posted Jul-25-2007 06:12 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by gdunha:
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

---

Unfortunately, that's the reverse logic. Your high resting heart rate
is not indicative that you have a higher zone (although it may be
indicative that you have a tighter aerobic zone to work with).
There's a good chance your friend's lower average heart rate during
the race was indicative of his better fitness, but there's not enough
information to tell one way or the other.

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

IP: Logged

posted Jul-25-2007 08:03 PM            

My race times fit nicely with McMillan's calculator and I am not plagued with illness or injury. I do, however, have numerous running friends who are getting injured and I do not want to be one of them! I have 5 kids and NEED to be able to run! I believe that I am probably running my "easy" runs too hard, so using a HR monitor will help keep me at a truly easy pace.

I would like to see what LHR training will do for me, but I am getting stuck on the whole science bit. With the numbers being so far apart between Maffetone's method and Pfitzinger (146 vs. 164), I am wondering just where do I fit? Can anyone explain the science behind Maffetone's 180 formula? I'm really OK with a lower number if I know why it is the better method. Does that make sense?

IP: Logged

posted Jul-25-2007 08:28 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by jeans541:
Thanks for your response, Jesse. I am not trying to be a pain in the butt here, so I hope you guys will forgive all the questions. I have tried to find some more information on how Maffetone came up with the 180 formula, but I haven't found anything today. If there is information in one of his books, which one should I look for? My library has 3 books by Maffetone, but not the more recent one mentioned today. I'll buy it if I absolutely have to.

My race times fit nicely with McMillan's calculator and I am not plagued with illness or injury. I do, however, have numerous running friends who are getting injured and I do not want to be one of them! I have 5 kids and NEED to be able to run! I believe that I am probably running my "easy" runs too hard, so using a HR monitor will help keep me at a truly easy pace.

I would like to see what LHR training will do for me, but I am getting stuck on the whole science bit. With the numbers being so far apart between Maffetone's method and Pfitzinger (146 vs. 164), I am wondering just where do I fit? Can anyone explain the science behind Maffetone's 180 formula? I'm really OK with a lower number if I know why it is the better method. Does that make sense?

---

Honestly, if your training is working, I wouldn't change a thing.
You'll just frustrate yourself. This is very frustrating and
miserable training approach for many at first and it makes
many very angry. Those that really need it have enough
motivation to suck it up. It's not a great idea to base your
training habits on what's happening to others. In either case,
Maffetone's formula is empirically derived from a range of
subjects that he coached. I can't say I know too much about
the origin of Pfitz's relationships, but I do know that his approach
is generally geared towards well-trained athletes that want to
reach peak of performance from the current training regimen,
not those that have a poor training history. As I mentioned earlier,
if you are well-trained, you can derive aerobic benefit from running
at a significantly higher heart rate than if you are not well-trained,
so if that's the case, one would probably reach peak performance
by operating at the fastest possible pace without blowing up.
I would consider Pfitz's heart rate ranges to push the envelope.
However, it is interesting to note that Pfitzinger recommends
running a pace between 20% and 10% slower than marathon
race pace (assuming you know what you're capable of - it's
not based on what you *want* to do). I would contend that for
most people who have a reasonable amount of training background,
that range will probably be within the MAF range for someone
with reasonable amount of aerobic conditioning.

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

IP: Logged

posted Jul-25-2007 09:14 PM            

And I did not see who it was, I don't have a problem with Pfitz. I just am currently not able to use his recommended heart rate through my base phase and see improvements at the same rate that I see now. Maybe in a couple of years it will be possible. As it stands right now, the MAF approach is kicking ass and taking names in terms of progress for me. Pfitz's insight comes right now while I try to peak for race day. I do have to modify his heart rates, but that's easy to do, HADD comes in to help me there.

