posted Jul-30-2007 03:13 PM            

bluelake

IP: Logged

posted Jul-30-2007 11:38 PM            

Mittleman talks about doing most of his runs these days at a slow, fat burning HR of 100-125. Yet... he never talks about racing a marathon or shorter distance. His book is all about overall health.

Racing a marathon isn't necessarily healthy; do it enough and you could break down. OTOH, running at 60% of your max HR for miles and miles with a good diet is healthy; but generally isn't motivational enough for most people.

IP: Logged

posted Jul-31-2007 04:42 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by bluelake:
I agree about eating for your blood type and body acidity. It was a little too far out for me. I do agree, however, about eating more fat. I think the low fat fad made a lot of us fatter. Fat is what gives food satiety and flavor. I was also intrigued by his position on carb loading. He contradicts what most other experts say about carb loading. My limited experience has been that I don't need any carbs to sustain me through a long run. What do others think?

bluelake

---

I have to agree that, in my opinion, the blood type stuff is such nonsense (it's also a business that Mittleman is in).

The energy for long runs, just like the energy you use throughout the day, should come mostly from fat. That's the fat we have in storage, so there's a huge supply, even in a lean person. It's the whole idea behind low heart rate training -- burning more fat.

IP: Logged

posted Jul-31-2007 06:07 PM               

I think Maffetone talks about RQ a lot in his books and articles, it's one of the scientific pieces of the program.

There was a discussion about how the 180 formula came about. Based on a lecture that Maffetone gave some years ago, I have a good idea how he derived it. He used a gas analyzer in his clinic to find the best training heart rates in athletes during base building. This test measures respiratory quotient (as we’ve discussed here many times), which is a measure of fat and sugar utilization. As you slowly increase the running speed on a treadmill, you can see the fat and sugar mixture change, and at some point the RQ suddenly increases. Maffetone chose the corresponding heart rate right before this deflection point as the max aerobic HR. Many of us in exercise physiology use this test, but didn’t relate to it in this way. What was most interesting is that Maffetone was able to find a mathematical formula that predicts the same deflection point as the treadmill test, with surprising accuracy.

I’ve performed these tests myself on many athletes, and the work he did made perfect sense. Over the years I’ve compared the 180 formula to a variety of others and found Maffetone’s formula to be very accurate in a corresponding gas analyzer evaluation. I also use it in my own running.

IP: Logged

posted Jul-31-2007 10:17 PM               

------------------
Troy

Running resume

My running log

IP: Logged

posted Jul-31-2007 11:00 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by DavidD:
There was a discussion about how the 180 formula came about. Based on a lecture that Maffetone gave some years ago, I have a good idea how he derived it. He used a gas analyzer in his clinic to find the best training heart rates in athletes during base building. This test measures respiratory quotient (as we’ve discussed here many times), which is a measure of fat and sugar utilization. As you slowly increase the running speed on a treadmill, you can see the fat and sugar mixture change, and at some point the RQ suddenly increases. Maffetone chose the corresponding heart rate right before this deflection point as the max aerobic HR. Many of us in exercise physiology use this test, but didn’t relate to it in this way. What was most interesting is that Maffetone was able to find a mathematical formula that predicts the same deflection point as the treadmill test, with surprising accuracy.

I’ve performed these tests myself on many athletes, and the work he did made perfect sense. Over the years I’ve compared the 180 formula to a variety of others and found Maffetone’s formula to be very accurate in a corresponding gas analyzer evaluation. I also use it in my own running.

---

I'd be interested to know the ages of the athletes. I think Maffetone's formula works fine for an age range of a lot of runners, but not the really young, nor above a certain age.

The problem is that he subtracted. In reality; I think dividing would be more accurate. I've found that people's MAF tends to decline by about 1% per year. Maffetone's formula makes it about 1 beat per year. Overtime, that makes a sizable difference, but it takes a while.

IP: Logged

posted Aug-01-2007 06:23 AM            

Temp was 64, dew point 61. It didn't seem that bad out there, but it must have been because I was SO slow and my heart rate was all over the place. I'd jog for awhile, notice my heart rate was almost to MAF, stop and walk, it would go up a few beats above MAF and then PLUMMET to MAF-10. I'd jog for awhile and the process would repeat itself. I guess its a sign that MAFFing is working that my heart rate plummeted after only a short distance walking?

I just wanted to complain. Carry on.

