posted Jul-26-2007 06:24 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by gdunha:
I can see now how some people get into these flame wars that are so amusing to watch. It is frustrating to ask a question over and over and not get a reponse that makes sense. Yes I realize sometimes that has as much to do with the question as with the answer.
Thanks Jesse for taking the time to put all of the information in your facts section. I have not read anything on Hadd but will be. Here is the section on your facts that I was looking for

"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.

---

Right - I'm not sure if in any of his writings, he gets into specific
RQ values (can anyone correct me on that?), but in some cases
he talks about how it's all about using mostly fat for fuel. I can't
give a specific reference, but I can say that for most of the data
that people have sent me from their vo2max tests, the age-based
MAF value was very close to an RQ of .78 (although there are
several that were never low enough - some people even burned
more than 25% carb just walking slowly in a warm up), with a
few going up to around .85 (50% fat/50% carb). This does not
include the few people (3 or 4, I'd say) that have very low max
heart rates, would need to use a much lower HR for MAF. There
were 2 out of 20 something that would have a higher heart rate,
but they both were sub-3 marathoners and I remember thinking
they really didn't need this (but I believe they were in the
category of DanMoriarty, just trying to ensure that recovery
runs were truly for recovery and were easy enough and that
every day running should not be very taxing). I would say that
if you have an RQ of .78 that corresponds to a much higher
heart rate than the MAF formula gives, then you likely have
a strong aerobic fitness and you should be able to run a
decent pace at a very low heart rate. In either case, if you're
going by %AT or RQ values, you're probably safe at the lower
end of RQ=.78-.85 or 80-85%AT. slowgino has a lot of history
relating RQ values to MAF formulae, so he might give you some
hope. My experience from seeing people posting around here
has been that those who start with very poor aerobic fitness
and use higher values do not see progress as fast as those
who use lower values. Those who have pretty good aerobic
fitness to start can use higher numbers and see good progress.

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

IP: Logged

posted Jul-26-2007 06:30 PM               

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 think the majority of people and pieces of equipment will tell you
that you are wasting your time working at such an easy level of
effort as described in this thread. If you watch tells you that, then
you are probably following this approach very well!

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

IP: Logged

posted Jul-26-2007 06:34 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!

---

About a year or so ago while running trails with steep climbs, I would
periodically switch to walking when my HR would hit MAF on a climb
and it would slowly go down. Then I started working hard on a "wog,"
sort of a putter and learned to control my heart rate. Now my heart
rate goes up when I switch to a walk as compared to a wog (which
I can now do faster than a brisk walk). It's definitely taken some time
to transition to it, but I rarely walk nowadays, even on steep climbs.

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

IP: Logged

posted Jul-26-2007 06:40 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.

---

martin - are you on a mac? on my mac with 10.3, the only browser
I can access it with is netscape. On macs with 10.4, I can use
safari or firefox without a problem. That only started a few months
ago.

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

IP: Logged

posted Jul-26-2007 06:42 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by arkady8:
A somewhat inane question on my favorite Cool Runnings thread:

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!

---

Have you tried using body glide?

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

IP: Logged

posted Jul-26-2007 06:44 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by fredurie:
Hi/low HR training, age 59

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.

---

Cool stuff!

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

IP: Logged

posted Jul-26-2007 06:57 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by arkady8:
A somewhat inane question on my favorite Cool Runnings thread:

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!

---

arkady,

When you say that it makes your sternum sore...are you actually wearing it across your pectoral muscles? I wear mine directly under my pecs and can't imagine how it could ever make my sternum sore. The FR305 strap seems to work well for just about everybody.

IP: Logged

posted Jul-26-2007 07:43 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by aharmer:
arkady,

When you say that it makes your sternum sore...are you actually wearing it across your pectoral muscles? I wear mine directly under my pecs and can't imagine how it could ever make my sternum sore. The FR305 strap seems to work well for just about everybody.

---

I agree. Just under the pecs is where it needs to be. I have never had a single problem with my FR305 strap, even when I have it too loose and have to adjust it every half mile. (hate it when I do that)

My wife has a Polar strap, and we actually have another Polar strap from our TM we bought this spring. Both of those work very well.

IP: Logged

posted Jul-26-2007 08:24 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Docster:
I agree. Just under the pecs is where it needs to be. I have never had a single problem with my FR305 strap, even when I have it too loose and have to adjust it every half mile. (hate it when I do that)

My wife has a Polar strap, and we actually have another Polar strap from our TM we bought this spring. Both of those work very well.

---

docster,

Another trick that works well for me is to wet the actual strap as well, not just the electrode pads. It seems to make it "stick" to my back and eliminates the falling strap issue.

IP: Logged

posted Jul-27-2007 07:58 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by aharmer:
docster,

Another trick that works well for me is to wet the actual strap as well, not just the electrode pads. It seems to make it "stick" to my back and eliminates the falling strap issue.

