 |
> home
> community >
discussion forums > basic training
> basebuilding, low heart rate training, via maffetone/mark allen/hadd/mittleman (Page 13)
|
    |
 |
| > rules | > faq | > e-mail to a friend | moderator: Liam
 |
 |
| Author |
Topic: Basebuilding, low heart rate training, via Maffetone/Mark Allen/Hadd/Mittleman |
leitnerj
Cool Runner |
 posted Jul-23-2007 04:33 PM
   
quote:
Originally posted by corland14:
I've seen several posts recently from runners who are concerned that slower training is going to slow race pace (at least in the short term). This in not the case for me. After 8 weeks of MAF I mixed in a 5k last weekend (which I know is a no no). I posted a PR by 30+ seconds (20:20) All of my training had been between 9:15/mile (treadmill) to 12:15/mile (outdoors in heat). Truth is I'm probably posting this because I'm proud of the time, but it also could encourage some of the doubters. I'm a relatively new distance runner (less then 2 years) so the increase in weekly mileage has to play a big part in improvement. However, the weekly mileage improvements would never have taken place at previous training paces.
It's great to hear that, especially from you. I know you were very
concerned about whether you were at a good training heart rate
or not and that you were potentially getting slower. It does remind
me of about 3 years ago, when I first tried a Hadd-style basebuilding
phase. A few beats higher heart rate, but all very, very slow runs
(the fastest was about 10:40/mile average) that I did for 8 solid weeks,
around 70 mpw. I ran a one mile track race in 5:36 at that time,
knocking well over 30 seconds off my previous. If only I had
kept it up, but after that race, I stopped using the HR monitor
other than just to see what was happening, and I didn't really move
forward for another year (although I did get my marathon time
down from 4:03 to 3:54). ------------------
MyRunningLog
MyStuff
Low Heart Rate Training FAQ
My marathons and ultras
My races and reports
IP: Logged |
dcv2002
Cool Runner |
posted Jul-23-2007 08:50 PM
quote:
Originally posted by corland14:
I've seen several posts recently from runners who are concerned that slower training is going to slow race pace (at least in the short term). This in not the case for me. After 8 weeks of MAF I mixed in a 5k last weekend (which I know is a no no). I posted a PR by 30+ seconds (20:20) All of my training had been between 9:15/mile (treadmill) to 12:15/mile (outdoors in heat). Truth is I'm probably posting this because I'm proud of the time, but it also could encourage some of the doubters. I'm a relatively new distance runner (less then 2 years) so the increase in weekly mileage has to play a big part in improvement. However, the weekly mileage improvements would never have taken place at previous training paces.
A 1 mile race on the beach (which I wasn't going to run) turned into a 5k run on the roads due to weather which I did run. Ran a 20:32 5k tonight, which is only 21 seconds off my PR. I guess I'm not truly MAFing since I've run a race each of the last three Monday's, but I was surprised with the improvement tonight (6:36mpm). My MAF runs are 8:50-9:20 mpm. AHR for 5k was 176 (Max is 185).