IP: Logged

posted Aug-01-2007 08:18 AM               

The other question is what does everyone eat if you can't run first thing in the morning - I tend to have to wait until 10 or so, once I get my kids in camp (roll on school - they'll be out of here by 8:30!!!) so I need to eat something or I feel a bit dizzy, but it seems too close to breakfast to eat carbs. I know eggs will work, I thought Greek yogurt also might (very low carbs, no added sugar) but I was wondering what else people ate if they needed a bit of food before they could run. Spoonfuls of peanut butter???

IP: Logged

posted Aug-01-2007 10:41 AM            

Lyn

IP: Logged

posted Aug-01-2007 11:23 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by dfcameron:
I'd be interested to know the ages of the athletes. I think Maffetone's formula works fine for an age range of a lot of runners, but not the really young, nor above a certain age.

The problem is that he subtracted. In reality; I think dividing would be more accurate. I've found that people's MAF tends to decline by about 1% per year. Maffetone's formula makes it about 1 beat per year. Overtime, that makes a sizable difference, but it takes a while.

---

He had hundreds of athletes in the slides I saw, and that was back in '85 or '86. He says (don't quote me on this -- maybe someone has a book to check) the formula is not applicable for those around 16 years and under (and to use 165 HR). And for those 60 or 65 years and older, who may need some slight modifications in the final max aerobic HR.

A mathematical formula is not a problem if you arrive at the 'right' conclusion -- in this case, finding the same HR that corresponds with the start of fat burning reduction. There are probably other ways to come up with the same number, but this one works fine.

The loss of one beat per year is interesting, but Maffetone says once you've established an effective HR that gives you aerobic speed, stay with it. After that about every 5 years there should be an average drop of about 3 beats depending on progress.

I think one of the keys is to be conservative with your HR, and not try sneaking in an extra beat or two (or 4 or 5). I've seen changes on the treadmill of only 2 or 3 beats where fat-burning reduces significantly.

IP: Logged

posted Aug-01-2007 11:59 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by lyn1952:
I'm new to this thread, but I'm finding this concept in training to be really interesting. If you've got a minute, please read my post and give me any feedback you think might be constructive. I'm a 55 year old female. I tried running back in my 40's but (seriously) could never move beyond running 3 miles tops! I think I did that ONCE! I just couldn't do it without being so fatigued that it just wasn't worth it. I've always had a fast heart rate while running -- in the 180's, 190's. I just couldn't keep it down and still be running. I've had a cardiac workup and they say everything is okay. Well, I gave up running a few years ago due to a problem that has since been surgically corrected. I'm now trying to get back into it by using the C25K program. I'm currently on W6D2 which is "walk 5, run 10, walk 3, run 10, walk 5." I did that on the treadmill today for two reasons: 1. the humidity outside, and 2. I wanted to try to watch my speed and heartrate more closely. Okay, in order to keep my HR anywhere near 130-135 (which I think is the right range for me) I had to slow down so much that I typically walk faster than that. However, I made myself keep a running "posture" throughout. If I changed to a walking posture, my HR went down. The posture seemed to be the only real difference, not speed. Am I doing this right? I'm really thinking that this way of training just may be my ticket to successfully increasing my time and distance in the future if I can slow myself down enough. Any advice, criticism, encouragement out there for this baby boomer who's trying to stay fit?
Thanks. This is a really interesting thread.

Lyn

---

Hi Lyn,

For what its worth, I've only been following MAF for threeish weeks, but I have read all the threads and FAQ's. I think that the big dogs will agree that if you have poor aerobic conditioning then you will have a fast heart rate no matter what and MAF will be right for you. And if MAF makes you slow down so much that it's a bit uncomfortable and that you can almost walk faster, then again, MAF is exactly right for you. I have the same experience and I'm just a 26 year old female who's pretty out of shape. And as far as the 'posture' I think you'll find a lot of people who advocate a sort of 'bebopping' type posture when you're running so slowly that you could walk faster. I think Jesse calls it a slog. It's like you're moving your feet quickly but going slowly. I call it 'walking with a hop' because I still try to 'run' but slowly. If I go to a normal walking cadence and stride rate, my heart rate also goes down at the same speed as when I was bebopping along.

I guess another question would be: how did the run today when you kept your heart rate lower feel? Did it feel as strenuous as before when you were so fatigued you couldn't go over 3 miles? A big benefit to MAF is that you mix in walk breaks and slow down so that you can go longer without feeling like you've done anything. Maybe that alone is worth it.

