posted Oct-05-2007 04:35 AM               

Distance Duration Anaerobe Aerobe
Min/sec proces% proces%

100 m. 0,10 90 10

200 m. 0,20 85 15

400 m. 0,45 70 30

800 m. 1,45 50 50

1500 m 3,35 35 65

3000 m. 7,45 20 80

5000 m. 13,20 15 85

10000 m. 28,00 10 90

Marathon 135,00 2 98

Pretty much explains itself, and the need for aerobic training all the way down to 800 meters.

[This message has been edited by henrikker (edited Oct-05-2007).]

[This message has been edited by henrikker (edited Oct-05-2007).]

IP: Logged

posted Oct-05-2007 07:29 AM            

With the exception of a HM last fall (2:02), I have no race results to plug into the various pace calculators.

Initially I thought I would randomly pick a predicted MP based on subtracting 60 - 90 seconds off my average MAF training pace but am now questioning if this is too risky. I am no thinking of not worrying about pace (min/mile) and focus on what I know best, run based on HR. In doing so, how have others managed their HR during a marathon?

My aged based MAF is 134. I run most training runs at MAF -5 or -10, and now have an average pace of 11 - 11:15 mm.

If I break the race into thirds, I am thinking of starting out at MAF (130 - 134 bpm), after warming up for 30 minutes or so picking the pace up to run at the low 140s, hold this pace until 20 miles, and then depending on how I feel openning up to the mid 150s (or more towards the end). Does this approach sound OK? Being my first, Im not sure what an appropriate race plan should be. Any and all thoughts and comments are appreciated.

IP: Logged

posted Oct-05-2007 11:14 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by henrikker:
btw.. Found this on a danish website.. Translated as weel as I could,,
Distance Duration Anaerobe Aerobe
Min/sec proces% proces%
100 m. 0,10 90 10
200 m. 0,20 85 15
400 m. 0,45 70 30
800 m. 1,45 50 50
1500 m 3,35 35 65
3000 m. 7,45 20 80
5000 m. 13,20 15 85
10000 m. 28,00 10 90
Marathon 135,00 2 98

Pretty much explains itself, and the need for aerobic training all the way down to 800 meters.

---

I think this chart came from one of Maffetone's books if I'm seeing it correctly. It shows the percent aerobic and anaerobic the body uses for energy at certain distances.

IP: Logged

posted Oct-05-2007 11:22 AM               

I have competed in over 400 races and still like to compete--mostly against myself. So, at age 64 I kinda still "train". I recently --the last 5 months-- have been doing exclusively MAF training. It has helped. I am back to 6 days a week running and have increased my weekly mileage fro 40--45 to 55-60 and feel great. Nick

IP: Logged

posted Oct-05-2007 12:50 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by labhiker:
Im looking for some advice on how to approach my first marathon (10/13) having done nearly all my training via Maffetone? Having worked at MAF training for more than 1yr+, I am confident that I have developed the fitness to go venture beyond the mistical 20-mile limit and complete 26.2. My quesion is, how do you properly transition into a race setting having come from a complete low HR training background?

With the exception of a HM last fall (2:02), I have no race results to plug into the various pace calculators.

Initially I thought I would randomly pick a predicted MP based on subtracting 60 - 90 seconds off my average MAF training pace but am now questioning if this is too risky. I am no thinking of not worrying about pace (min/mile) and focus on what I know best, run based on HR. In doing so, how have others managed their HR during a marathon?

My aged based MAF is 134. I run most training runs at MAF -5 or -10, and now have an average pace of 11 - 11:15 mm.

If I break the race into thirds, I am thinking of starting out at MAF (130 - 134 bpm), after warming up for 30 minutes or so picking the pace up to run at the low 140s, hold this pace until 20 miles, and then depending on how I feel openning up to the mid 150s (or more towards the end). Does this approach sound OK? Being my first, Im not sure what an appropriate race plan should be. Any and all thoughts and comments are appreciated.

---

Here's one idea. I'll assume as a Maff runner that you know your max HR. Also assuming you are able to run somewhere in the neighborhood of 4 hours, you should be able to sustain an average of about 83% of max HR for the duration of the marathon. The faster you run the race the higher % of max HR you are able to support. Elites can probably support closer to 90%. It sounds like you've done no higher HR segments leading up to the race...this could impact the 83% number but probably not significantly. I know the max HR conversation doesn't hold much weight in this thread but when you're talking marathon performance I believe it has merit.

You can monitor your current HR but watching avg HR is the far better screen to monitor if you're running by HR. I recommend picking a pace that you believe you're capable of and start there for the first several miles. Evaluate avg HR every couple miles. If your avg HR is over 83% at 10 miles you know you're going too fast. Conversely, if at 10 miles your avg hr is only 70% of max then you may have been too conservative in the beginning.

Below I'll list my most recent marathon data with avg HR percentages every 4 miles. Everybody is different but this might help in constructing a plan. You'll need to adjust the percentages accordingly based on an estimated avg of 83%. Shoot me an email if you want to discuss further. Good luck, can't wait to hear how it goes!