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

IP: Logged

posted Jul-25-2007 09:22 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by leitnerj:
Honestly, if your training is working, I wouldn't change a thing.
You'll just frustrate yourself. This is very frustrating and
miserable training approach for many at first and it makes
many very angry. Those that really need it have enough
motivation to suck it up. It's not a great idea to base your
training habits on what's happening to others. In either case,
Maffetone's formula is empirically derived from a range of
subjects that he coached. I can't say I know too much about
the origin of Pfitz's relationships, but I do know that his approach
is generally geared towards well-trained athletes that want to
reach peak of performance from the current training regimen,
not those that have a poor training history. As I mentioned earlier,
if you are well-trained, you can derive aerobic benefit from running
at a significantly higher heart rate than if you are not well-trained,
so if that's the case, one would probably reach peak performance
by operating at the fastest possible pace without blowing up.
I would consider Pfitz's heart rate ranges to push the envelope.
However, it is interesting to note that Pfitzinger recommends
running a pace between 20% and 10% slower than marathon
race pace (assuming you know what you're capable of - it's
not based on what you *want* to do). I would contend that for
most people who have a reasonable amount of training background,
that range will probably be within the MAF range for someone
with reasonable amount of aerobic conditioning.

---

One friendly amendment, Pfitz equates the 20-10% to 73-83% max HR. I found that in the course of training, it's pretty taxing and much harder than MAF.

IP: Logged

posted Jul-26-2007 05:25 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by martinjames:
One friendly amendment, Pfitz equates the 20-10% to 73-83% max HR. I found that in the course of training, it's pretty taxing and much harder than MAF.

---

Does he make the connection between the pace and the
heart rate range? I didn't catch that part. And I should
clarify - he does say 20-10% for "long runs." I do know that for me,
the 20-10% does apply to about where my long run pace is early in
marathon training and the 10% is about right as the race is coming
close. However, 83% max heart rate is 173 for me and I never run
even close to that in training. In fact, that's slightly higher than my
target marathon heart rate (and 4 beats below anaerobic threshold),
so that's much higher than I ever see in a training run.

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

IP: Logged

posted Jul-26-2007 06:55 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by leitnerj:
Does he make the connection between the pace and the
heart rate range? I didn't catch that part. And I should
clarify - he does say 20-10% for "long runs." I do know that for me,
the 20-10% does apply to about where my long run pace is early in
marathon training and the 10% is about right as the race is coming
close. However, 83% max heart rate is 173 for me and I never run
even close to that in training. In fact, that's slightly higher than my
target marathon heart rate (and 4 beats below anaerobic threshold),
so that's much higher than I ever see in a training run.

---

He doesn't really connect them to say 73% = MP + 10% but says long run range is 73-83% and also says MP + 20-10%.

I did one of these runs last Sunday. 4 x 4.6 mile laps stepping down each lap. I based them on 7:30/mile for some unknown reason (my goal is 7:28/mile, but my MP in May was 7:47). Anyway, here's what I got

* 41:25, 139 bpm, 9:00 min/mi = 7:30 + 20%, 70% MHR
* 39:53, 148 bpm, 8:40 min/mi =7:30 + 16%, 74% MHR
* 39:17, 156 bpm, 8:32 min/mi = 7:30 + 14%, 78% MHR
* 38:20, 170 bpm, 8:20 min/mi = 7:30 + 11%, 85% MHR

My MAF is 144, so it's significantly harder than MAF for me. Realistically with temps from 70 to low 80's during the run, MP was probably considerably slower than 7:30, so I think the paces work out pretty well for me.

IP: Logged

posted Jul-26-2007 08:30 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by gregw:
He doesn't really connect them to say 73% = MP + 10% but says long run range is 73-83% and also says MP + 20-10%.

I did one of these runs last Sunday. 4 x 4.6 mile laps stepping down each lap. I based them on 7:30/mile for some unknown reason (my goal is 7:28/mile, but my MP in May was 7:47). Anyway, here's what I got

* 41:25, 139 bpm, 9:00 min/mi = 7:30 + 20%, 70% MHR
* 39:53, 148 bpm, 8:40 min/mi =7:30 + 16%, 74% MHR
* 39:17, 156 bpm, 8:32 min/mi = 7:30 + 14%, 78% MHR
* 38:20, 170 bpm, 8:20 min/mi = 7:30 + 11%, 85% MHR

My MAF is 144, so it's significantly harder than MAF for me. Realistically with temps from 70 to low 80's during the run, MP was probably considerably slower than 7:30, so I think the paces work out pretty well for me.