I think what the big dogs would say is commit to 6-12 weeks of pure MAF. Do some running on the treadmill. Don't worry about the day to day differences in your speed. Mix walking in to keep the heartrate low and see what your results are in those 6-12 weeks. This strategy is for the long haul, over time, and promotes good health before fast running. If after the 12 weeks you feel you aren't improving, then reassess.

OK, big dogs (aka aharmer, Jesse, Jimmy, Nick, etc etc etc...) what do you think of my response? Is my devotion showing enough?

IP: Logged

posted Aug-01-2007 12:32 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by DavidD:
He had hundreds of athletes in the slides I saw, and that was back in '85 or '86. He says (don't quote me on this -- maybe someone has a book to check) the formula is not applicable for those around 16 years and under (and to use 165 HR). And for those 60 or 65 years and older, who may need some slight modifications in the final max aerobic HR.

A mathematical formula is not a problem if you arrive at the 'right' conclusion -- in this case, finding the same HR that corresponds with the start of fat burning reduction. There are probably other ways to come up with the same number, but this one works fine.

The loss of one beat per year is interesting, but Maffetone says once you've established an effective HR that gives you aerobic speed, stay with it. After that about every 5 years there should be an average drop of about 3 beats depending on progress.

I think one of the keys is to be conservative with your HR, and not try sneaking in an extra beat or two (or 4 or 5). I've seen changes on the treadmill of only 2 or 3 beats where fat-burning reduces significantly.

---

I agree.... The one point I do want to make is that I mention all this primarily for the sake of your last paragraph - be conservative.

Maffetone's actual formula base (180 minus age) is straight arithmetic in that for every year you age, your MAF goes down by 1. That's inconsistent with the "average drop of 3 beats in 5 years".

We're all an experiment of one. I've been running for 29 years; and have a lot of running friends. We've found that for me, and many of them, that MAF drops by 1% a year on average over a long period of time. This is more conservative than Maffetone's formula of 1 beat per year (because it implies a bigger drop in MAF using the 1% than subtracting 1 beat) or the "average drop of 3 beats in 5 years" which implies an even lesser drop.

I firmly believe in the physiology of Maffetone; I'm just modifying the formula because I believe the percentage drop is more accurate than the absolute drop - and it is far better to be overly conservative and run below MAF than risk running above it.

IP: Logged

posted Aug-01-2007 01:35 PM            

I'm 46 and have now been MAFing in earnest since June 1. Before beginning to MAF, I was running "all out" every time I ran... and dying after 3 miles, 3 times a week, with a 12:30ish mm pace. My goals beginning MAF were:
1) to increase my endurance (be able to run longer)
2) to ease wear and tear on my body (be able to run more often)
3) [eventually] to increase my speed

I'm doing well, I think... I've raised my sights toward a HM. I'm running six days a week, 30+ miles a week now. (147 miles in July). I am having no pain and very little fatigue.

I am not speedy -- yet. I began MAFing at 17:40mm. I'm down in the 15mm range most days now, a long way from where I'd like to be, but... I am now able to incorporate hills, which provides both an uphill and a downhill benefit MAF-wise. (When I first started MAFing, I couldn't even walk up a slight incline without going above my MAF max of 129.)

My first HM will be the Baltimore HM on October 13. I'm doing the Cool Running intermediate HM plan, but continuing 'straight' MAF through Week 5 of the training plan (my 12th week of MAF). Then I'll make one day each week a faster run (tempo, fartleks, intervals, or whatever).

After that, I'll probably go back to basebuilding below MAF, because I know I can use a lot more of it.

Best of luck to you. LHR training is definitely working for me!

IP: Logged

posted Aug-01-2007 10:00 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by dfcameron:
I agree.... The one point I do want to make is that I mention all this primarily for the sake of your last paragraph - be conservative.

Maffetone's actual formula base (180 minus age) is straight arithmetic in that for every year you age, your MAF goes down by 1. That's inconsistent with the "average drop of 3 beats in 5 years".

We're all an experiment of one. I've been running for 29 years; and have a lot of running friends. We've found that for me, and many of them, that MAF drops by 1% a year on average over a long period of time. This is more conservative than Maffetone's formula of 1 beat per year (because it implies a bigger drop in MAF using the 1% than subtracting 1 beat) or the "average drop of 3 beats in 5 years" which implies an even lesser drop.