4M 83.3%
8M 84.6%
12M 85.5%
16M 86.1%
20M 86.6%
24M 86.8%
26M 87.2%

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

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

IP: Logged

posted Oct-05-2007 01:14 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by aharmer:
Here's one idea. I'll assume as a Maff runner that you know your max HR. Also assuming you are able to run somewhere in the neighborhood of 4 hours, you should be able to sustain an average of about 83% of max HR for the duration of the marathon. The faster you run the race the higher % of max HR you are able to support. Elites can probably support closer to 90%. It sounds like you've done no higher HR segments leading up to the race...this could impact the 83% number but probably not significantly. I know the max HR conversation doesn't hold much weight in this thread but when you're talking marathon performance I believe it has merit.

You can monitor your current HR but watching avg HR is the far better screen to monitor if you're running by HR. I recommend picking a pace that you believe you're capable of and start there for the first several miles. Evaluate avg HR every couple miles. If your avg HR is over 83% at 10 miles you know you're going too fast. Conversely, if at 10 miles your avg hr is only 70% of max then you may have been too conservative in the beginning.

Below I'll list my most recent marathon data with avg HR percentages every 4 miles. Everybody is different but this might help in constructing a plan. You'll need to adjust the percentages accordingly based on an estimated avg of 83%. Shoot me an email if you want to discuss further. Good luck, can't wait to hear how it goes!

4M 83.3%
8M 84.6%
12M 85.5%
16M 86.1%
20M 86.6%
24M 86.8%
26M 87.2%

---

The only marathon I ever recorded with a HRM. I didn't use the HRM to dictate pace. I just let it record what happened HR -wise while I attempted to stick to a pace plan.
I did a 3:30 BQ (sugarloaf USA):
MHR=199

1) 8:30 152 76%MHR
2) 8:32 159 78% MHR
3) 8:16 162 81% MHR
4) 8:11 167 84% MHR
5) 8:10 168 84% MHR
6) 8:11 171 86% MHR
7) 8:17 171 86% MHR
8) 8:13 170 85% MHR
9) 9:00 173 87% MHR
10)8:35 171 86% MHR
11) 7:58 169 85% MHR
12) 7:46 168 85% MHR
13) 7:38 175 88% MHR
14) 7:46 175 88% MHR
15) 7:47 173 87% MHR
16) 7:35 172 86% MHR
17) 7:25 174 87% MHR
18) 7:46 176 88% MHR
19) 7:36 179 90% MHR
20) 7:51 181 91% MHR
21) 7:58 181 91% MHR
22) 8:17 180 90% MHR
23) 8:18 179 90% MHR
24) 7:54 183 92% MHR
25) 7:33 187 94% MHR
25.2) 1:42 189 95% MHR
26.2) 7:33 189 95% MHR

I'm not sure your theory covers what I did.
Here's my report for the race, gives a good play by play:

http://www.rirr.org/race_reports/racereport_sugarloafUSA_mara_2006.html

--Jimmy

MAF log
profile

[This message has been edited by jjwaverly42 (edited Oct-05-2007).]

IP: Logged

posted Oct-05-2007 03:32 PM               

Interesting data, our races were very similar. Your avg HR for the race was 87.4%, mine was 87.2%. Below are both of our cumulative avg HR's at 4 mile increments throughout the race...Jimmy's listed first, Adam's second

4 mile: 80.4%, 83.3%
8 mile: 82.9%, 84.6%
12 mile: 83.8%, 85.5%
16 mile: 84.7%, 86.1%
20 mile: 85.6%, 86.6%
24 mile: 86.5%, 86.8%
26 mile: 87.4%, 87.2%

It looks like you did about a 3:00 negative split where i did a 6:00 positive split. The numbers show that, you were able to push hard at the end and I was hanging on for dear life. Nice job on the neg. split by the way!

[This message has been edited by aharmer (edited Oct-05-2007).]

IP: Logged

posted Oct-05-2007 05:10 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sparrowface:
A. This is not long slow distance
B. I don't think you are posting here for the reasons you say you are.
C. I think you are advertising your website, philosophy, and book.
D. Welcome, anyway! You've always seemed pretty cool.

---

I think you're about 50 (maybe 100) percent right. Soon after I self-published the book, I thought I could come on the forums and use the ideas to answer people's questions - show how they apply. I do believe all training is individual - the main topic of the book - and there are ample posts in the forums by people who want to make the science "their own" but don't know how. A very necessary thing to do, IMHO. I can choose Maff, Lydiard, Douillard, Gerschler, Bowerman, or whatever - but in every case I have to learn how to apply it to my own body, my daily ups and downs, and so on.

