posted Aug-02-2007 11:54 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by MidPacker:
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.

---

For me, sub-MAF is a "comfortable" pace. My MAF is 144-145. I do runs at 130; and can solve the world's problems at that pace. Even up to 144-145; I still feel comfortable. I've accustomed to the point where 146-147 is a noticeable difference.

Seems once you get several weeks of this under your belt; you may feel that way.

Now I'd better stop posting; I have 4 in a row - and Jesse will feel like I'm taking over... <grin>

IP: Logged

posted Aug-03-2007 05:30 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by dfcameron:
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.

---

Why would I take offense? We should get a variety of perspectives
here!

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

IP: Logged

posted Aug-03-2007 08:30 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by dfcameron:
For me, sub-MAF is a "comfortable" pace. My MAF is 144-145. I do runs at 130; and can solve the world's problems at that pace. Even up to 144-145; I still feel comfortable. I've accustomed to the point where 146-147 is a noticeable difference.

Seems once you get several weeks of this under your belt; you may feel that way.

Now I'd better stop posting; I have 4 in a row - and Jesse will feel like I'm taking over... <grin>

---

6 in a row, but who's counting?

IP: Logged

posted Aug-03-2007 10:36 AM               

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???

---

If you plan to head out for your run at 10:00, and you're up by 7:00, you could eat anything you want, really. Just don't eat again until after your run. I suffer from hypoglycemia, and generally have to eat a little something immediately before I head out. My favourite choice is a couple of eggs, but I have also done the spoonful of natural peanut butter as well (no sugar!!!). Yesterday, I did 10 miles on 1oz of cheddar cheese, and I felt completely fine!

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

IP: Logged

posted Aug-03-2007 02:59 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.

---

Yeah, like that guy I know who got a VO2 test, trained strictly below his aerobic threshold for 6 months, got another VO2 test... and his aerobic threshold had gone up 30 bpm.

IP: Logged

posted Aug-03-2007 03:34 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by slowgino:
Yeah, like that guy I know who got a VO2 test, trained strictly below his aerobic threshold for 6 months, got another VO2 test... and his aerobic threshold had gone up 30 bpm.

---

That's the hope for all of us! Man, I wish I had that much room to improve my aerobic threshold!

IP: Logged

posted Aug-03-2007 07:15 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by slowgino:
Yeah, like that guy I know who got a VO2 test, trained strictly below his aerobic threshold for 6 months, got another VO2 test... and his aerobic threshold had gone up 30 bpm.

---

Wow.....I would kill for that about right now. (wouldn't we all?)

Heck, I'd take 10.

It makes me wonder though....his aerobic base must have been shot to have that happen. (and perhaps other more subtle factors?)

IP: Logged

posted Aug-03-2007 09:07 PM            

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."

---

Yes, a VO2 test is the best way for most of us mortals to get a “personalized” set of training zones. I’m sure professional/elite athletes have that and much more at their disposal to set up and monitor individual training plans. They also have coaches who are experienced and successful, and who will monitor their progress.

Lacking a VO2 test to determine your Aerobic Threshold (AeT), there are various simple formulas (including Maffetone’s 180 formula) and lots of rules of thumb (conversation test, HR recovery, how you feel after runs, “nose breathing” test, etc.) Will some of these work for you? Probably, but which ones? That’s hard to tell, because of individual differences. For what it’s worth, I’ll give you one example of individual differences.

I got a quick look at some VO2 tests for a number of runners, cyclists, and triathletes. The data I saw was pretty minimal: just age, AeT, AT, and a maximum measured HR and VO2. Caveats: I don’t know for sure which RQ value the test equipment used to determine AeT, just that it was the same for all tested. The max measured HR was not MHR, just the point beyond AT at which the tester stopped the test.

Ok, first of all, I would guess the RQ value used was not too different from whatever Maffetone used in developing his 180 formula (I assume he did VO2 tests, etc…) The reason is that the best fit to the AeT by a linear function of age for the 75 or so samples I saw comes out VERY close to 175-age. Yes, I have a lot more precision than that with less pretty numbers, but 175-age is at most 1 bpm off of the more precise fit, for ages 25-55. This is without any of the adjustments Maffetone recommends for things like medications, illness, injury, training, etc. We have no way of knowing whether those adjustments would decrease the average deviation of AeT from “180MAF”, but my guess is that they might. It’s real easy to see how we might get 175 instead of 180. We could get an average adjustment of –5 bpm if, e.g., 30% were on medication, 50% had been injured or sick within a given period, and just 10% had no injuries/problems and had been improving for years.

Now for the individual differences part of this.
If we just look at the difference between measured AeT and 180-age for the about 30 people aged 35 to 44, this is what we see:
23% are within +/- 10 bpm of 180-age,
13% are 10-20 bpm higher than 180-age,
13% are 10-20 bpm lower than 180-age,
23% are 20 or more bpm higher than 180-age, and
27% are 24 or more bpm lower than 180-age.