---

Yeah, that's not a bad idea...at least in the warmer months. Forget that during the winter.

I've noticed it the worst when I use a bit of soap and water. It adds just enough slickness to cause my problem. However, now that I got part of my strap replaced by Garmin (I broke one of the "knobs" that connects the 2 pieces of the strap together) it's worked great.

IP: Logged

posted Jul-27-2007 08:25 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by leitnerj:
martin - are you on a mac? on my mac with 10.3, the only browser
I can access it with is netscape. On macs with 10.4, I can use
safari or firefox without a problem. That only started a few months
ago.

---

No, my work computer considers your FAQ's an "unauthorized site." What kind of smut are you storing there anyway? Big Brother can be fickle.

IP: Logged

posted Jul-27-2007 09:49 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by aharmer:
arkady,

When you say that it makes your sternum sore...are you actually wearing it across your pectoral muscles? I wear mine directly under my pecs and can't imagine how it could ever make my sternum sore. The FR305 strap seems to work well for just about everybody.

---

Thanks for all the responses! It's not really making my sternum sore; there's friction on the skin where it hits my sternum, and the skin gets rubbed raw. I don't get the marathon-bloody-nipples-of-death condition, but after long runs, the skin will be injured enough to form a scab. I've wet it before, but will try BodyGlide. Maybe I twist too much ... At any rate, if I can get the right feel for my proper LHR pace, perhaps I won't have to wear the monitor every single run.

Happy Friday, and hope you all have great long runs this weekend!

IP: Logged

posted Jul-27-2007 10:03 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by arkady8:
Thanks for all the responses! It's not really making my sternum sore; there's friction on the skin where it hits my sternum, and the skin gets rubbed raw. I don't get the marathon-bloody-nipples-of-death condition, but after long runs, the skin will be injured enough to form a scab. I've wet it before, but will try BodyGlide. Maybe I twist too much ... At any rate, if I can get the right feel for my proper LHR pace, perhaps I won't have to wear the monitor every single run.

Happy Friday, and hope you all have great long runs this weekend!

---

If it's any consolation, my LHR runs have gotten much more consistent, so not wearing it eventually may be quite possible. Also, as a few have said, "nose breathing" has helped them monitor their pace without a monitor. Hmm.

If it is just one spot rubbing where it hits your sternum, perhaps you could pad that section of the monitor, assuming the sensors are on either side of where it is irritating the skin. Or perhaps just stick a nice piece of moleskin (or other blister preventative adhesive type thingie) on the spot.

IP: Logged

posted Jul-27-2007 10:07 AM            

IP: Logged

posted Jul-27-2007 10:25 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by gdunha:

"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.

---

About a month ago I payed for the information your referring to above. At least the test I payed for included a very helpful, hour long gait analysis.

My MAF according to Maffetone: 180 - 31 (age) - 10 (hypertension) = 139
My "Extensive Areobic Training Zone" according to the LT Test = 133 - 143.

I have a question though: Is there a way to determine Maximum Aerobic Function based on Lactate Threshold? My current LT is 162. The summary indicated that I should do "Extensive Aerobic Training" from 133-143. It also indicated that I should do "Intensive Aerobic Training" from 144-151. How does MAF relate to those 2 zones or to LT? I think (based partially on recent results) its probably actually 143.

IP: Logged

posted Jul-27-2007 10:28 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by leitnerj:
About a year or so ago while running trails with steep climbs, I would
periodically switch to walking when my HR would hit MAF on a climb
and it would slowly go down. Then I started working hard on a "wog,"
sort of a putter and learned to control my heart rate. Now my heart
rate goes up when I switch to a walk as compared to a wog (which
I can now do faster than a brisk walk). It's definitely taken some time
to transition to it, but I rarely walk nowadays, even on steep climbs.

---

Thanks - I tried the wog technique today during my run when my heart rate got too high - quite often given the heat and humidity. It helped me feel like I was still "running" (if you can call moving at a 15 min per mile pace that!) but got my heart rate down without resorting to walking. I'm sure looking forward to running in autumn temps - and it hasn't even been that bad of a summer!

IP: Logged

posted Jul-27-2007 10:44 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hugoriffic:
It's been brought up several times and I really am a bit confused on something. Are we not supposed to walk or can we?? Even with my modified MAF (180 - (37 - 10) = 133) I haven't been and, yeah, it's tough but I thought walking was a no-no. I guess in some instances you really couldn't say that I am "running", but I am not walking either. More like a 95 year old man slow shuffle.

---

I can't see how walking would hinder your progress--you're better off keeping your HR down, in my opinion. So walk if you have to. But, it does make sense that you want to be working your running muscles aerobically to see all the benefits from LHR, so keeping the walking to a minimum is probably a good idea.