IP: Logged |
dfcameron
Cool Runner |
posted Jul-23-2007 11:53 PM
If it helps... some background from me.I've been a runner for, uh, 29 years. Started in high school; have run 36,000+ miles since with lots of success, lots of injuries, lots of learning. I've run as far as 50 miles; and also raced track meets as an adult. But, still, I'm a sample of one - just an experienced one. Here's what I've learned: 1. I can build up mileage most easily if I stick to runs below 80% of max HR; with a predominance of runs around 70% of max HR. 2. My best times always come after a long (12+ week) period of building an aerobic base with virtually no long runs over 80% of max HR; and many at 70% ish. Then, a follow up period with one run per week at 90% of max HR to get some speed. This could be a tempo run or intervals. 3. Ideal set-up, after establishing aerobic base is to run 3 days/week at roughly 70% of max HR. (give or take 5%). Builds fat-burning capabilities; very easy runs - can go forever. I've done up to 34 miles in training at this rate. 2 days a week at close to MAF (77-79% of max HR for me). Then 1 day a week at just short of 90% of max HR - AT threshold. Then one day off to regroup. Under this setting, I ran my marathon PR of 3:19. I was doing 63 miles/week in 6 days. My max HR was about 192. I ran 3 days a week at around 130 BPM which was around 9:30 min/mi pace. I ran 2 days a week at around 150 BPM which was around 8:35 min/mi pace. I ran 1 day a week at 170 BPM which was a hair above 7:00 min/mi pace - for no more than an hour though. I still averaged 7:40s or so for the marathon. I followed a similar routine when I turned 40 and ran a 3:27 (9 years after the first effort) - the only difference was my max HR slipped to around 186 - and so the paces and times were a little slower. I turn 45 in Feb. I'm shooting for a Boston qualifier which has been eased to 3:30. I'm currently averaging 60 MPW over the last few months - but the last few weeks have been 80 MPW. I am doing the 3 runs at 126 BPM; 2 runs at 144 BPM (roughly) and 1 run at 163 BPM - given my current max of 183. Only the "1 run at 163" is faster than marathon race pace; but I'm confident I can get in the ballpark of 3:30.
IP: Logged |
Gregolowe
Cool Runner |
posted Jul-24-2007 10:10 AM
I wanted to throw an interesting observation into the mix here. I had read Douilliard's Mind, Body, Sport about 15 years ago or so and tried it but found the nose breathing to be too difficult as it slowed me down too much. I couldn't run at the pace I would like to without breathing through my mouth. Well, I just started low heart rate training last week. On my long run on Saturday, I was breathing through my nose the whole time. However, at some points it would become too difficult. The air would suddenly burn in my nostrils and I would feel like I had to open my mouth to breathe as I just couldn't breathe deeply or quicly enough through my mouth to sustain the effort. As I watched my HR on my monitor, I noticed that that point was when I hit my MAF of 142. Even at 138-140 I could run fine. I had to concentrate on my breathing closely but I could run fine. I was approaching that tunnel concentration that people have said Mittleman talks about. All my attention started shifting over to my breathing and the effort involved. As I slowed down to a rate of 132, MAF -10, it felt like I was having a walk in the park. It was suddenly effortless, fun, and my attention was drawn outward to the birds or the beauty of the woods and I felt like I could run forever. Interesting; my body has a built in heart rate monitor that tells me when I am going anaerobic. I feel like I could go run wherever, whenever, and not need to be dependent on technology. All I have to do is go run while breathing through my nose. If it starts to become too labored to the point where I feel like I can't breathe, that's my body telling me to slow down. It makes me wonder if we're not meant to run, designed to run, aerobically with the ability to run anaerobically if we have to at times.
Also, it makes me wonder if my running induced injuries, if not most people's running induced injuries, result from going too fast, pushing beyond what their body is able to handle; our bodies are telling us to slow down but we are not listening and if we would, then we could achieve phenomenal fitness injury free. [This message has been edited by Gregolowe (edited Jul-24-2007).]
IP: Logged |
catwoman73
Cool Runner |
posted Jul-24-2007 04:54 PM
Greg- I have only been doing low HR training for a couple of weeks now, but I've already made exactly the same observations that you have. I can breathe through my nose without difficulty until I hit MAF (146 for me), then I feel myself start to struggle, then wham!- the alarm on my HRM goes off. It really is quite interesting. I also feel a sense of... almost euphoria when running at about MAF-10. From an evolutionary standpoint- I guess it makes sense. Running anaerobically would have been useful for outrunning predators- still is  , or hunting, which one would only have had to do for short periods. Whereas aerobic running would have been a useful form of basic transportation before the invention of the wheel back in caveman days. So, there probably is a genetic component to all of this. I find it so interesting that someone else has made these observations. Anyone else out there? Pam ------------------
ME!
