posted Aug-27-2007 12:29 PM            

Let yourself be reassured ...

I had been averaging about 55 to 65 miles per week. Then I went on vacation for a week and a half and only ran twice - one 5 miler and one 10 miler.

When I got back I was so jet lagged that I couldn't get up early enough and only ran 3 days the week after I got back. But this past week, I was no longer jet lagged and ran nearly 69 miles. No problems.

You'll be fine.

Bill

------------------
Bill's Profile

IP: Logged

posted Aug-27-2007 12:33 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by labhiker:
Im hopeful this was simply a bad run in the heat without adequate preparation.

---

That's exactly what it was. No worries about your fitness, I'm sure your pace will be back under the 11:00 when the weather cools.

We all have had runs like this in high heat and humidity.

IP: Logged

posted Aug-27-2007 12:40 PM            

Because I have a feeling that 10 miles at Maff is going to have a tempo
feel to it.

Did Maffetone have any runners with real low HRs, and how did he
adjust for them?

IP: Logged

posted Aug-27-2007 12:50 PM            

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

IP: Logged

posted Aug-27-2007 01:21 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by fredurie:
So if my max HR is 170 at 60 years old, what is my Maff training speed.

Because I have a feeling that 10 miles at Maff is going to have a tempo
feel to it.

Did Maffetone have any runners with real low HRs, and how did he
adjust for them?

---

180-60+5 = 125

IP: Logged

posted Aug-27-2007 01:44 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by fredurie:
So if my max HR is 170 at 60 years old, what is my Maff training speed.

Because I have a feeling that 10 miles at Maff is going to have a tempo
feel to it.

Did Maffetone have any runners with real low HRs, and how did he
adjust for them?

---

Why are you suggesting the +5? Do you fit the formula for +5, or should you be 0 (or -5)? This is such a key part.

Agreed that your max hr is not significant.

10 miles at your real MAF should feel easy.

I've seen plenty of young and older athletes with what I described as an abnormally low resting heart rate, which I attributed to overtraining. Maffetone just put a great article on his site on overtraining and he mentions heart rate relationships.

IP: Logged

posted Aug-27-2007 01:47 PM               

IP: Logged

posted Aug-27-2007 02:37 PM               

IP: Logged

posted Aug-27-2007 02:41 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by fredurie:
So if my max HR is 170 at 60 years old, what is my Maff training speed.

Because I have a feeling that 10 miles at Maff is going to have a tempo
feel to it.

Did Maffetone have any runners with real low HRs, and how did he
adjust for them?

---

LOL. I know you must have intended humor here. With your heartrate(s) and fitness, (and age), NONE of the formulas apply.

The only accurate way to find your "aerobic" training range is a high-quality VO2 test... I suspect you know that already. I would love to see graphs of your RQ and pace vs HR. You know that you're probably1 in 10000 or 100000 or whatever, and the formulas aren't going to apply to you. Many people have a resting heart rate in the mid 40s or high 30s, but only a very, very few (or less) have exercise heart rates like yours.

"tempo feel", for sure! For you, the "Maffetone MAF" formula number is going to be 40-50 bpm HIGHER than your personal HR on an easy 8 mile run. And some people think these formulas are sacred. Yeah, right.

Hey, I love your "10 in 60:00 at 60" idea. Keep up the posts, they are great. Especially the "no puke"... that brings back some memories...

IP: Logged

posted Aug-27-2007 02:54 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by jamjat:
I'm going to keep up the trend of us newbies to MAF to post our first two MAF test results - mine seemed to improve a tiny bit, but not overwhelmingly, so I wanted Gregolowe to see he's not the only one and that while Pam did amazingly well, we don't all have that kind of progress! My MAF HR is 140 (well, really 141 but since I'll be 40 in November I've been sticking with the nice round number!) Both of my tests were in the morning, same track, same warmup, both low 70s, med humidity, so as identical as I could want. The first test was July 22, the second August 27 (today).
Mile Test 1 Test 2
1 14m10s 14m19s
2 15m18s 14m54s
3 15m44s 15m23s
4 15m45s 15m26s
5 16m32s 15m31s
I cut a minute off my last mile, and all of my miles on the second test were closer in time to each other, but I still feel like I'm slogging along so slowly that I could walk faster than I run! But I know I probably had/have horrible aerobic fitness, even after running for 4 years and losing 50 lbs during the first year of running, so I know it will take time and hopefully I"ll keep improving. I also know that genetically I'm unlikely to ever be fast, and I'm ok with that - but I'd sure like to be able to run with someone else sometime rather than always being so slow I have to run alone I'm really glad I have this thread where I know other people are doing this so as everyone passes me I can at least know that somewhere there are other people running slowly on purpose!!!
Joce

---

Congrats on the progress! I think you made more progress than you think. I just finished reading High Performance Heart, and Maffetone suggests that if the difference between mile 1 and mile 5 in the MAF test is greater than 45-60 seconds, that you are stressing your body just being able to run that distance. That was clearly the case with your first MAF test, but not your second! Your body has adapted really well, and is much less taxed while running. Looking back, I see this was the case for Greg as well. So keep up the great work! I'm sure you'll see even more improvements in your 3rd MAF test.

