posted Aug-20-2007 09:01 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by DavidD:
We burn both sugar and fat for energy (very small amounts of protein) all the time, and if we program our body to burn more sugar (such as with high glycemic foods, or anaerobic training), we burn less fat.

---

Sorry to jump in the middle here, I'm just confused.

By the way, hi everyone, I've been lurking and reading this thread for a few weeks now. I'm just in wk 8 of C25k, but I've started doing it LHR for the past three weeks. Only noticeable change so far is the ease of the run, which is much better than going faster, but no increases in speed for me yet. Still a tortoise like 14:17 pace for me to keep it under my MAF.

IP: Logged

posted Aug-21-2007 06:37 AM            

quote:

---

quote:Originally posted by DavidD:

The fat we burn comes from storage. I suppose you can't burn it if it's actually in storage, so it comes out of storage and goes into the muscle during the actual process of conversion to energy.

---

There is a chapter in Complete Book of Running (a Runner's World publication) that discussed the difference between (i) muscle-bound fat in the muscle fibers, and (ii) fat stored in fat tissue. I thought that is what you were aluding to. The fat in the muscle fibers is readily available during exercise while the fat in fat tissue is not as available (this source is slower to respond). Depleted muscle fiber fat takes 7 days to rebuild this fat after it is used, which is why one should eat fat regularly.

What I don't understand is the difference between eating fat versus eating sugar that is converted to fat. The only thing I can think of off the top of my head is that maybe converted sugar goes straight to the fat tissue which is not as easily accessed during exercise.

IP: Logged

posted Aug-21-2007 09:13 AM               

IP: Logged

posted Aug-21-2007 10:59 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gregolowe:
I'm going to interupt the discussion on fat vs sugar burning to get some opinions on my most recent MAF test. I was disappointed with the results. Here's my first test:
July 24. Treadmill. 6am
Mile Time Pace HR
1 11:00 5.5mph 140
2 11:22 5.2 140
3 12:08 4.8 "
3.5 6:20 4.7 "
I had to cut it short due to time. The final mile projects out to a 12:40 mile. I was happy at the time as this seemed better than what alot of people were starting with. I warmed up with a .5 mile brisk walk and jog then did the above
MAF#2. Today. Same treadmill. 6am
Mile Time Pace HR
1 11:05 5.3 140
2 11:45 4.9 140
3 12:15 4.8 140
4 12:20 4.9 140
So, I was disappointed. I don't see much improvement. The rate of pace decrease seems to have slowed a bit. But overall, it actually looks worse than the first one. I'm pretty disappointed. I was hoping for significant improvement with an increase in pace of a minute or so. I know it's too soon to expect significant progress but I was still hoping. It makes it harder to want to keep with the training. Right now I still want to do it for another month but if I don't see any progress then, then I'm not sure what to do. Any encouragement would be appreciated.

---

Greg,

While I am by no means an expert (I've only been at this for about 6 weeks myself), I wanted to offer a bit of encouragement. The fact that your pace didn't drift as much today as on your first test is a really good thing- this is one of the things you should see as you progress. Mile 4 was faster on your second test, and mile 3 was virtually identical. My bet is, if you extended your test to five miles, you would see even more improvement in that final mile.

Consider all the possible reasons why you are not seeing the improvement you would like. Were you adequately hydrated for your second test? Has your diet changed since you started low HR training? Have you gained any weight? Have you been getting enough sleep? Any added stress in your life? Was the temperature/humidty higher for your second test (I know it was on the treadmill, but I know the temp can fluctuate wildly at my gym!)? Have you been faithfully staying under MAF for all of your activities? How many miles have you been putting in per week (my understanding is that the more miles you put in, the quicker you will see progress)?

Also consider that there are other measures of success than speed with this approach. If I recall correctly from your previous posts, you seem to be more in touch with your body, and seem to be enjoying your running more. I have found this as well. I have also found that I have fewer aches and pains, and I have been able to steadily (albeit slowly) increase my weekly mileage without injury. Even if you don't get faster, low HR training certainly seems to be a healthy way to approach fitness, and will lead you to become a life-long runner instead of one of those people who say "I used to run, but......". And I think we all hope to be running well into our 70s and 80s.