---

Right, Pfitz gives the HR guidelines as sort of a ballpark alternative, but I often use them to make sure that i'm not getting over-aggressive or, sometimes, slacking off. I did 16 miles last Sunday and had to dial it back when I hit 150 bpm at mile 14, which for me is 90% max HR and 2-3 beats higher than my MP HR at that distance. Of course, it was July in DC, but the temps were actually pretty low and it was dry. (the truth is, a small pack of runners passed me early on and I couldn't avoid chasing them, like a dog drawn to a passing car)

Anyway, even at 150 bpm, my splits were not quite MP+10% -- actually, maybe they were in those temps, but it was close. Whatever, it was much higher than typical low HR and a good 10 bpm faster than the 83% max HR that Pfitz recommends.

IP: Logged

posted Jul-26-2007 08:32 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by leitnerj:

This is very frustrating and miserable training approach for many at first and it makes many very angry. Those that really need it have enough motivation to suck it up.

---

Amen to that! I've been at this only two weeks now, and today, it took me as long to run 9 miles as it did for me to complete my last HM! Ugh. I know this will pay off for me in the end, but is it ever frustrating sometimes!

On the plus side, I still had energy when I finished, and I had none of the aches and pains I used to have after a moderately long run. This is why I decided to try Maff in the first place, so I really feel like I'm doing the right thing.

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

IP: Logged

posted Jul-26-2007 08:56 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by willamona:
...I don't have a problem with Pfitz...

---

IP: Logged

posted Jul-26-2007 09:08 AM               

"22. Is there any way to use this approach with a more personalized formula for me?

Yes, but it may be costly and burdensome and you may not get a better bottom line training zone. You can have a vo2max test done, find the heart rate where your RQ (or RER) value is 0.78, which corresponds to 25% carb burn/75% fat burn and use that as your max training zone. Or you can use 80% of your anaerobic threshold heart rate. These should be close to the MAF values."

When I do these test I will get back to you with the results but right now I feel that they will be higher than my MAF, but again thanks for the info.

I reread Training for Endurance last night and have a few clarifications and points to make. First MAF stands for Maximum Aerobic Function. He made his 180 formula using the athletes that he was working with at that time. I'm pretty certain that he would adjust those numbers for individuals. I am looking at the Maximum part of that equation. I know that the % of MHR that you move from Aerobic function to anaerobic function varies with individuals so I am looking at how to find my MAF Heart Rate (I know look at #22) If my % of Max HR for maximum aerobic function is 65% though then I don't want to spend all of my time at 55%. I realize that I would realize gains at the 55% but they would not be the maximum aerobic gains that I am looking for.

Here is a quote from Training for endurance.

"Endurance training should involve the use of as many aerobic fibers as possible. In doing so, we can't help help using some of the anaerobic fibers. But the predominance will be in training the aerobic muscles. Even walking, which activates the very-slow-moving aerobic fibers, has a place in endurance trainning, especially for the professional athlete."

I am looking at using all of my aerobic muscles.

So thanks again for all of the replies and thanks Jesse for the info. I am looking forward to finding a book by Hadd.

One more quick question Jesse. You use a RQ of .78 I don't see anything in Training for Endurance that says that is the rate to look for. Is .78 the accepted maximum for aerobic function?

Thanks again for your time.

IP: Logged

posted Jul-26-2007 09:35 AM               

The zones are correct but the words are mine because I can't find my manual at the moment. Using my MAF number of 139 the day after a pretty hard training run my TE was 1.8. This tells me I could have gone a little bit harder and been better off.