Pam

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

IP: Logged

posted Aug-27-2007 03:03 PM               

IP: Logged

posted Aug-27-2007 03:23 PM               

Also heres is my current routine:

M: 3 mile run
T: 1 mile as fast as possible, 1 mile jog after (increasing length every month or so)
W: Rest
Th: 1 mile as fast as possible (increasing length every month or so)
F: 5 mile run

I am wondering if i should change my routine to low heart rate training? Any thoughts, and if so, what would a good routine be? I've been running for about 5 months solid, but only about a month on my current routine.

IP: Logged

posted Aug-27-2007 03:55 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by willamona:
Fred, it does not matter what your Max is for MAF unless you do have a low Max HR. You would have a MAF of 180-60+(5 or 10). I am sure LongRunNick will chime in here, Nick and Jesse put there heads together to figure out an acceptable MAF number for an old fart. LOL He is close to your age group Fred, he can help you if you really want to know. As for your speed? Only you will know that, the HR will dictate the pace. The pace does not dictate the HR.

---

HeyFred,
I agree with slogino. You are quite unique--to be able to run with a hr under 100. I will be 64 in a couple of weeks. I took the 180-63= 117. I added 5 for 3 decades of consistent running =122. Then I added for being over 50=127 and then after reading Hadd's stuff and Mark Allen I added 5 for being over 60=132. I started low hr training on 5/1/07. I have run around 900 miles and have averaged a 133 hr. The good news--I have gone back to running 6x per week and have upped my mileage from 40-45 (that I had been running for the last 7-8 yrs to 55-60 miles per week--and feel great. I have normally been a slow trainer--2-3 minutes off 10 K pace. I think that has helped me be healthy and run over 64,000 miles over the last 31 yrs. The Low HR training was initially hard but over time I have improved pace while keeping my hr low. I have a max of 200 and would usually run 70-80% (140-160) on most of my runs. Slowing down even more I now have trained at about 60% of my max. It seems to work. I will gradually build pace--a la Hadd and hope to break 4 hrs in a marathon in Dec.. My PR's --set in my early 40's after 10 yrs of running were 17:45 for 5K/36:30 for a 10 K--and only a 3:16 marathon best. I have run 8:12 for my 50 mile PR.I had rarely trained over 50 miles per week. Actually putting together 4 months of over 200 miles per month is a first since back in '84-85. My goal is to run faster than I did in my first martathon way back in 1977--a 3:58. When I do, I will just brag that I ran a marathon faster at age 64 than I did when I was 34. My age makes me ramble. Nick

IP: Logged

posted Aug-27-2007 04:21 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Long Run Nick:

My age makes me ramble. Nick

---

It's like my Daddy said to me back in 1967 sitting in the station wagon listening to Strawberry Fields on the radio:

Ramblers are cool.

IP: Logged

posted Aug-27-2007 04:28 PM               

Now, by the way, I've seen several posts over the last few weeks
concerning people's tremendous concern and frustration over their
particularly horrible runs when coming close to marathon time.
Well, just trust me, no need to be concerned. This comes up at
this time every year with 100% consistency. You just have to make
it through the next few weeks. One thing I've found is that you
can run consistently in the heat and after many weeks, you can
acclimate and pick up nearly your cool temperature pace. However,
I have found that you just can't acclimate to humidity. It just doesn't
happen and you have to suck it up. To reassure yourself, take note
of the dewpoint before and after your run. Here are some qualitative
points:

dewpoint:

< 55 degrees: comfortable!
<= 60 deg: humidity starting to become a factor
<= 65 deg: some pace slow down become noticeable, especially
after a few miles
<= 70 deg: long distance runs will see an obviously noticeable
effect, possibly slow by 2 or minutes per mile, especially after
an hour or so
low 70s: starting to really be miserable. heart rate is becoming
almost impossible to control. You may really have to reach deep
inside to finish a long run
high 70s: there's a good chance that after a few miles your heart
rate will have climbed so much that you've lost all hope of controlling
your heart rate even at a dead slow pace

By the way, this has almost nothing to do with MAFing - it's just
that when you're MAFing, you're more aware of what's going on
and you really are concerned that you've gone nowhere fast.

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

IP: Logged

posted Aug-27-2007 06:06 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Long Run Nick:
A note to dfcameron: Be glad you weren't in the 40-44 age group back in the early 80's the BQ time was sub 3hrs. I haven't figured out why America's runners have gotten slower. Might be due to Global Warming.