It’s worth noting that if we used the 175-age we would have 50% above and 50% below. Would the differences above disappear if we used “180-age with adjustments”? Hmmm. It’s also true that 23% of those folks had a measured AeT more than 25 bpm BELOW 180-age. If they were all on medication and had been sick/injured in the last couple years and started training 10 bpm below that calculated MAF, they would still be training at too high of an HR (i.e. above AeT). How about the 23% whose measured AeT was 20 or more bpm above 180-age? Perhaps they could get more benefit by training above that 180-age MAF.

Just some food for thought.

IP: Logged

posted Aug-03-2007 09:49 PM            

:> )
Nothing personal you old-timers. I respect your experienced pulses.

:> )

--Jimmy

@@@@
MAF log

IP: Logged

posted Aug-03-2007 10:06 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by jjwaverly42:
I have a theory that the older a runner gets, and hence closer to death, they become overly concerned with keeping track of maximum heart rate beat loss (MHRBL).

:> )
Nothing personal you old-timers. I respect your experienced pulses.

:> )

--Jimmy

@@@@
MAF log

---

There you go.... when you get to the point that your maximum heart rate is less than your waking pulse in the morning, you simply don't wake. <grin>

On that note.... I'm headed on vacation away from computers... good luck to everyone.

IP: Logged

posted Aug-03-2007 11:03 PM               

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

Running resume

My running log

IP: Logged

posted Aug-04-2007 08:41 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by dfcameron:
There you go.... when you get to the point that your maximum heart rate is less than your waking pulse in the morning, you simply don't wake. <grin>

---

Yes. When people ask me what a good resting HR is, my answer is " above 0 ".

IP: Logged

posted Aug-04-2007 07:06 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by DanMoriarity:
Yes. When people ask me what a good resting HR is, my answer is " above 0 ".

---

in other words, you always want to stay several beats above
dead.

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

IP: Logged

posted Aug-04-2007 09:53 PM               

I find it rather strange that we've gone through 20 years of training for 'quality' rather than 'quantity' which was primarily marked by erosion of American distance running success. After that period, we are now in what appears to be a steady improvement on the backs of a big stable of elites that are putting in quantity. As well as quality, but certainly quantity.

While many observers seem to key into the increase in quantity, there are a number of voices in the wilderness focusing on quality. The chief voices at Just Running, Power Running, and the FIRST group seem bent on finding a way to run faster without putting in more miles.

Meanwhile, here I am, an inveterate midpacker with no credentials to boast. But I've put in lots of years of running at various levels of intensity. Including many years of running hard every other day for short distances. And now, a few years of increasing mileage and longer distances. But my training still caps out in the 60 mile week range. And I'm having trouble getting over 40 for most of this summer. So I probably shouldn't know much.

But what gets me about the whole topic is that it inevitably falls into a bash of arguments about physiology and science. But the studies are so short term they can't possibly show what I've seen in just my own training experiences. A sample size, and therefore not very scientific, of exactly one.

When I put in a bunch of slow miles, which for me means 40-60 mile weeks with long runs over 15 miles, I get faster. Not a lot faster, but faster. I improve in 5k time trials run every month. I find that the hard running in the time trial is more than my body is used to from all the slow running, so I also find that if I want to minimize finish line leg cramps I have to do some strides in the weeks before such an effort. But the slow running does make me faster.

The next thing, is that as I get into race form I start running some intervals, more tempo work, and adding a progression long run to my schedule. This is after a substantial phase of slow base running. At this point, I get a lot faster. I feel tuned up, nervously fast, and have difficulty taking it easy on an easy day. My times substantially improve, I go through a phase of feeling like I might be on the verge of learning the secret truth of how to take a 210 pound body and qualify for Boston (there's no secret, just lose 25 pounds, it would probably do it...), and then I go into the slow slide. Tired. Overworked. What's wrong here? I slow down, go back to base building, and repeat. Otherwise, if I try to keep that hard effort fitness, I crash and burn.

The proponents of the quality approach seem to basically be focused on the sharpening portion of training. The phase that comes after the base is laid and the racing season is nearing. The funny thing is that it will make you faster. For about 12-16 weeks (in my case). But then it starts wearing you down.

Where's the study that takes two groups of people and assigns them in a double-blind (must be a third-world country with no internet...) fashion to base-building or sharpening schedules for 6 months followed by sharpening for 8 weeks for both groups. Now that is the study we need. But not the one we get. Oh well.