IP: Logged |
leitnerj
Cool Runner |
posted Jul-24-2007 06:36 PM
It's only been about 3 weeks since I have even been able
to breathe through my nose at all, under any circumstance,
so I can't say I've experienced the same. However, I do
feel a very warm feeling in my chest when I'm over MAF,
so generally I know how to stay "deeply aerobic" without
the monitor. ------------------
MyRunningLog
MyStuff
Low Heart Rate Training FAQ
My marathons and ultras
My races and reports
IP: Logged |
dfcameron
Cool Runner |
posted Jul-24-2007 11:20 PM
When I'm in good shape and running a lot, its easy for me to tell if I go over any of the "critical points".Hitting 90% of max HR puts me anaerobic; and I'm breathing heavy. Hitting 79-80% of max HR sends me over MAF. Its not really anaerobic; I don't believe - but the lactic acid starts to build and I don't feel "comfortable" Going below about 70% - well... I can solve the world's problems; its slow enough that I can think about a lot of other things. Between the 70% and 80% is the MAF training where I'm tuned into the run - but not getting uncomfortable. I can't always tell w/o the HRM - depends on the weather. But under constant temps for a while; I get the same sort of feelings. My problem is, for instance, today when it was 79 degrees when I ran - my HR was higher than it "felt to me". I don't do well in heat; and its harder to judge the signals. Between about 35 and 70 degrees though (when the humidity isn't bad), I agree with your phenomenon.
IP: Logged |
bluelake
Cool Runner |
posted Jul-25-2007 08:51 AM
I have been mostly lurking here with interest in MAF training. I am a newbie converted from walking to running about 3 mo ago via C25K. I began increasing my mileage & including hills after completing C25K, but was not feeling good. My runs were gruelling and at times I think I was approaching heat stroke. I decided to give MAF a try about 5 weeks ago. I know I haven't been at it long enough to see much benefit, but I can already see progress. Currently @ ~30MPW with 13 on my long run. Physically, I feel like I could do more, but trying to rein in my overachiever tendencies. I just finished Middleman's Slow Burn, great book. I had observed the tunnel concentration he mentioned in the 5Ks I had done as another poster commented. MAF allows me to enjoy the scenery around me and log more miles without injury. I'm going at it sans HRM as mine had to go back for repairs so I appreciate the feedback from yall re: nose breathing. I think that's a fairly accurate way to self-monitor without HRM. I have two questions: I would like to run the Birmingham Marathon in Feb 2008, is this reasonable? Second, how do you know when to move on from MAF and add speedwork? Thanks to you guys, I have learned so much from yall.  bluelake
IP: Logged |
gdunha
Member |
posted Jul-25-2007 10:11 AM
Ok I need some MAF help. I have the Training for endurance book. Using the 180 - age formula my MAF HR would be 139. I think that this is way to low. My max running HR is 206 my latest RHR was 61 so I have 145 beats per minute to play with. 50 % would put me at 133.5
60% would be 148
70% would be 162.5
80% would be 177 I know that Dr. Phil's idea is that most people dont account daily stress into figuring out a workload. My question is what would my MAF number be?
IP: Logged |
Docster
Cool Runner |
posted Jul-25-2007 11:06 AM
quote:
Originally posted by gdunha:
Ok I need some MAF help. I have the Training for endurance book. Using the 180 - age formula my MAF HR would be 139. I think that this is way to low. My max running HR is 206 my latest RHR was 61 so I have 145 beats per minute to play with. 50 % would put me at 133.5
60% would be 148
70% would be 162.5
80% would be 177 I know that Dr. Phil's idea is that most people dont account daily stress into figuring out a workload. My question is what would my MAF number be?
My max heart rate is at least 206. My resting heart rate is 38. My MAF is 144, as I am 36 years old. I could add +5 as I run 6 to 7 days a week, but I don't really see the need (point?) to do so. If you have extra stress you are dealing with, then I believe you subtract from your MAF.(not sure on that) Anyway, your magic number is 139. MAF isn't based on max heart rate. If you have a very low max heart rate, then MAF would likely be too high and should be adjusted as a result.