I firmly believe in the physiology of Maffetone; I'm just modifying the formula because I believe the percentage drop is more accurate than the absolute drop - and it is far better to be overly conservative and run below MAF than risk running above it.

---

Yes, agreed. The conservative issue is very important, and one too often not followed by those who don't succeed with this approach.

I think once you're well established with MAF training, as the years pass you'll know how to adjust your max aerobic HR. One thing I like about Maffetone is that he stresses the importance of finding out what works for you, rather than following some formula (The 180 formula, and other things of his, are a starting point, he claims, until you become more intuitive/instinctive). In my case, I let my MAF test (along with other things) guide me. On more than one occasion over the many years I've had to adjust my max aerobic HR, or maybe I should say, be reminded to adjust it (by lowering it a couple of beats).

I'm not clear on your comment, "Maffetone's actual formula base (180 minus age) is straight arithmetic in that for every year you age, your MAF goes down by 1." I understand the math, but I don't believe the 180 or the result of 180-age means anything, unlike 220-age which supposed to mean max HR (which it doesn't in most people). It's a part of the formula that is a means to the end number, which is your max aerobic HR.

IP: Logged

posted Aug-02-2007 05:40 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by DavidD:
I'm not clear on your comment, "Maffetone's actual formula base (180 minus age) is straight arithmetic in that for every year you age, your MAF goes down by 1." I understand the math, but I don't believe the 180 or the result of 180-age means anything, unlike 220-age which supposed to mean max HR (which it doesn't in most people). It's a part of the formula that is a means to the end number, which is your max aerobic HR.

---

Oh just that, OK - if you're 30 years old, you start off with 180-30 - and initial MAF is 150 (unless you're adding for aerobic base/experience). Now, age yourself 10 years. You're 40 years old. 180-40 = MAF of 140.

So... you've aged 10 years, and your MAF starting point has lowered by 10 beats. Hence, its straight arithmetic. Every thing else held constant, your MAF goes down by 1 beat each year you age.

I believe between 30 and 40, it really doesn't matter whether you drop by 1 beat or 1% - differences are slight. I think the reason MAF needs further adjustment is that its really a percentage drop per year, not an absolute drop per year. That's why the formula isn't as good a starting point for people who are 20 or who are 65. If Maffetone had used MAF as a percentage of age (or a function thereof) it would hold better throughout all ages.

Either way... MAF will change due to factors other than age; as you mentioned, its a starting point.

For me, I'm 44. My MAF is 145. I just know by feel since I run a lot and have experimented a lot. If you take 180 - 44 =136 and add 10 (for lots of running and aerobic base) you get 146 - which is amazingly close.

The significant thing about it all is getting the number right, or else underestimating. I can run at 145 HR or under for 3 hours and bounce back the next day with no issues - unless I tried to do it every day - my tendons would protest. But, if I ran at 146 HR for 3 hours; I'm tired the next day. Its a fine line.

IP: Logged

posted Aug-02-2007 06:23 PM               

It seems that MAF isn't appropriate for someone with my type of mileage. Can I run at a "Comfortable" pace and extend the distances I run? I'm kind of confused as to what direction to go. Someone told me recently that at my age I could just do purely basebuilding and improve. I've never had a coach FWIW. I'd appreciate any responses or suggestions. You guys/gals are AWESOME at what you've accomplished.

IP: Logged

posted Aug-02-2007 08:26 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by dfcameron:
Oh just that, OK - if you're 30 years old, you start off with 180-30 - and initial MAF is 150 (unless you're adding for aerobic base/experience). Now, age yourself 10 years. You're 40 years old. 180-40 = MAF of 140.

So... you've aged 10 years, and your MAF starting point has lowered by 10 beats. Hence, its straight arithmetic. Every thing else held constant, your MAF goes down by 1 beat each year you age.

I believe between 30 and 40, it really doesn't matter whether you drop by 1 beat or 1% - differences are slight. I think the reason MAF needs further adjustment is that its really a percentage drop per year, not an absolute drop per year. That's why the formula isn't as good a starting point for people who are 20 or who are 65. If Maffetone had used MAF as a percentage of age (or a function thereof) it would hold better throughout all ages.

Either way... MAF will change due to factors other than age; as you mentioned, its a starting point.

For me, I'm 44. My MAF is 145. I just know by feel since I run a lot and have experimented a lot. If you take 180 - 44 =136 and add 10 (for lots of running and aerobic base) you get 146 - which is amazingly close.