That's the result of my study of one so far. Now that I'm being a bit more regimented about my base-building phase, I'll let you all know how it goes. Right now, I've been putting in the best summer I've had so far in terms of running miles. I'd like it to be a bit more, because I've found those 60 mile weeks make me feel GREAT! And I haven't squeezed one in for months. But summer is a busy time, so I'm taking what I can get and working around it. My first dip back into the quality well should come with a progression long run in mid or late October, so hopefully I'll have a couple 60 mile weeks before then.

Thanks for your patience, we now return to our regularly scheduled base-building program.

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

Running resume

My running log

IP: Logged

posted Aug-06-2007 09:56 AM            

I've been happily LHR Training myself along for some time. No problems, in fact, I'm running more miles now than ever before. I don't know if I'm faster, though, because summer temperatures make it difficult to determine.

I ran 11 miles last Tuesday after work and the heat about killed me. It took me a good couple of hours before I felt right after returning home. Feeling blah, fatigued and unmotivated, I took the rest of the week off. I attributed my mood to the heat (everyone has been feeling lethargic) and not overtraining.

I got up very early and ran 20 on Saturday. Not too hot, but very humid. I was taking no calories, only water with a Succeed capsule every 5 miles. As the run progressed, I was frequently getting nauseous, something that has never happened to me on a run. After 10 miles, I stopped taking the Succeed and after 15 cut back on water intake a bit (I just couldn't handle the water in my stomach). The nausea improved, but I felt absolutely whipped. I finished the 20 and stayed on pace (10:30), but the last few miles were brutal. This is perhaps the worst I've ever felt on a long run or even in a marathon.

This is my first training cycle where I've limited calories pre-run and during the run. Any ideas on what happened? I know bad long runs pop up every so often despite what we do, but this one went so bad and I'm trying a new approach so I wonder if there's a link.

IP: Logged

posted Aug-07-2007 01:49 AM               

IP: Logged

posted Aug-07-2007 05:45 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Who Dey:
I need a little perspective/advice.

I've been happily LHR Training myself along for some time. No problems, in fact, I'm running more miles now than ever before. I don't know if I'm faster, though, because summer temperatures make it difficult to determine.

I ran 11 miles last Tuesday after work and the heat about killed me. It took me a good couple of hours before I felt right after returning home. Feeling blah, fatigued and unmotivated, I took the rest of the week off. I attributed my mood to the heat (everyone has been feeling lethargic) and not overtraining.

I got up very early and ran 20 on Saturday. Not too hot, but very humid. I was taking no calories, only water with a Succeed capsule every 5 miles. As the run progressed, I was frequently getting nauseous, something that has never happened to me on a run. After 10 miles, I stopped taking the Succeed and after 15 cut back on water intake a bit (I just couldn't handle the water in my stomach). The nausea improved, but I felt absolutely whipped. I finished the 20 and stayed on pace (10:30), but the last few miles were brutal. This is perhaps the worst I've ever felt on a long run or even in a marathon.

This is my first training cycle where I've limited calories pre-run and during the run. Any ideas on what happened? I know bad long runs pop up every so often despite what we do, but this one went so bad and I'm trying a new approach so I wonder if there's a link.

---

I've never tried Succeed. Though it sounds like a male "performance" enhancer, I do believe it is basically salt tabs with some potassium.
Maybe they are not for you during a run. You're out there for about 3:30, and you really only need about 14-20 oz of water per hour. If you feel like you need electrolytes, use a mix of 1/3rd to 1/2 Gatorade (the original one without high fructose corn syrup) with water. Only use the mix after 30-40 minutes of running. Just do water the first part of the run.

It's always better to run a little dehydrated, your body is made to do so. So don't drink too much. That's when you get into danger. I do 14 oz an hour and that's it. No more than eight 6oz Fuelbelt bottles on a long run.

Experiment and you'll find what works.

--Jimmy

@@@@
MAF log

IP: Logged

posted Aug-07-2007 05:55 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by maniac666:
Hey,,i am 17,,and i wanted to know what my MAF is.
Usualy when i run,,i am always under 135 no matter what.

---

At 17, I would just find a heart rate that you feel like you can sustain
for a long time and don't worry about a formula. If you never got above
135, there's a fair chance that you have an exceedingly low max
heart rate.

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

IP: Logged

posted Aug-07-2007 07:52 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Who Dey:

I got up very early and ran 20 on Saturday. Not too hot, but very humid. I was taking no calories, only water with a Succeed capsule every 5 miles. As the run progressed, I was frequently getting nauseous, something that has never happened to me on a run. After 10 miles, I stopped taking the Succeed and after 15 cut back on water intake a bit (I just couldn't handle the water in my stomach). The nausea improved, but I felt absolutely whipped. I finished the 20 and stayed on pace (10:30), but the last few miles were brutal. This is perhaps the worst I've ever felt on a long run or even in a marathon.

---

Have you take Succeed before? For what it's worth, I have a friend who feels sick to his stomach when he uses Succeed, but says Endurolyte works OK for him. He thinks it's the sodium bicarbonate they put in Succeed.