IP: Logged |
martinjames
Cool Runner |
posted Jul-25-2007 11:30 AM
quote:
Originally posted by gdunha:
Ok I need some MAF help. I have the Training for endurance book. Using the 180 - age formula my MAF HR would be 139. I think that this is way to low. My max running HR is 206 my latest RHR was 61 so I have 145 beats per minute to play with. 50 % would put me at 133.5
60% would be 148
70% would be 162.5
80% would be 177 I know that Dr. Phil's idea is that most people dont account daily stress into figuring out a workload. My question is what would my MAF number be?
Karvonen is it Maff as apples is to pomegranates. Knowing no more than what you've written, it seems to me that 61 is a relatively high RHR for a runner and that some basebuilding would benefit you. If you want to try Maff, you need to accept the number and commit to it for a while. Just the nature of the beast.
IP: Logged |
jeans541
Cool Runner |
posted Jul-25-2007 12:08 PM
I have been reading these threads with great interest and was about to ask almost the exact same question as gduhna about Pfitzinger's approach vs. Maffetone. I am just wondering why choose Maffetone's formula over Pfitzinger's which seems to be a more personal and scientific approach?I have just purchased a HR monitor, have my Maf number (146) and also did a max HR test this week to determine my Pfitz. model magic number--164 (75%). I am just not sure which one to follow now. Would my overall goals and history make a difference here? (I've been running for 1.5yrs, not injured, 20-25mpw and looking to increase to 30's this fall, HM planned in late October...not sure what other info would be helpful here) So, basic question is why Maffetone? Would I be working hard enough at my MAF of 146 if that calculates out by Pfitz as being just under 65%?
IP: Logged |
Docster
Cool Runner |
posted Jul-25-2007 12:08 PM
quote:
Originally posted by gdunha:
Ok I need some MAF help. I have the Training for endurance book. Using the 180 - age formula my MAF HR would be 139. I think that this is way to low. My max running HR is 206 my latest RHR was 61 so I have 145 beats per minute to play with. 50 % would put me at 133.5
60% would be 148
70% would be 162.5
80% would be 177 I know that Dr. Phil's idea is that most people dont account daily stress into figuring out a workload. My question is what would my MAF number be?
One more thing I just noticed. How did you calculate those numbers? They definitely aren't based off of max HR.
IP: Logged |
jeans541
Cool Runner |
posted Jul-25-2007 12:13 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Docster:
One more thing I just noticed. How did you calculate those numbers? They definitely aren't based off of max HR.
The formula used is in this lab report: here
IP: Logged |
gdunha
Member |
posted Jul-25-2007 12:39 PM
Quote Anyway, your magic number is 139. MAF isn't based on max heart rate. If you have a very low max heart rate, then MAF would likely be too high and should be adjusted as a result.
Ok so this is my question if someone should adjust down if they have a really low HR then why shouldn't you adjust up for a high HR? For example I have a friend that I ride and race with who's MHR is about 176. He is very fit and actually a little faster than me right now. BTW yes I am out of shape and could definitely use some serious base training which I plan to start after my last big race this year. Hence this question.
But back to the example both of us would have an MAF number of 139
My 139 would be just a little bit over 50% of my max. This would be the very lowest end of the Aroebic zone.
My friends would be working at about 70% of his max. How can we be recieving similiar training loads?
IP: Logged |
corland14
Cool Runner |
posted Jul-25-2007 02:00 PM
Jeans541 and gdunha: I think you two need to dismiss the idea that max HR is any indicator of how good of shape your in, or what you might be capable of in the future. The author of the thread will tell you that there can be a ton of useless heartbeats between your anaerobic threshold and your max HR. I think that Pfitz bases his 75% of max HR on the normal heart rate range, 220-age, or at least something close to that. That would put you two somewhere around 135-140 (I think). I believe that Hadd doesnt alter base training paces for anyone with a HR over 193. I believe his max HR pace is 145 for anyone with a HR 193+. Take a 1/2 hour and read the authors FAQ's and especially the links he has posted in that section.
