg HR
Mile 4 - 10:54 - 141 avg HR
Mile 5 - 10:57 - 141 avg HR

July 17 (temp=76, dewpoint=72)
Mile 1 - 10:46 - 138 avg HR
Mile 2 - 11:09 - 139 avg HR
Mile 3 - 11:28 - 140 avg HR
Mile 4 - 11:41 - 140 avg HR
Mile 5 - 11:40 - 141 avg HR

As you can see, I improved from January until late April and now my times have stagnated and dropped some. Tuesday's test was brutal with the heat and humidity, so I'm sure that contributed to my slower times.

In January I started with 15 miles per week and worked up to 30 miles per week in April. Since April I run anywhere from 25 to 39 miles per week. I've missed a couple of long runs due to being out of town for the weekend and due to a nasty stomach virus one weekend.

All my runs have been at MAF except for three races:
May 19 (temp=56) (uncertified) 5k in 25:30
June 16 (temp=68/dewpoint=65) (certified) 5k in 26:03
July 4 (temp=68/dewpoint=65) (certifed) 4 miles in 33:05

I'm planning to run a few more races in the autumn and a marathon in early December. I'll continue to run at MAF pace as I add some more miles to my week and extend my long run (currently at 11 miles).

I don't really have any questions right now; most of them have been asked and answered on these threads already. Just thought I'd introduce myself so I won't be a total unknown when posting here in the future.

John

------------------
John's Profile

IP: Logged

posted Jul-19-2007 12:49 PM            

AM 8 slow miles , HR 76 to 80

IP: Logged

posted Jul-19-2007 12:53 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by DanMoriarity:
I just started posting a week or so ago.

I don't run all my runs at low HR, but I've gone back and forth between using the HRM to slow me down on easy days a few times over the last 2 years or so.

After Boston this year I decided to go back on the monitor because i) I'm sick of having my marathon time suck relative to my other times and hope that running below MAF on my easy days will help me burn fat more efficiently and not crash and burn at 20 miles as I always seem to do in the marathon.

And ii) I've noticed that my periods of best improvement in the last couple of years have come after using the HRM on easy days for a few months.

2 winters ago, for example, I used the monitor ( following Parker's suggestion of 70% max HR based on the Karvonen formula which is within a couple of beats of MAF for me ) all winter, and had a major breakthrough at 30km ( 1:59:27 ) in March, then got a little greedy and started disregarding the monitor and pushed the pace a little more on my easy days and ran a marathon in May in 3:07, which was a PR, but not in the same league as my 30k time from 2 months prior which was at 2:48 marathon pace.

Over last summer I went back to using the monitor to govern my pace and even though I got injured and missed a few weeks of training in August, I had a big PR at 10 miles in November, running 60:11. Again, I got a little cocky and stopped wearing the monitor and pushed very hard for Boston '07 and was extremely disappointed with my 3:08 there, even considering that the weather wasn't ideal.

My training is probably closest to what Parker recommends in his book HRM Training for the Compleat Idiot. I usually do 2 faster workouts per week, either intervals, tempo runs or hills and run below 70% on my easy days ( 140 based on Parker's recommendations, Maffetone would be 142 or 147 depending on whether I add the +5, which I usually don't unless it's a really hot day ).

I don't know if I believe there's any particular 'magic' HR formula or number but I do know from wearing the monitor and disregarding it at times that once I start running significant portions of my easy runs at 150 or higher, I end up paying the price sooner or later.

Anyway, I thought maybe I could learn something from this thread and decided to follow along and see how it goes.

---

Dan,
OK, Jim, I'll try it another way.

If you were 40% Fast Twitch Fibers, 40% Intermediate, and
20% Slow Twitch Fibers, running 140 mile weeks might get
your Intermediate Fibers to take on slow properties, and you
could run a half at 5:25 a mile.

But at 5:40 a mile you would come unglued at 18 miles
without the real ST fibers.

Fred

IP: Logged

posted Jul-19-2007 01:17 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by fredurie:
Dan,
OK, Jim, I'll try it another way.

If you were 40% Fast Twitch Fibers, 40% Intermediate, and
20% Slow Twitch Fibers, running 140 mile weeks might get
your Intermediate Fibers to take on slow properties, and you
could run a half at 5:25 a mile.

But at 5:40 a mile you would come unglued at 18 miles
without the real ST fibers.

Fred

---

Yeah, I know what you're saying, Fred. And I agree that it's a possibility or even a probability that I'm just more genetically suited to shorter distances, but I'm not willing to concede that just yet.

I've never had a muscle fibre biopsy so I have no idea what % of fast and slow twitch fibres I have. Benji Durden ran a 49 second 400m in college, and based on that you'd have to suspect he had mainly fast twitch fibres, but he also eventually ran a 2:09 marathon, so who knows?