The significant thing about it all is getting the number right, or else underestimating. I can run at 145 HR or under for 3 hours and bounce back the next day with no issues - unless I tried to do it every day - my tendons would protest. But, if I ran at 146 HR for 3 hours; I'm tired the next day. Its a fine line.

---

It is a fine line. I've measured students right before exam time and the reduction in fat burning (due to the stress) is sometimes dramatic. Translated to running, it would be a very significant slowing in pace.

I always thought about the 180 formula as something you do just once (assuming you find an effective HR) and stick with until the need to reduce it comes about, a few years (or whenever) later. This presents a very different scenario, one where you don't recalculate your max aerobic HR each year. I always thought that's what Maffetone had done. Anyone familiar with this issue?

IP: Logged

posted Aug-02-2007 08:32 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by MidPacker:
I'm coming at LOW HR training from a different slant than most of you. You all seem to be very experienced runners, ie: marathons, ultras, tris. I wish I was in that kind of shape. I'm 55 and looking to run comfortably on my runs, work up a sweat and keep the pounds off. In any case I'm olny looking to do 5 miler or some 10K races. As few as 3 or 4 races a year. Maybe someday a half marathon. Currently I just don't have the time to train that much. I'm running only 15-18 miles a week. All the runs are in the 3 mile range and the pace is 11-12 min/mile.

It seems that MAF isn't appropriate for someone with my type of mileage. Can I run at a "Comfortable" pace and extend the distances I run? I'm kind of confused as to what direction to go. Someone told me recently that at my age I could just do purely basebuilding and improve. I've never had a coach FWIW. I'd appreciate any responses or suggestions. You guys/gals are AWESOME at what you've accomplished.

---

MidPacker, I encourage you to do the things we're talking about here. You don't seem different in your training and goals than a lot of folks here.

Also read the new article on Maffetone's website (www.philmaffetone.com) called Want Speed, Slow Down! It's in Health and Fitness (under members). While you're at it, listen to his great music.

Above all, have fun.

IP: Logged

posted Aug-02-2007 08:38 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by DavidD:
It is a fine line. I've measured students right before exam time and the reduction in fat burning (due to the stress) is sometimes dramatic. Translated to running, it would be a very significant slowing in pace.

I always thought about the 180 formula as something you do just once (assuming you find an effective HR) and stick with until the need to reduce it comes about, a few years (or whenever) later. This presents a very different scenario, one where you don't recalculate your max aerobic HR each year. I always thought that's what Maffetone had done. Anyone familiar with this issue?

---

I think the discussion is a moot point. Say one year = one heart
beat. That's in the noise. After one year, if you've been putting
in most of your mileage below the originally-calculated MAF heart
rate, I'm quite sure that you can run 2, 3, 5, maybe 10 or more
beats higher than that value and still probably get the same effect
(likely running at the same or lower RQ value, i.e., using the same
or higher percentage fat for fuel). Now, if you haven't been running
most mileage below MAF, or at least training very well aerobically
in some way, you'll probably have to reset and recalculate your
current value.

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

IP: Logged

posted Aug-02-2007 10:40 PM            

--Jimmy

@@@@
MAF log

IP: Logged

posted Aug-02-2007 11:37 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by DavidD:
It is a fine line. I've measured students right before exam time and the reduction in fat burning (due to the stress) is sometimes dramatic. Translated to running, it would be a very significant slowing in pace.

I always thought about the 180 formula as something you do just once (assuming you find an effective HR) and stick with until the need to reduce it comes about, a few years (or whenever) later. This presents a very different scenario, one where you don't recalculate your max aerobic HR each year. I always thought that's what Maffetone had done. Anyone familiar with this issue?

---

Well... the formula implies that you should recalculate your max aerobic HR as you age.

I haven't actually done that - but I've empirically noticed that my MAF has fallen over the last decade by about 7 beats. After a lot of running, I'd imagine I've got a feel for where that point is.

IP: Logged

posted Aug-02-2007 11:43 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by leitnerj:
I think the discussion is a moot point. Say one year = one heart
beat. That's in the noise. After one year, if you've been putting
in most of your mileage below the originally-calculated MAF heart
rate, I'm quite sure that you can run 2, 3, 5, maybe 10 or more
beats higher than that value and still probably get the same effect
(likely running at the same or lower RQ value, i.e., using the same
or higher percentage fat for fuel). Now, if you haven't been running
most mileage below MAF, or at least training very well aerobically
in some way, you'll probably have to reset and recalculate your
current value.