IP: Logged

posted Jul-26-2007 10:28 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by gdunha:
Opps sorry one more thing to throw in to confuse the issue even further I train with a Suunto T3 HR moniter which uses the training effect to calculate the workload. They break the training effect(TE) down into four zones. The training effect uses the time between two heart beats to estimate workload.
TE 1 - 1.9 Little or no training effect
TE 2 - 2.9 Small training effect some recovery needed
TE 3 - 3.9 Medium training recovery needed
TE 4 - 5 High training effect significant recovery needed

The zones are correct but the words are mine because I can't find my manual at the moment. Using my MAF number of 139 the day after a pretty hard training run my TE was 1.8. This tells me I could have gone a little bit harder and been better off.

---

I have a T6. It reports Excess Postexercise Oxygen Consumption (EPOC) and the training effect is based on those. It seems to rely primarily on %HRR and breathing rate (which it calculates from the periodicity of the interbeat interval). Anyway, since it's looking at oxygen debt it weighs intensity over duration. You could run 50 miles and end up with a TE 3. It doesn't know anything about mitochondria or capillary development.

IP: Logged

posted Jul-26-2007 11:47 AM               

IP: Logged

posted Jul-26-2007 12:46 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by gregw:
I have a T6. It reports Excess Postexercise Oxygen Consumption (EPOC) and the training effect is based on those. It seems to rely primarily on %HRR and breathing rate (which it calculates from the periodicity of the interbeat interval). Anyway, since it's looking at oxygen debt it weighs intensity over duration. You could run 50 miles and end up with a TE 3. It doesn't know anything about mitochondria or capillary development.

---

I have yet to really figure out what good the TE on my T3 is.

A 175bpm 5K can give me a TE of 5.0
A 150bpm for 1:00:00 can give me a TE of 3.0
A 150bpm for 2:45:00 can give me a TE of .... 3.0

go figure. i'm digging the MAF so far; i can run more, enjoy it, and no itbs like i ALWAYS used to get. and i don't feel like i'm slowing down. if i check my progress in a few months and see that i've plateaued, i'll move up. if not, i'll keep going!

i like analogies; would you rather baby your new car the first 1000 miles and slowly push it until you find the optimum performance? or just jump on the accelerator and hope for the best?

(even if it's a used car...) my view is quite long term; if i find my peak performance 10 years from now, i'll be happy. i'll stick to playing it reasonably safe for now. they say hindsight is 20/20. of the two worst case scenarios, which would you rather look back and see--a few months of not as efficient training, or two months of injuring yourself?

but everyone is different and has different goals.

quick side question: someone mentioned knee soreness when they switched over to MAF. i've noticed that my hip abductors get sore before anything else does. which, i would guess is good, since it isn't my ITB that i'm feeling!! (which makes me uber happy). anyone else notice this? makes sense that i'd be working things differently, just curious if anyone else noticed that specifically..

thanks! awesome thread.

IP: Logged

posted Jul-26-2007 12:48 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by gdunha:

So thanks again for all of the replies and thanks Jesse for the info. I am looking forward to finding a book by Hadd.

Thanks again for your time.

---

You won't find a book by Hadd. It's all contained in a bulletin-board thread. I think Jesse has it somewhere in his FAQ section (which my computer doesn't allow me to access for some reason). It's interesting.

IP: Logged

posted Jul-26-2007 12:52 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by jamjat:
I am new to low heart rate training, having been doing it for the last two weeks. I really appreciate having this thread - I have learned a lot from it, read two Maffletone books, and some web info from some of the others. I am doing it because I have been running for four years, originally lost a lot of weight but have leveled off with my speed and can't seem to improve, and my heart rate gets quite high even on easy runs or hikes. My MAF heart rate is 141 and to run keeping below that I have been running 14-15 min miles. One route I do regularly has been taking me 90 min to run keeping my heart rate below 141 (previously I could run it in 75 min - about 6.5 mi) Today, I decided to fast-walk it to see what happened with time and heart rate. My heart rate averaged 122, never got higher than 135 and the walk took me the same 90 min as when I run. Has anyone else had experience with this, where your heart rate gets up easily running, but you are running so slowly you might as well be walking? Of course when I run it I feel like I could go forever and nothing is sore, and after walking it I feel a blister coming on the bottom of my feet and my calves feel sore, so I can see the advantages there over running, but I was amazed that at 20 bpm slower I could walk it in the same time. Any comments would be greatly appreciated!