IP: Logged

posted Aug-07-2007 08:40 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by maniac666:
Hey,,i am 17,,and i wanted to know what my MAF is.
Usualy when i run,,i am always under 135 no matter what.

---

I would focus on your punctuation and spelling skills first.

IP: Logged

posted Aug-08-2007 07:28 AM            

I have taken Succeed before without problems. The long run in question, however, was my longest using Succeed and going without calories plus it was under the most difficult conditions.

I used to use Gatorade 50/50 with water on all my long runs. This cycle, however, I was experimenting with limiting the intake of calories during runs.

And, yes, Succeed does sound like an "enhancement" supplement ... not that I would need one.

IP: Logged

posted Aug-08-2007 10:38 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by jjwaverly42:
I've never tried Succeed. Though it sounds like a male "performance" enhancer, I do believe it is basically salt tabs with some potassium.
Maybe they are not for you during a run. You're out there for about 3:30, and you really only need about 14-20 oz of water per hour. If you feel like you need electrolytes, use a mix of 1/3rd to 1/2 Gatorade (the original one without high fructose corn syrup) with water. Only use the mix after 30-40 minutes of running. Just do water the first part of the run.

It's always better to run a little dehydrated, your body is made to do so. So don't drink too much. That's when you get into danger. I do 14 oz an hour and that's it. No more than eight 6oz Fuelbelt bottles on a long run.

Experiment and you'll find what works.

--Jimmy

@@@@
MAF log

---

Sorry Jimmy, but I can't agree with you here. 14 ounces an hour would be the bare minumum for me in 30 degree weather. In 75+ degree weather (which is *cool* these days) I'm pushing over 60 ounces per hour, and not even close to maintaining body weight. (which is ok for the most part)

I ran 21 miles on Sunday. Now, it was hot out no doubt...84 at start (9:00 a.m.) and about 96 at finish. A fair amount of it was in shade, thankfully. (4 mile out and back for 8 total on a greenway...which is great for refueling)

I drank ~200 ounces of water and gatorade. (probably 20 ounces of gatorade) I also used 6 electrolyte tablets.

When I got home about 30 minutes after the run, I was still down ~6 pounds of body weight. Granted, I lost some afterwords stretching in the heat and driving home, (probably at least a pound, and I went to the rest room twice which was probably another pound) but the scale doesn't lie.

We may be built to run a bit dehydrated, and I certainly don't expect to maintain my body weight (3 to 5 pounds lost for me is acceptable in a long run) during runs, but in hot weather I'm much less worried about any chance of hyponatremia (electrolytes are very important to me) as I would be dehydration/heat exhaustion, etc.

The only recommendation I can make is for people to weigh themselves naked before and after runs. (preferably a shorter run, of say, 6 miles where you can run without drinking any water or have to use the rest room, etc)

IP: Logged

posted Aug-08-2007 11:52 AM            

I consumed probably a little more than 20 ounces (1 bottle) every hour. Temp was about 80 and humid. I didn't think it was too much water, but after a while I had a hard time drinking.

What is your take on not consuming calories during a long run?

IP: Logged

posted Aug-08-2007 12:43 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Who Dey:
Docster ...

I consumed probably a little more than 20 ounces (1 bottle) every hour. Temp was about 80 and humid. I didn't think it was too much water, but after a while I had a hard time drinking.

What is your take on not consuming calories during a long run?

---

I'm all for it. I use some gatorade as much to break up the monotony of water than for anything else. I use the powder blend and make it to flavor so there is less sugar and more tartness.

For electrolyte replacement, I use saltsticks (saltsticks.com). They are much like Succeed, but have a bit more sodium and what not.

During marathon races I do use 3 to 4 gels, and mix up water and whatever sports drink they are serving.

20 ounces an hour for me in 80+ degree weather with humidity would probably be a disaster. I can't imagine it would be too much for *anyone*. I know I'd lose 10+ ounces a mile in that weather, which after 2 hours would probably force me to have to quit if I didn't drink more.

How did your heart rate hold up during that 11 mile run?

IP: Logged

posted Aug-08-2007 01:13 PM               

I had the same question regarding his HR during the run. If anybody is interested in a sweat rate calculator shoot me an email from my profile and I'll email it over. I've learned a lot about my sweat rates this summer and how different variables such as temp and humidity effect that rate. Depending on the intensity of the run, I sweat upwards of 75+oz per hour in those conditions and I don't consider myself a heavy sweater by any means. Drinking 20oz per hour in those conditions most likely puts you in a severe deficit, which is okay for runs of an hour or even two. Beyond that, depending on your actual sweat rate, you can easily surpass the 3% dehydration rate which is where many feel that your performance begins to suffer dramatically.

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

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

IP: Logged