A suggestion on training 9 straight weeks at 80 miles per week. You might try several weeks around 80 miles--then back off to 60-65 every 3rd week or so. It may even make you stronger.

With your base a sub 3:30 should be very doable. Get some 10K/10 mile races in. They will be a decent indicator of your fitness. Visualize--then actualize. Nick

---

Nick thanks for the suggestion. When I ran my first marathon (1981) the BQ time was 2:50 for young guys. I knew that wasn't genetically possible. I'd tried a couple of times (when they eased to 3:10, and when I turned 40) - and didn't make it. Figured it'll never happen; until they eased to 3:30 for 45 year olds.

It'll be tough; I don't have speed - and, of course, a lot of work to do on the house now - making it tougher to run. But... I have 29 years of running and 36,000 miles behind me (that I've recorded) and this year is on record volume pace...

IP: Logged

posted Aug-27-2007 06:09 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by fredurie:
So if my max HR is 170 at 60 years old, what is my Maff training speed.

Because I have a feeling that 10 miles at Maff is going to have a tempo
feel to it.

Did Maffetone have any runners with real low HRs, and how did he
adjust for them?

---

I think about 130. I've found that using about 75% of max HR works as a good average for most people who are in reasonable shape.

IP: Logged

posted Aug-27-2007 06:12 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by jjwaverly42:
It's like my Daddy said to me back in 1967 sitting in the station wagon listening to Strawberry Fields on the radio:

Ramblers are cool.

---

My mom drove a Rambler in '68; it was the first car I remember her driving....

IP: Logged

posted Aug-27-2007 06:49 PM            

I have MAFfed faithfully for twelve weeks -- I know I need to do more -- and I will go back to solid basebuilding after my two upcoming HMs.

I was starting to feel so much stronger, running more, walking less, mileage upped tremendously, time coming down, etc., etc., etc. (17:38mm to 15:04mm avg for an 8 mile run @ 127AHR)

THEN, for the last three weeks we've had this miserable, miserable, miserable humidity + high dewpoint + heat combo.

Sunday morning, I ran 12.1 miles. The dewpoint was 72; temperature was 71, and the humidity was 97%. It took me 3:11, with one complete change of clothing at 9 miles to get through. I could NOT control my heart rate after about the first 8 miles -- as I continued to run, it continued to rise. As I slowed down, the heart rate rose more. It was so disheartening!

The last few weeks, with my sorry MAF performance, I have found myself panicking about being able to complete my first half within the 3-hour time limit on September 8. Can't decide whether to cut my losses at this point or trust that the weather will break by then and I'll make it on a pancake-flat course.

IP: Logged

posted Aug-27-2007 10:59 PM            

last few miles had walk breaks (bring HR to 119 then speeding up)

Still, I'm psyched to just get the 12 in. It was a good run--mentally. Managed two 40 mile weeks in a row--almost all 5-milers. This week will be a cutback. Closing this week on the new place, moving, unpacking, and attending a 3-day seminar on how to use a garbage disposal (first one for me--does it grind old running shoes?). Scary thing is that the seminar leader is missing a hand.

--Jimmy

MAF log

profile

IP: Logged

posted Aug-27-2007 11:02 PM               

1. Hilton Head 8/21, dewpoint 72-74, temp 79-81

http://trail.motionbased.com/trail/activity/3752171

A couple of surrounding details: For some reason, sometimes
late in runs, my HR readings get very noisy and read very
high late in runs. If you click on the "heart rate" link, you'll
see this happen in the run. You'll also see a dropoff where
the person I was running with twisted her ankle on a protrusion
on the path and we had to stop for a minute. If you click on
the "laps" link, you'll see the splits with avg HR for each split.
The data are noisy after mile 8, so I wouldn't trust those
numbers. In either case, I'm a bit slower than I had been
averaging, but just able to keep HR under control.

2. HIlton Head 8/23, dewpoint 70-72, temp 75-81

http://trail.motionbased.com/trail/activity/3752172

Different course. This time dewpoint is a bit lower.
HR monitor went very noisy around mile 8 again as you
can see if you look at the HR profile, but it had a lot of
blips almost during the entire run. In either case, HR
was controllable and pace was reasonable.

3. HIlton Head 8/24, dewpoint 79-81, temp 79-84

http://trail.motionbased.com/trail/activity/3752173

Same course as first day, dewpoint about 10 degrees
higher! After about 1 mile could no longer really
control heart rate. Readings were good entire run.
After about 4 miles, run became miserable. 5 miles
was the turnaround point and I wish I didn't have
to run all the way back. Check out heart rate
profile and laps. Unbelievable difference from previous
days.

4. Annapolis, MD, Annapolis 10 mile race, dewpoint 72, temp 75

http://trail.motionbased.com/trail/activity/3768091

Kept race conservative due to humidity, slightly less
than marathon level of effort/heart rate. (Spikes later
were just noise). In either case, even after very miserable
and slow run a couple of days earlier, was not a problem to
keep much faster pace even in still very humid conditions.