I'm sure the experts will be able to offer you more advice, but if I were you, I'd keep it up. I think you will see more progress as time passes. There will always be ups and downs in your training. Good luck to you!

Pam

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

IP: Logged

posted Aug-21-2007 11:16 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gregolowe:
I'm going to interupt the discussion on fat vs sugar burning to get some opinions on my most recent MAF test. I was disappointed with the results. Here's my first test:
July 24. Treadmill. 6am
Mile Time Pace HR
1 11:00 5.5mph 140
2 11:22 5.2 140
3 12:08 4.8 "
3.5 6:20 4.7 "
I had to cut it short due to time. The final mile projects out to a 12:40 mile. I was happy at the time as this seemed better than what alot of people were starting with. I warmed up with a .5 mile brisk walk and jog then did the above
MAF#2. Today. Same treadmill. 6am
Mile Time Pace HR
1 11:05 5.3 140
2 11:45 4.9 140
3 12:15 4.8 140
4 12:20 4.9 140
So, I was disappointed. I don't see much improvement. The rate of pace decrease seems to have slowed a bit. But overall, it actually looks worse than the first one. I'm pretty disappointed. I was hoping for significant improvement with an increase in pace of a minute or so. I know it's too soon to expect significant progress but I was still hoping. It makes it harder to want to keep with the training. Right now I still want to do it for another month but if I don't see any progress then, then I'm not sure what to do. Any encouragement would be appreciated.

---

Note that these are single data points. Perhaps you should repeat the test on different days and take an average for a better representation of your conditioning/progress?

IP: Logged

posted Aug-21-2007 11:29 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by DavidD:
Protein and fat seem to be two nutrients many people are still not eating enough.

An important point is that IF you're going for an aerobic run, and IF you're burning body fat, you should not be real hungry after the workout. If you are, it may be that you're burning glycogen stores which would usually mean you're not burning enough fat. It may mean you're not as aerobic as you think (typically due to choosing a heart rate higher than what best matches your body).

---

I do my running early in the morning and don't have my hunger problems until late in the afternoon...right after my run I don't have much of an appetite at all. I am doing pretty good at staying in my target heart rate range, but I am wondering what the pros and cons of running below this range are?

My understanding is that you should shoot for the range of MAF - 10, which would put me between 142 and 152. If I am in the 138 to 141 range, is that bad? If I start out a little low like that on long runs, I find that by the end it is easier to keep it in the lower end of my target range. Is it better to pick it up more in the beginning so that I stay in my range the entire time, or is it ok to be a little under? My thought was that at the lower heart rate I was more in the fat burning zone where I want to be...am I confused?

IP: Logged

posted Aug-21-2007 11:46 AM            

I guess I should make it a goal to base train through the fall.

I haven't trained for anything in 2 years, My last race was a 1/2 marathon in October 2005. That November, dizzy symptoms that I had been having were diagnosed as ventricular tachycardia and I even suffered a cardiac arrest during one of my ablation procedures and was implanted with an internal defibrillator. So, maybe I have an advantage now... if anything were to happen to me during a run, I wouldn't have to wait for someone to appear with the big paddles!

There's a 15K in Central Park in the winter. That might be a good goal for me.

jb

IP: Logged

posted Aug-21-2007 12:02 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gregolowe:
I'm going to interupt the discussion on fat vs sugar burning to get some opinions on my most recent MAF test. I was disappointed with the results. Here's my first test:
July 24. Treadmill. 6am
Mile Time Pace HR
1 11:00 5.5mph 140
2 11:22 5.2 140
3 12:08 4.8 "
3.5 6:20 4.7 "
I had to cut it short due to time. The final mile projects out to a 12:40 mile. I was happy at the time as this seemed better than what alot of people were starting with. I warmed up with a .5 mile brisk walk and jog then did the above
MAF#2. Today. Same treadmill. 6am
Mile Time Pace HR
1 11:05 5.3 140
2 11:45 4.9 140
3 12:15 4.8 140
4 12:20 4.9 140
So, I was disappointed. I don't see much improvement. The rate of pace decrease seems to have slowed a bit. But overall, it actually looks worse than the first one. I'm pretty disappointed. I was hoping for significant improvement with an increase in pace of a minute or so. I know it's too soon to expect significant progress but I was still hoping. It makes it harder to want to keep with the training. Right now I still want to do it for another month but if I don't see any progress then, then I'm not sure what to do. Any encouragement would be appreciated.