---

when i started MAF i definitely had to slow down quite a bit at times to keep from going over. i definitely could have walked faster with a lower HR! i guess the point in running a little under your MAF is to "train" (by causing capillary and mitochondria growth, type of muscle fiber, etc.) those muscles you use to run to use oxygen more efficiently and burn fat not carbs... so walking alone wouldn't seem to cut it.

IP: Logged

posted Jul-26-2007 12:53 PM            

Thursday

AM 4 mile warmup @ around 6:50 pace with some surges,
5:10 all out, 3 minute jog recovery,
5:20 all out ( HR 168 ),
25 minute jog warmdown ( HR 76 )
66F and very humid
No puke.
Hi/low heartrate training.

IP: Logged

posted Jul-26-2007 12:54 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by martinjames:
You won't find a book by Hadd. It's all contained in a bulletin-board thread. I think Jesse has it somewhere in his FAQ section (which my computer doesn't allow me to access for some reason). It's interesting.

---

http://www.counterpartcoaching.com/hadd.pdf

IP: Logged

posted Jul-26-2007 12:57 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by briantelope:
I have yet to really figure out what good the TE on my T3 is.

A 175bpm 5K can give me a TE of 5.0
A 150bpm for 1:00:00 can give me a TE of 3.0
A 150bpm for 2:45:00 can give me a TE of .... 3.0

go figure. i'm digging the MAF so far; i can run more, enjoy it, and no itbs like i ALWAYS used to get. and i don't feel like i'm slowing down. if i check my progress in a few months and see that i've plateaued, i'll move up. if not, i'll keep going!

i like analogies; would you rather baby your new car the first 1000 miles and slowly push it until you find the optimum performance? or just jump on the accelerator and hope for the best?

(even if it's a used car...) my view is quite long term; if i find my peak performance 10 years from now, i'll be happy. i'll stick to playing it reasonably safe for now. they say hindsight is 20/20. of the two worst case scenarios, which would you rather look back and see--a few months of not as efficient training, or two months of injuring yourself?

but everyone is different and has different goals.

quick side question: someone mentioned knee soreness when they switched over to MAF. i've noticed that my hip abductors get sore before anything else does. which, i would guess is good, since it isn't my ITB that i'm feeling!! (which makes me uber happy). anyone else notice this? makes sense that i'd be working things differently, just curious if anyone else noticed that specifically..

thanks! awesome thread.

---

I got some ankle soreness when I went back to LHR training. I think part of it was the result of going slow and landing differently than when I go faster. On the other hand, during my first go-round with LHR, I never felt better. Back then, I had a hip problem and slowing down solved it. So who knows, you know? I'm sure that I'm less likely to get hurt taking it easy than the other way around.

IP: Logged

posted Jul-26-2007 01:06 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by martinjames:
I got some ankle soreness when I went back to LHR training. I think part of it was the result of going slow and landing differently than when I go faster. On the other hand, during my first go-round with LHR, I never felt better. Back then, I had a hip problem and slowing down solved it. So who knows, you know? I'm sure that I'm less likely to get hurt taking it easy than the other way around.

---

definitely. i'm talking about some soreness that is gone the next day no sweat. much better than the alternative (my ITB causing me to stop running!!)

i was amazed after getting up to 13 miles, and still feeling like i could keep going. it just feels more healthy when i'm done running. not the "i can't walk... someone, ice, quick!" routine. and mentally i've noticed a difference. i was always focusing on my time before: "woah, my pace is slipping...i'm getting tired...shoot...how am i going to do that 5k time again if i can't train that fast now?" A 20 min run seemed like forever when i was thinking that way. Now an hour or two seems to fly by (especially when I get out in the woods and don't have to do loops!!)