---

No offense, Jesse, in that you've contributed way more analysis - and valid analysis - than anyone else here - but you've still only been running for 3 or 4 years. I've been running for 29 years. I started MAF training (w/o knowing the name) in 1992. I've deviated periodically since then, but with bad results. Over 15 years, the "1 beat per year" becomes significant. In reality, my MAF hasn't declined by 15 beats in 15 years, but again, its been about 1% every 2 years (for me, the percent works far better). But... I can just estimate it based on feel in runs. At least for me, I really do need to "reset the MAF HR" periodically over long periods of time.

I do agree that the pace in which you run at MAF will improve - and in fact, I'm running faster now at MAF than I have over the last 3 years despite aging a bit. That's partly because the Garmin 305 is reliable enough where I only go over MAF if I plan to, and partly because I have 6 straight weeks of 80 miles/week; something I've never done. But, the MAF HR is lower than 3 years ago - and nothing I've been able to do will change that.

Either way, the point is to run at or below MAF for the vast majority of runs - I'm just trying to point out that Maffetone's formula implies that MAF drops as you age; and I fully agree - just doesn't drop quite as fast as the formula would imply if you keep in good shape.

IP: Logged

posted Aug-02-2007 11:45 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by rhoon phast:
So...my MAF is supposed to be 149. I have been trying to keep my HR in the 140 range, but I keep finding myself thinking about work or something I need to do, and then I look down and my HR is over 150. Sometimes way over. I slow back down, then it happens again. We're talking less than 1% of my running time. How big a problem is this? Am I destroying the very work I'm doing with these brief forays into no-no land?

---

Not really... the key is to slip back under MAF somewhat quickly. The delay in building the aerobic base comes from running too frequently above MAF.

IP: Logged

posted Aug-02-2007 11:48 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Aetheana:
Man, I had a miserable "run" this morning.

Temp was 64, dew point 61. It didn't seem that bad out there, but it must have been because I was SO slow and my heart rate was all over the place. I'd jog for awhile, notice my heart rate was almost to MAF, stop and walk, it would go up a few beats above MAF and then PLUMMET to MAF-10. I'd jog for awhile and the process would repeat itself. I guess its a sign that MAFFing is working that my heart rate plummeted after only a short distance walking?

I just wanted to complain. Carry on.

---

I think you're right. Over the last week (I live in Chicago - avg high has been 90 with about 60% humidity) I've gradually increased the pace and recovery from where I started. Usually I run about 8:45 min/mi pace at MAF under ideal conditions. I started at 10:30 min/mi pace when we first hit 90. Today was 9:40 min/mi pace at MAF - after 5 days of this warmer weather.

If the humidity were higher, I wouldn't be doing so well.

I'm headed to Utah for a week on Saturday - and really looking forward to the dry air.

IP: Logged

posted Aug-02-2007 11:50 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by jamjat:
It seems to me that with the high humidity we're all facing heart rates can really jump quickly. The other posting about how heart rates jumping when thinking about work was really interesting to me - stress really is a huge factor - while running a few days ago I saw another runner almost get attacked by a dog about 15 feet away from me - my monitor jumped from 135 to 158 instantly just watching this. And yesterday, I had to sit my 8 year old in a shady corner of the track while I ran, and I noticed that for the part of the loop where I couldn't see her, my heart rate jumped about 8 points and then came right back down when she got back into view. After 2 loops of that I decided to keep changing directions and just run back and around the parts that I could see - I was just running for 45 min so I didn't really care about knowing how much distance it was anyway. I wonder if with low heart rate training over time will it help with keeping my heart rate lower when stresses occur?

The other question is what does everyone eat if you can't run first thing in the morning - I tend to have to wait until 10 or so, once I get my kids in camp (roll on school - they'll be out of here by 8:30!!!) so I need to eat something or I feel a bit dizzy, but it seems too close to breakfast to eat carbs. I know eggs will work, I thought Greek yogurt also might (very low carbs, no added sugar) but I was wondering what else people ate if they needed a bit of food before they could run. Spoonfuls of peanut butter???

---

When I'm in your situation, I actually eat pizza for breakfast. It gets me some carbs from the crust; and protein from the cheese and meat. But... I don't think I'd recommend it. Mittleman would cringe.

I think you do need some carbs; but not simple sugars, though.

IP: Logged