---

What has your mileage per week been from the first test to the 2nd?

IP: Logged

posted Aug-21-2007 12:49 PM               

IP: Logged

posted Aug-21-2007 12:57 PM            

One thing I've been noticing with my runs is that if the weather is not overbearing I have little to no decay in my pace. I do start out slower than MAF, but it is rather interesting. I have not done a MAF test, just base my fitness on runs on the same routes.

For instance this AM's 6.15 miles were (my MAF is 145)

Mile Time Total Time Avg HR Max HR
1 9:35.8 9:35.8 126 135
2 8:43.9 18:19.7 138 143
3 8:45.5 27:05.2 141 147
4 8:43.8 35:49.0 142 146
5 8:34.0 44:23.0 143 146
6 8:37.7 53:00.7 144 147
6.19 1:37.1 54:37.8 143

IP: Logged

posted Aug-21-2007 01:08 PM               

[This message has been edited by Gregolowe (edited Aug-21-2007).]

IP: Logged

posted Aug-21-2007 01:18 PM            

Please be aware that I was not a totally new runner back when I started MAFing in April. I just had a 3 month layoff between Jan-Apr. Before my layoff I was running 830s at around MAF. I ran a 306 marathon last year, so don't judge my 4 month improvement to yourself, I had a pretty big base in 2006....

Plus you're running/on your feet for 5 hours! That's gotta take a lot out of you for at least a couple of days. I just did my first run over 2 hours last Sunday (14.9 @ 8:54/2:12:xx).

IP: Logged

posted Aug-21-2007 01:24 PM               

Just keep the faith that you're doing good things for your body with this training. I've posted this several times, but the biggest mistake people make (in my opinion) is quitting and going back to running every run at marathon intensity or higher. Maff training is not some lunatic fringe method. A majority of your miles should always be at this intensity...forever. Elite runners run a majority of their miles at this intensity...they just happen to be moving at 6:00/mile at this intensity. After you use the Maff training to help build a solid aerobic foundation, you simply start incorporating some faster runs to condition other physiological systems. The easy running should never be "quit" or discontinued, especially with your goals of ultrarunning. I'll give you a personal example of gradual progress.

I began Maf training in May 2006, and continued exclusively for about 5 months leading up to a 100k in October 2006. My paces improved dramatically. The training helped me immensely and allowed me to place very well in an ultra that I never imagined being able to even finish. After the 100k I did another short phase of exclusively Maf training, and then began mixing in some higher intensity stuff. Didn't abandon low HR training, just combined it with some faster stuff each week which I've continued until today. Prior to the 100k I did two 30 mile training runs. Both were done at 9:30/mile and HRs were 126 & 129 (My maf is 125, I made a conscious decision to let it ride up slightly during these longer runs). Fast forward to last week...very similar weather conditions, 30 mile training run in prep for an upcoming ultra. 8:45/mile with avg HR of 119. That's pretty significant progress, and that's in addition to the initial improvements in 2006. Not meant to toot my horn here, just a real life example of the improvements that can be made with patience. Building a good aerobic base isn't a quick fix...it's a change in philosophy that takes years. Best of luck, I believe you're doing the best thing possible for your new passion of ultra running.

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

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

IP: Logged

posted Aug-21-2007 01:45 PM               

IP: Logged

posted Aug-21-2007 02:22 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by BrandonE:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by DavidD:
We burn both sugar and fat for energy (very small amounts of protein) all the time, and if we program our body to burn more sugar (such as with high glycemic foods, or anaerobic training), we burn less fat.