IP: Logged |
willamona
Cool Runner |
posted Jul-25-2007 02:19 PM
I have a max HR somewhere in the 220's. The reason you do not adjust is simple. Just because you have a high max HR does not mean that you also have a high anaerobic threshold. If fact, if you are not doing the proper training it is very possible that threshold my be lower than normal. Maffatone studied a ton of people to find this out. I guess I am saying to stop complaining and start training. It is my experience that Pfitz is great for peaking, with some adjustments, but not so great for base building. Maffatone had the base part down. I have had great result with this approach. I think that you know that; just give it a go.------------------
***********
My myspace
No Complaining
Low Heart Rate Training FAQ Because many have asked...
You have poopie pants.
IP: Logged |
Jim Sullivan
Cool Runner |
posted Jul-25-2007 02:43 PM
quote:
Originally posted by willamona:
It is my experience that Pfitz is great for peaking, with some adjustments, but not so great for base building.
Pfitz is great for base building, among other things.
IP: Logged |
jeans541
Cool Runner |
posted Jul-25-2007 03:05 PM
quote:
Originally posted by willamona:
I have a max HR somewhere in the 220's. The reason you do not adjust is simple. Just because you have a high max HR does not mean that you also have a high anaerobic threshold. If fact, if you are not doing the proper training it is very possible that threshold my be lower than normal. Maffatone studied a ton of people to find this out. I guess I am saying to stop complaining and start training. It is my experience that Pfitz is great for peaking, with some adjustments, but not so great for base building. Maffatone had the base part down. I have had great result with this approach. I think that you know that; just give it a go.
Hi willa! Yes, I know you have had great success with MAF and that is precisely why I am considering this approach. I have been doing a ton of reading (including all the articles on leitnerj's FAQ's) and I guess my question is just wondering why you all have chosen Maffetone over any other LHR formula out there. I have no problem with running under my MAF number and I promise I won't complain (maybe only a little)--just wondering how you all know that this magic number is the right one.
As a LHR newbie, all of the articles are convincing to me and I don't know enough about the authors to know who would be best to follow. The Maffetone article in the FAQ's seemed to be pointing to some attached information about the 180-age method where it says, "See the insert on the 180 Formula, which establishes the best heart rate for building an aerobic base." I didn't really see anything explaining where the method came from, though. I am going to keep looking today for more info about Maffetone and how this formula was determined.
IP: Logged |
kell
Member |
posted Jul-25-2007 03:27 PM
hi guys,
I was looking around when i found this thread. I'm having some concerns with my heart rate when i run. My averge heart rate is at 170, it doesn't matter if i run 3mi or 10mi. I think its too high and my heart might explode. However, i'm still able to talk and sing a little when my heart rate is about 170.
I didn't really go thru the whole thread and i hope this is relevant here.
IP: Logged |
Docster
Cool Runner |
posted Jul-25-2007 04:06 PM
quote:
Originally posted by gdunha:
Quote Anyway, your magic number is 139. MAF isn't based on max heart rate. If you have a very low max heart rate, then MAF would likely be too high and should be adjusted as a result.
Ok so this is my question if someone should adjust down if they have a really low HR then why shouldn't you adjust up for a high HR? For example I have a friend that I ride and race with who's MHR is about 176. He is very fit and actually a little faster than me right now. BTW yes I am out of shape and could definitely use some serious base training which I plan to start after my last big race this year. Hence this question.
But back to the example both of us would have an MAF number of 139
My 139 would be just a little bit over 50% of my max. This would be the very lowest end of the Aroebic zone.
My friends would be working at about 70% of his max. How can we be recieving similiar training loads?
139 is well over half of your max. 139/206=67.4%. As Willamona stated, max heart rate has very little to do with anaerobic threshhold or lactate threshhold. Most people fall within a much smaller range when looking at those limits as opposed to max heart rates. For example, my wife has a max heart rate of about 186...20 beats lower than mine. So, our average HR's for a half marathon should be ~20 beats different, right? Hardly. They are within 5 of each other. If you are out of shape, then you definitely need to error on the low side, NOT the high side.