Bottom line: Don't draw too many conclusions from your
miserable runs in very humid conditions. Even in still
humid conditions, there's still the potential to run well at
racing heart rates. Furthermore, you'll be absolutely
amazed on your first run when you hit cooler temps with
more moderate humidity.

Hopefully this is convincing!

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

IP: Logged

posted Aug-28-2007 01:01 AM               

6) Training Intensity and Endurance Athlete Performance
The purpose of this study as to compare two different training programs
for endurance athletes. The first training program employed 80% of
training as low intensity aerobic training that did not exceed the
athlete's anaerobic or lactate threshold. An additional 12% of the training
included intensity at heart rate values close to threshold. In the second
training program, only 65% of the training was at low intensities,
with 27% at close to threshold. Both groups spent the final 8% at very
high intensities, close to maximum heart rate. After 5 months, the group
that spent more time in the low intensity training improved their 10K
running performance by 36 seconds more than the higher intensity training
group! This study magnifies the importance of an endurance athlete
limiting long periods of time spent above threshold intensity, and instead
focusing on a larger amount of aerobic training. This is because the
high intensity training reduces the body's sensitivity to catecholam
ines and sympathetic nervous system response, and also increases risk
for chronic over-stimulation and exhaustive stress. I personally spend
very little time training at high intensities, but instead stay below
threshold for the majority of my training and save the high intensity
efforts for the race. If you do not know your lactate or anerobic
threshold, it is one of the most important measurements to ascertain!

IP: Logged

posted Aug-28-2007 08:42 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cashmason:
The following is from a newsletter I get from a Tri coach Ben Greenfield of Pacific Elite Fitness. He claims this comes from a study, but doesn't reference the study.

6) Training Intensity and Endurance Athlete Performance
The purpose of this study as to compare two different training programs
for endurance athletes. The first training program employed 80% of
training as low intensity aerobic training that did not exceed the
athlete's anaerobic or lactate threshold. An additional 12% of the training
included intensity at heart rate values close to threshold. In the second
training program, only 65% of the training was at low intensities,
with 27% at close to threshold. Both groups spent the final 8% at very
high intensities, close to maximum heart rate. After 5 months, the group
that spent more time in the low intensity training improved their 10K
running performance by 36 seconds more than the higher intensity training
group! This study magnifies the importance of an endurance athlete
limiting long periods of time spent above threshold intensity, and instead
focusing on a larger amount of aerobic training. This is because the
high intensity training reduces the body's sensitivity to catecholam
ines and sympathetic nervous system response, and also increases risk
for chronic over-stimulation and exhaustive stress. I personally spend
very little time training at high intensities, but instead stay below
threshold for the majority of my training and save the high intensity
efforts for the race. If you do not know your lactate or anerobic
threshold, it is one of the most important measurements to ascertain!

---

Interesting stuff, Cash! Although, I am a bit disturbed that you
brought this new word into the fray - catecholamines? Let's just
not go there!

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

IP: Logged

posted Aug-28-2007 09:09 AM            

My MAF is 140 so I set my HRM to beep at 129 and 141. So when I hit 129 I can do one of two things:

1) Slog for about 60 seconds before I hit 141 and then I have to walk.

2) Run at a decent pace for maybe 35-45 seconds before I hit 141 at which point I walk.

My HR seems to return to 129 in about the same amount of time no matter which way I do it. With option 2 I am getting a better overall pace for my runs.

Does it matter which way I run? I am guessing it shouldn't since my HR is in the same range either way.

Thanks for any help!

IP: Logged

posted Aug-28-2007 09:35 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by kommish77:
I was wondering which of these 2 scenarios is best for my MAF runs?

My MAF is 140 so I set my HRM to beep at 129 and 141. So when I hit 129 I can do one of two things:

1) Slog for about 60 seconds before I hit 141 and then I have to walk.

2) Run at a decent pace for maybe 35-45 seconds before I hit 141 at which point I walk.

My HR seems to return to 129 in about the same amount of time no matter which way I do it. With option 2 I am getting a better overall pace for my runs.

Does it matter which way I run? I am guessing it shouldn't since my HR is in the same range either way.

Thanks for any help!

---

From the cardiovascular standpoint, it probably doesn't matter. But... from getting one's legs used to a particular pace - it may make sense to alternate. This is because you'll eventually end up doing some continuous runs at a "slog", but also hopefully advance to the point where you can run a "decent pace". I've found that for these hot, humid days - I need to feel comfortable at a much slower pace than when its 60 degrees and dry. The muscles seem to be taxed differently at a walk vs. at 12:00 min/mi pace vs at 9:00 min/mi pace vs faster.

IP: Logged