---

By the way, hi everyone, I've been lurking and reading this thread for a few weeks now. I'm just in wk 8 of C25k, but I've started doing it LHR for the past three weeks. Only noticeable change so far is the ease of the run, which is much better than going faster, but no increases in speed for me yet. Still a tortoise like 14:17 pace for me to keep it under my MAF.[/QUOTE]

Any training has an impact on our body, which is what I'm calling "program." We program ourselves when we train, eat, study, etc.

When we do anaerobic training, our body responds. One response is that our mix of fuels (sugar and fat) shifts toward more sugar burning. This is easily measured on a treadmill (called respiratory quotent - RQ). Likewise, doing aerobic training shifts our metabolism to more fat burning -- the whole idea behind Maffetone's program (and this thread).

I think the confusion comes in when we only look at what happens DURING a particular workout, or ONLY post exercise. If we look at what happens overall to the metabolism -- over a 24-48 hour period -- it's a better image of what's going on and how the body will respond more longterm.

Another misunderstanding is the issue of calories burned. If we burn more calories because of a particular workout, some of those calories will be from fat. However, we should not conclude that this workout burns more fat when, in fact, we burn even more sugar, AND our net result is we raise RQ (meaning we train the body to burn more sugar overall).

I think it gets confusing because there is so much bad information (and wrong information) in the magazines, especially runner's world. They literally mis-educate the reader (on purpose I believe).

IP: Logged

posted Aug-21-2007 02:28 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by jellybelly:
Hi all. I am going to give this type of training a try. My MAF hr is so low -- 137. I gave myself an extra 5 beats because I am an experienced runner...so I guess I am going to be doing a lot of walking. Since I am going so slowly, shall I up the length of my runs? My staple runs are an hour and my hr is usually up in the 160's to 170's. I'll add a 1.5 hour run in every so often. I have, or hopefully, had a hr problem which has fixed through catheter ablation.

I guess I should make it a goal to base train through the fall.

I haven't trained for anything in 2 years, My last race was a 1/2 marathon in October 2005. That November, dizzy symptoms that I had been having were diagnosed as ventricular tachycardia and I even suffered a cardiac arrest during one of my ablation procedures and was implanted with an internal defibrillator. So, maybe I have an advantage now... if anything were to happen to me during a run, I wouldn't have to wait for someone to appear with the big paddles!

There's a 15K in Central Park in the winter. That might be a good goal for me.

jb

---

Glad you made the switch. But why add 5 beats because you have experience? The most common mistake with the 180 formula is deriving too high a heart rate. It may take a few weeks to realize you're not responding as well because of this, then you wasted a few weeks. Be as accurate (and honest) as possible with the 180 formula. (We've all been through it...)

IP: Logged

posted Aug-21-2007 02:34 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ace8:
There is a chapter in Complete Book of Running (a Runner's World publication) that discussed the difference between (i) muscle-bound fat in the muscle fibers, and (ii) fat stored in fat tissue. I thought that is what you were aluding to. The fat in the muscle fibers is readily available during exercise while the fat in fat tissue is not as available (this source is slower to respond). Depleted muscle fiber fat takes 7 days to rebuild this fat after it is used, which is why one should eat fat regularly.

What I don't understand is the difference between eating fat versus eating sugar that is converted to fat. The only thing I can think of off the top of my head is that maybe converted sugar goes straight to the fat tissue which is not as easily accessed during exercise.

---

The runner's world information is not very well presented. Muscle fats are always being replenished. Otherwise it would take a week to recover from an easy aerobic run.

When we eat fat, it goes into storage. When we eat carbohydrate, a good portion (40% or more) converts to fat and goes into storage. Hopefully, we also burn fat all day long because we have good aerobic systems. If we don't burn enough fat, and/or eat too much fat or carbs, we gain body fat.