IP: Logged |
gdunha
Member |
posted Jul-25-2007 04:22 PM
RHR is 61 MHR is 206 so I have 145 BPM to work with 50% of 145 is 72.5 BPM so RHR(61) +72.5 is 133.5 which is 50% so MAF # is a little over 50%. When my friend and I did a 6 and half hour race earlier this year his AHR for the race was around 150 mine was around 175. 25 BPM seems like a huge difference. So my question is at 139 are would we be receiving the same workload? Thanks
IP: Logged |
gdunha
Member |
posted Jul-25-2007 04:32 PM
No complaining here just looking for more info Willamona. So how do I figure my Anaerobic threshhold? I have a problem with formulas that are one size fits all. Bike fits are an example. I am looking at gettting one to take my biking up a notch but am leary of fitting systems that are one size fits all. Just because you fit 50,000 people and the avg knee angle at extension is 120 that does not mean mine should be. Maybe I have long thigh bones or long shin bones or my heel drops when I pedal or not. In my opinion these things should be taken into account. Not that I am special just that everyone is different. I am looking to maximize my gains. I will reread Training for Endurance and look at the authors facts as well.I read Maffertone and agree with what he says but I want to make sure it's right for me. Maybe I will be forced to do 8 weeks and just try it and 8 weeks of a Lydiard program and 8 weeks of a Daniels base build until I find something that works for me but then depending on which one I do first will that skew that results. Maybe it was the 8 weeks of MAF that made the 8 weeks of Lydiard work so well or vice versa. So any info will be helpful and appreciated. Thanks for all of the replys
IP: Logged |
grapejelly
Cool Runner |
posted Jul-25-2007 05:20 PM
I have been nose breathing for 2 years now.Now that I'm on the HRM when I run, I notice that at all "zones" I can breathe through my nose but what's more, I can breathe very quietly and effortlessly. I practice "reduced breathing" exercises which I think help tremendously. I think quiet nose breathing is a clue that we are on the right track.
IP: Logged |
leitnerj
Cool Runner |
posted Jul-25-2007 06:06 PM
It looks like all of the others here have replied quite well.
I'll just repeat the same thing basically, perhaps with my
own spin. 1. If you have a high resting heart rate, unfortunately,
if anything, that should lower your target, not raise
it, because it's indicative of lower fitness. 2. If you already have a great running history and a solid
aerobic base, you can run at much higher heart rates and
still get substantial aerobic benefit. Pfitzinger's program
across the board is excellent for advanced marathoners -
those who are already good runners with a strong
running base. For those with very poor aerobic fitness,
unfortunately, Pfitzinger's targets will probably have you
running at too high of a heart rate to develop aerobic
fitness. That was definitely the case for me. My long
distance running got worse by running at the high heart
rates. Now that I have a solid aerobic base, I'm sure I
could really do well by following a Pftiz-type program, but
since I'm still improving at lower heart rates and no
hard work, I'm not motivated to change. 3. My max heart rate is over 210, but I generally train
around 139. My feeling is this - if you're drawn into this approach just
out of curiosity and you don't buy into it, I recommend you
don't bother with it, because you will quit in frustration
very shortly and you will join the list of people who are
angered by this thread. If you're drawn into this because you have
one or more of the problems described in the FAQ, then
you probably have enough motivation to do it. Unfortunately,
the slower you are at low HRs relative to how fast you
know you can run, the poorer your aerobic fitness likely
is, and the more time you need to spend at lower heart
rates. If you feel the heart rate that Maffetone or Mark
Allen recommend is way too low, then it's probably
just right. If your training is doing well for you however you're
doing it, then why change? If you want a higher training heart
rate, then definitely pick a different approach. As willamona
said, those with very low max heart rates also have very
low anaerobic thresholds. Those with very high max heart
rates frequently do not have high anaerobic thresholds, and
most who do are already in top shape. Those in great aerobic
shape with superb endurance can spend a lot of time at much
higher heart rates without much, if any, negative effect.
Think about what brings you to wanting to do something
different from what you're already doing. In general, I wouldn't
call this thread a "here's what everyone needs to do" thread,
even it if may provide very beneficial things to most who
commit to it.
------------------
MyRunningLog
MyStuff
Low Heart Rate Training FAQ
My marathons and ultras
My races and reports
IP: Logged |
 |
|
|
|
 |
 |
 |
|
Topic Closed