Earlier in the summer, I ran a hill workout and was feeling pretty good about how it went and as I was jogging home decided to stop by the local track and see what I could run for a 200m. I ran it in 30 seconds. So later I plugged that 200m time into Mcmillan's tables and all the predicted times from 200m to 30km matched my actual times to within a few seconds ( I've since dropped about 30 seconds off my 5k time which skews the numbers a bit but you get the picture ). But then my marathon time is 15 minutes slower than even my 30k time predicts.

I think that to have such a discrepancy in such similar events indicates that I just haven't run my best marathon yet.

Anyway, who knows. Maybe 3:07 is the best I can do, but honestly, I have a gut feeling I can run much faster. Just give me some time.

IP: Logged

posted Jul-19-2007 01:20 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by fredurie:
Thursday

AM 8 slow miles , HR 76 to 80

---

Now THAT is low heart rate training.

IP: Logged

posted Jul-19-2007 01:31 PM               

Thanks for sharing your data. I've just started MAF training, and its encouraging to see someone's data right from the beginning. Especially data that shows such tremendous improvement! I've got a HM on Sept. 30th, and I'm really hoping to see some serious improvement between now and then. I did my 1st MAF test earlier this week-
Mile 1 9:38
Mile 2 10:01
Mile 3 10:15
Mile 4 10:32
Mile 5 10:59
I was pretty pleased with the results, and can't wait to see how things change in the coming months!

Pam

------------------
ME!

IP: Logged

posted Jul-19-2007 02:08 PM            

Are you supposed to average MAF per mile for the tests? Since, I've been running MAF I rarely if ever average MAF for any mile. Start out way off and by 3-4 miles in I usually say 1 to 2 beats below MAF. If its sunny and hot I will get a couple of ending miles at MAF.

So a MAF test would be like 2 miles warm-up so that at the end of 2 miles you're at your MAF. Then run 5 miles @ MAF average? So if you were to put in a "beep" range on your HRM is would be mile {MAF-1,MAF+1} or {MAF-2,MAF+2}?

IP: Logged

posted Jul-19-2007 02:59 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by dcv2002:

So a MAF test would be like 2 miles warm-up so that at the end of 2 miles you're at your MAF. Then run 5 miles @ MAF average? So if you were to put in a "beep" range on your HRM is would be mile {MAF-1,MAF+1} or {MAF-2,MAF+2}?

---

This is exactly what I did when I was doing MAF tests. I would do 2 miles warmup to MAF and then set my HRM range to [MAF-2, MAF+2]. I believe that fits with how Maffetone describes them in the book.

IP: Logged

posted Jul-19-2007 04:25 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by fredurie:
Thursday

AM 8 slow miles , HR 76 to 80

---

Thursday

AM woke up and wandered downstairs for coffee. HR @70.

IP: Logged

posted Jul-19-2007 04:39 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by martinjames:
Thursday

AM woke up and wandered downstairs for coffee. HR @70.

---

Too funny. Thank you.

IP: Logged

posted Jul-19-2007 06:08 PM            

Please realize that I am genetically crappy in heat. I can run well in cold (I finished a 50K in low single digit fahrenheit temps) - but I've never adapted well to heat. Having said that - here are my paces for runs at the same avg HR over the last 3 days:

Tues: 9:27 min/mi pace; 65 degrees; avg HR 118
Wed: 9:46 min/mi pace; 69 degrees; avg HR 119
Thur: 10:30 min/mi pace; 80 degrees; avg HR 121

Roughly the same avg HR each day - but declining pace based heavily on increasing temps.

IP: Logged

posted Jul-19-2007 08:08 PM            

Now if I could decipher what his other post meant, I would be ok.

------------------
***********
My myspace
No Complaining
Low Heart Rate Training FAQ Because many have asked...
You have poopie pants.

IP: Logged

posted Jul-19-2007 09:04 PM            

New question for the MAF experts:
I've been running at MAF for two weeks. So far, no new injuries, other than my ego as the old ladies blow past me on the running path. I'm training for a marathon in October. I feel like I should do one run per week (my "sorta long run") at race pace, just to remember what it feels like. Will this interfere with (or even reverse) my aerobic training?

Thanks!!

IP: Logged

posted Jul-19-2007 11:09 PM            

IP: Logged

posted Jul-20-2007 06:20 AM            

IP: Logged

posted Jul-20-2007 08:51 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by rjbram:
Great thread!

New question for the MAF experts:
I've been running at MAF for two weeks. So far, no new injuries, other than my ego as the old ladies blow past me on the running path. I'm training for a marathon in October. I feel like I should do one run per week (my "sorta long run") at race pace, just to remember what it feels like. Will this interfere with (or even reverse) my aerobic training?

Thanks!!

---

FYI, I do all my non-race runs at MAF. Been at it for 12 weeks after a 3 month layoff. My MAF runs are right now 8:55-9:20mpm, I ran a 5k @ 6:45mpm this week. Your body will remember how to run fast.

IP: Logged

posted Jul-20-2007 10:57 AM               

------------------
ME!

IP: Logged