IP: Logged

posted Jul-26-2007 01:32 PM            

Anyone found a particularly good HR monitor? I have the Nike Triax Elite from a couple years ago, but the chest piece always ends up rubbing my skin raw at my sternum on long runs. I've experimented with making it tighter and looser, and moving it higher and lower. I'd seen an article in Runners World or Running Times about some prototype models that measure your pulse from your wrist/hand.

So basically, I'm wondering if anyone has either: (1) had the same problem and come up with a solution (for chest strap type monitors), or (2) found another gadget that measures HR accurately without chest straps.

Thanks!

IP: Logged

posted Jul-26-2007 01:34 PM            

There's only one way to find out if this works or not.
Do it.
Do it like the book says, keeping under MAF until you rebuild your aerobic system and plateau, then adding speedwork and racing at that point.

It's a very simple program. Just subtract your age from 180 bpm, and after adjusting 5-10 beats up or down according to the book for various ages and conditions, you run paces that keep you under that ceiling. Walk if you have to.

It will suck. It will twist your brain. It'll make you cry. For awhile.
But if you commit fully to it, as an experiment. Then you will know
whether or not it is crap, and whether or not it is for you.

It's that simple.

Everything else is just piling on, intellectual debate, or trying to bridge or resolve past training methods with this one (when there probably isn't any since this program defies the current trend of no pain, no gain).

Either do it and find out, or don't do it, move on, and never really know.

If you decide to do it, and it starts to make you cry because you have to walk up a hill or in the end of a run just to stay under the MAF ceiling, don't call me for sympathy. Suck it up. I'm busy crying my own tears.

--Jimmy

MAF log

profeelia

IP: Logged

posted Jul-26-2007 01:39 PM            

Now, after doing this for over a year, most tiredness/soreness doesn't last much longer than a shower. If anything is still bothering me after a shower, an ice bath will generally take care of it.

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

IP: Logged

posted Jul-26-2007 05:11 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by jjwaverly42:
A note to all of you are just dipping your mental toes into the calm, yet rough waters of MAF training. Wondering if you should let go of "the known" and should jump into this counter-culture training.

There's only one way to find out if this works or not.
Do it.
Do it like the book says, keeping under MAF until you rebuild your aerobic system and plateau, then adding speedwork and racing at that point.

It's a very simple program. Just subtract your age from 180 bpm, and after adjusting 5-10 beats up or down according to the book for various ages and conditions, you run paces that keep you under that ceiling. Walk if you have to.

It will suck. It will twist your brain. It'll make you cry. For awhile.
But if you commit fully to it, as an experiment. Then you will know
whether or not it is crap, and whether or not it is for you.

It's that simple.

Everything else is just piling on, intellectual debate, or trying to bridge or resolve past training methods with this one (when there probably isn't any since this program defies the current trend of no pain, no gain).

Either do it and find out, or don't do it, move on, and never really know.

If you decide to do it, and it starts to make you cry because you have to walk up a hill or in the end of a run just to stay under the MAF ceiling, don't call me for sympathy. Suck it up. I'm busy crying my own tears.

--Jimmy

MAF log

profeelia

---

I'm crying now, for joy, not out of frustration. I seem to be better than some in that I can still run with walk breaks interspersed throughout and still keep 11-12 minute miles or so. I'm okay with that for now. But the feelings! I feel so elated, relaxed, connected to my surroundings. My MAF is 142. If I run at 130-133, I feel like I'm not even doing anything. I can't keep it there for long, maybe for 30 seconds to a minute after i just walked to bring it down, but it's joyous. I've always been motivated in the things I do sports wise for extrinsic reasons: looks, competition, part of the school sports program, etc... I always enjoyed it. But this is different. Running through the woods for long distances at an easy pace brings such a feeling of happiness and moments of transendence. I'm am loving the low HR training, if for nothing else than how great I feel. I said it before a page or two back but I'll say it again...thank you.

IP: Logged