IP: Logged

posted Aug-22-2007 12:14 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by aharmer:
Hi Greg,

Just keep the faith that you're doing good things for your body with this training. I've posted this several times, but the biggest mistake people make (in my opinion) is quitting and going back to running every run at marathon intensity or higher. Maff training is not some lunatic fringe method. A majority of your miles should always be at this intensity...forever. Elite runners run a majority of their miles at this intensity...they just happen to be moving at 6:00/mile at this intensity. After you use the Maff training to help build a solid aerobic foundation, you simply start incorporating some faster runs to condition other physiological systems. The easy running should never be "quit" or discontinued, especially with your goals of ultrarunning. I'll give you a personal example of gradual progress.

I began Maf training in May 2006, and continued exclusively for about 5 months leading up to a 100k in October 2006. My paces improved dramatically. The training helped me immensely and allowed me to place very well in an ultra that I never imagined being able to even finish. After the 100k I did another short phase of exclusively Maf training, and then began mixing in some higher intensity stuff. Didn't abandon low HR training, just combined it with some faster stuff each week which I've continued until today. Prior to the 100k I did two 30 mile training runs. Both were done at 9:30/mile and HRs were 126 & 129 (My maf is 125, I made a conscious decision to let it ride up slightly during these longer runs). Fast forward to last week...very similar weather conditions, 30 mile training run in prep for an upcoming ultra. 8:45/mile with avg HR of 119. That's pretty significant progress, and that's in addition to the initial improvements in 2006. Not meant to toot my horn here, just a real life example of the improvements that can be made with patience. Building a good aerobic base isn't a quick fix...it's a change in philosophy that takes years. Best of luck, I believe you're doing the best thing possible for your new passion of ultra running.

---

Aharmer rules. Nick

IP: Logged

posted Aug-22-2007 01:04 PM               

[This message has been edited by Gregolowe (edited Aug-22-2007).]

IP: Logged

posted Aug-22-2007 02:32 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gregolowe:
Let me ask a question. I'm not trying to be contentious nor am I coming from the other side of the spectrum suggesting that running fast is the answer. It's an honest question. How did those elite marathoners get there? Some people, I would think Mark Allen is one, make tremendous progress training anaerobically, which seems to simultaneously boost their aerobic capacity. For example, Mark Allen started low HR training AFTER he had trained fast for a long time. When he started the low HR training, he was able to run at MAF with an 8:30/min mile! That's 3:30/min faster than what I can do now. People seem to make great progress training hard which seems to boost their aerobic capacity as well. It leads me to question whether I shouldn't just go train hard, slowing down when I need to, and let my aerobic capacity take care of itself. What gives? Am I just delaying my progress by going so slow? Like I said, this is an honest question, not an attempt to be contentious. I don't want people to reply with, " Well, we're all an experiment of one so go do that if that's what you want to do and come back and tell us how you did". I guess I'm asking for an explanation of how that kind of progress could be made in the marathoners noted above and in Mark Allen when they're not doing specifically low heart rate training. Dean is another example that comes to mind. Thanks.
Edit: I was just reading Krissy Moehl's Hardrock report. She stated that her heart rate while she was wearing her monitor never went over 150. And that's at altitude!

[This message has been edited by Gregolowe (edited Aug-22-2007).]

---

This is mostly speculation on my part, but I think most elite marathoners run at a low HR most of the time, whether they plan on it or not, simply because of the mileage they're running. Personally, once I get up above 70 miles a week or so, it becomes difficult to run faster than MAF on my daily runs, just due to the accumulated fatigue in my leg muscles. I've never run more than 90, but I suspect that those guys running 120 mpw or more have to run slower than their MAF most of the time just to get that many miles in.

------------------
http://www.runningbio.com/bio/profile/DanMoriarity/index.shtml

IP: Logged

posted Aug-22-2007 03:07 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gregolowe:
Let me ask a question. I'm not trying to be contentious nor am I coming from the other side of the spectrum suggesting that running fast is the answer. It's an honest question. How did those elite marathoners get there?

---

I know a couple of guys who might pass for elite marathoners. One has run 2:18, the other 2:21. Neither actually ran with a heart monitor; although both have taken their pulse after periodic runs. So... I asked the question (via e-mail) and got 2 responses.

First, both ran most of their runs at around 6:30 min/mi pace when they were at that level. That's an all-out 5K for me; but for them - over a minute per mile slower than their marathon PRs. I would guess that this pace is MAF or below.