Personally, I do the "95 year old man slow shuffle" until I get into really long runs. Short walking periods are good for giving the joints a break on long runs, I think.

IP: Logged

posted Jul-27-2007 11:04 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by jjwaverly42:
Wondering if you should let go of "the known" and should jump into this counter-culture training.

---

I suppose you could call it counter-culture training, but it's very similar to what others have advocated for a long time, as far back as Dr. Ernst Van Aaken, and later advocated by Tom Osler and and Joe Henderson among many others.

IP: Logged

posted Jul-27-2007 07:56 PM               

Can someone explain what a "wog" looks like?

Thanks!

~Shell

IP: Logged

posted Jul-27-2007 08:07 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by martinjames:
No, my work computer considers your FAQ's an "unauthorized site." What kind of smut are you storing there anyway? Big Brother can be fickle.

---

ah, at work, well, you know the extent of my smut-peddling! no wonder
you can't get on.

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

IP: Logged

posted Jul-27-2007 08:22 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by corland14:
About a month ago I payed for the information your referring to above. At least the test I payed for included a very helpful, hour long gait analysis.

My MAF according to Maffetone: 180 - 31 (age) - 10 (hypertension) = 139
My "Extensive Areobic Training Zone" according to the LT Test = 133 - 143.

I have a question though: Is there a way to determine Maximum Aerobic Function based on Lactate Threshold? My current LT is 162. The summary indicated that I should do "Extensive Aerobic Training" from 133-143. It also indicated that I should do "Intensive Aerobic Training" from 144-151. How does MAF relate to those 2 zones or to LT? I think (based partially on recent results) its probably actually 143.

---

Ok, well there are more questions in there than you think you
actually asked! First, it's important to discuss lactate threshold.
Unfortunately, there is not much of a standard definition for lactate
threshold, so we would have to know how it was defined for your
measurement. Typically, the specific definition has to do with a
certain rate of lactic acid accumulation, determined by taking
blood at various times during the test (did they take your blood
during the test?) I don't think the figure for that rate is standard
across the board, so there may be some variance there. Others
may estimate lactate threshold based on a various parameters.
It is also not unusual for some to use LT interchangeably with
anaerobic threshold and have it actually equate to the point where
RQ just = 1 (100% carb for fuel). Now, generally speaking the
LT and AT should be pretty close together, so it's probably a
decent assumption to assume they are the same. Based on
that assumption, following a low HR approach would put you
between about 80-85% AT for a MAF range, so that would give
you 130-138. I wouldn't strain your brain too hard to correlate
all of these. They're just estimates on zones which are "aerobic"
to varying degrees, the lower being the ones that really train
you to use fat as a fuel and keep you in the greatest abundance
of slow-twitch fibers, and the higher one being where you get
the most leg turnover while still staying highly aerobic and using
mostly fat as a fuel. If you were given RQ values for your test,
another approach is to stay between about .78 and .85 to see
the low HR type of results.

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

IP: Logged

posted Jul-27-2007 08:24 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by purelyshell:

I am diligently following this thread and getting lots of great info but:

Can someone explain what a "wog" looks like?

Thanks!

~Shell

---

It's a little bit like one of those little wind up toys with very
short choppy steps. Probably need a video to describe!

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

IP: Logged

posted Jul-27-2007 11:02 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by purelyshell:

I am diligently following this thread and getting lots of great info but:

Can someone explain what a "wog" looks like?

Thanks!

~Shell

---

I don't wog, I be-bop. Basically it's a walk with a bounce. If you really need to see it I would think that watching a local track team during a 'jog' phase in between intervals will do it. I take really small steps and someone could easily walk past me as I do this. In fact, back in HS, the sprinters would usually walk past us silly distances runners and stare at us as we be-bopped.

Did that help?

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

IP: Logged

posted Jul-28-2007 08:50 AM            

I am doing about 85% walking. It is hot and humid, and with "heartrate drift" I try to be around 134 but often end up in the 140s.

If I run with my usual fast cadence I quickly am in anerobic territory. So I run very slowly (but with fast cadence) in short segments, when needed.

But I am still mostly walking.

Before I could run up to an hour but I ran dreadfully slowly and with poor form. (I am always barefoot).

Anyone else mostly walking? Or was this your situation?

IP: Logged

posted Jul-28-2007 12:25 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by briantelope:
I can't see how walking would hinder your progress--you're better off keeping your HR down, in my opinion. So walk if you have to. But, it does make sense that you want to be working your running muscles aerobically to see all the benefits from LHR, so keeping the walking to a minimum is probably a good idea.

Personally, I do the "95 year old man slow shuffle" until I get into really long runs. Short walking periods are good for giving the joints a break on long runs, I think.

---

IP: Logged