Second, they took years to build to that point. Both had college coaches that emphasized building a huge aerobic base over the summer coming into the XC season. One of them commented they were expected to step it up from 60 MPW to 100 MPW over the course of the summer. This necessitated slower running to enable the build-up. The other mentioned that each year there were 2 periods of 6 weeks each for anaerobic running/sharpening - the last 6 weeks of the track season, and the last 6 weeks of the XC season. The rest of the time was either recovering from that; or building mileage to a higher level. He said that he run about 70 MPW as a college freshman; 85 as a soph; 95 as a junior; and 100-105 as a senior. Some of these miles were 4 mile morning runs at 7:00-7:30 pace. Keep in mind he could run a mile in 4:12.

So, Greg, not sure how much this helps - but it sounds like their approach is similar - they had to race through school - but the key was years of basebuilding at a comfortable pace.

IP: Logged

posted Aug-22-2007 03:41 PM            

IP: Logged

posted Aug-22-2007 03:57 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gregolowe:
Let me ask a question. I'm not trying to be contentious nor am I coming from the other side of the spectrum suggesting that running fast is the answer. It's an honest question. How did those elite marathoners get there?
...
Am I just delaying my progress by going so slow?

---

Mostly, those elite marathoners got there by being born that way and by serious training.

Very few of us are born to be elites. There are many to whom a 6:30 m/m pace is so slow they would never do it. I know a guy whose mid-week training runs are always 5 - 6 minute pace or under. The elites are born with a cardiovascular system and the biomechanics for running that the rest of us can only dream about.

In his book "Real Running", Marty Liquori has a chapter on "Categories of Runners." He classes runners as "World Class", "Category A", "Category B", and "Category C". Category C is the lowest, and if you don't fit there...

FYI, here's a category C runner breakdown:
Times:
Mile under 6:00
10K under 45:00
Marathon under 3:20

Experience: probably running competitively less than a year, and maybe some earlier sports experience.

Competes: maybe 5 to 10 times a year

Weight: Often a factor; maybe will need to watch diet in addition to keeping up training mileage.

Mileage: 20 to 35 mpw, sometimes less.

When I was 40, I had to train somewhere between Categories A and B (60-70 mpw, race 10Ks etc) to get the times for a Category C runner (ok, my 10K was under 40 min but not under 38 like Cat B.)

Ok, so the rest of us aren't ever going to be "elites" or anthing even close to it. How should you train? From a VO2 test you can tell where you need to train to build or keep up an aerobic base. You can also tell where to do some beginning intervals or speedwork (based on AT), once there's a solid base.

One more thing the elites often have that the rest of us don't: personal coaches who are really good at knowing just what the athlete needs at any particular stage of training.

Just build up the mpw, and get a VO2 test that someone will give you training advice from.

IP: Logged

posted Aug-22-2007 04:15 PM               

IP: Logged

posted Aug-22-2007 04:25 PM               

When I started "seriously" running over 30 yrs ago--if you couldn't run a marathon under 3hrs you weren't considered a "marathoner". Now folks take 5-6 hrs + to complete a 26.2 mile run. Not that there is anything wrong with that. Boston Marathon qualifying times have gotten easier. Local races I attend are sometimes won by someone with a 17:30 5K time. I have run that time in the early 80's and not finished in the top 3 of my age group (40-44) back then. I guess it is all relative.

Maybe the most important thing--at least to me--is to be a lifetime runner. So folks--take it EZ out there. Over the yrs I have trained 2-3 minutes off 5/10K race pace. I attribute the "EZ" running on 90%+ of my runs to have allowed me to run relatively injury free for over 31 yrs and 64,000 miles.

Ihave been running even slower over the last 4 months of LHR training--and love it. I have gone back to running 6x per week and upped my mileage from 40-45 miles per week to 55-60 miles--and feel great. Even with Florida heat and humidity. Long distance running/training takes patience. So, enjoy the journey. Be thankful you can walk--and can run. That is a lot to be thankful for. Nick

PS It is OK to walk when you are out there.

IP: Logged