So I thought it was a pretty good idea to come and share. But lately I have noticed a shift - people are getting tired of seeing the long sig touting the book, and they're probably tiring of seeing the same old ideas as well. They do work, but frankly, I, too, am no longer feeling energized by looking for the people who'll be helped by them and piping up. I think it's gotten to a point where I've slid over the edge to seeing the ideas but not the people. The antithesis of that big theme - the individual is where training starts. So, thanks for the wakeup - I'll do better. Not try - will.

You're also right about my training being more LSD. I'm an old putz with a weird physical history. I was paralyzed from the chest down for 2 1/2 years in my early twenties, and my heart, lungs, and right leg still don't work right. In fact, this played a major role in my desire to write the book. My spine was compressed in the area of the heart, and after I recovered, I had trouble getting my heart harmonized when I ran - I suspect there was some weird stuff happening with heart-rate variability.

What I discovered is that the same methods that harmonized my heart made my training go WAY better, both physically and emotionally. But I've also found that people who have a lot of heart quality already often don't have to be told about that. They are more intuitive, more in touch with what their bodies are doing, more able to adjust training to the body's needs moment by moment. I had to learn all that, and it took many years, and wasn't easy. But not everybody needs to hear it, unless they're interested in the practices, or the spiritual side.

But, I digress - and, again, you're right. I should have posted my question on the Old Putz Forum - and I will. Meanwhile, I did do Maff training for six months, without success - my MAF pace didn't increase at all. I believe this is related to the lingering problems with heart and body (has to be - I was ruthlessly strict about never running faster than my MAF pace). The training that I thrive on seems to be, as I indicated, "very hard, very easy, with huge amounts of rest." Not an original concept with me - I picked it up from people like ultrarunner Eric Robinson, who said he "only began to make progress when he started giving his body massive amounts of rest." Anyway, I had my long run this morning, and I was thinking about Monty Python, the French taunting scene. So, thanks a bunch for your accurate (and kindly!) response, and I will go away now, lest you taunt me another time. Persnigget. (No sig this time.)

IP: Logged

posted Oct-05-2007 05:26 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by aharmer:
Hey Jimmy,

Interesting data, our races were very similar. Your avg HR for the race was 87.4%, mine was 87.2%. Below are both of our cumulative avg HR's at 4 mile increments throughout the race...Jimmy's listed first, Adam's second

4 mile: 80.4%, 83.3%
8 mile: 82.9%, 84.6%
12 mile: 83.8%, 85.5%
16 mile: 84.7%, 86.1%
20 mile: 85.6%, 86.6%
24 mile: 86.5%, 86.8%
26 mile: 87.4%, 87.2%

It looks like you did about a 3:00 negative split where i did a 6:00 positive split. The numbers show that, you were able to push hard at the end and I was hanging on for dear life. Nice job on the neg. split by the way!

[This message has been edited by aharmer (edited Oct-05-2007).]

---

I need to correct myself...our races were not very similar, they were actually very different. But the HR data still looks fairly similar on paper. It would be interesting to see what the HR data looked like had we both run even splits. I'd bet the end % would have remained the same, but the percentages all the way through the race probably would have been dead on as well.

I wonder if anybody else has Hr data from a recent marathon they could share for me to put into the spreadsheet?

IP: Logged

posted Oct-05-2007 07:29 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by aharmer:
I need to correct myself...our races were not very similar, they were actually very different. But the HR data still looks fairly similar on paper. It would be interesting to see what the HR data looked like had we both run even splits. I'd bet the end % would have remained the same, but the percentages all the way through the race probably would have been dead on as well.

I wonder if anybody else has Hr data from a recent marathon they could share for me to put into the spreadsheet?

---

I've posted this somewhere before, but here it is again:

http://trail.motionbased.com/trail/activity/2493531

Got a lot of hills and wind to skew the data, but what the heck.
You can get all you need from the "heart rate" and "laps" options
at the left.

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

IP: Logged

posted Oct-05-2007 07:35 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by aharmer:
Hey Jimmy,

Interesting data, our races were very similar. Your avg HR for the race was 87.4%, mine was 87.2%. Below are both of our cumulative avg HR's at 4 mile increments throughout the race...Jimmy's listed first, Adam's second

4 mile: 80.4%, 83.3%
8 mile: 82.9%, 84.6%
12 mile: 83.8%, 85.5%
16 mile: 84.7%, 86.1%
20 mile: 85.6%, 86.6%
24 mile: 86.5%, 86.8%
26 mile: 87.4%, 87.2%

It looks like you did about a 3:00 negative split where i did a 6:00 positive split. The numbers show that, you were able to push hard at the end and I was hanging on for dear life. Nice job on the neg. split by the way!

[This message has been edited by aharmer (edited Oct-05-2007).]

---

That's what a 16 week base period of MAF gave me, even though I was blubberman. I would say the difference between your performance and mine is that you started too fast in terms of HR and you slowed in the second half.

Here's another way to look at my performance. Instead of cumalitive, try averaging each 4 and each half:

miles ave %MHR
1-4.........79.8
5-8.........85.3
9-12.......85.8
13-16......87.2
17-20......89
21-24.......91
25-26.2....94.7

1-13 84%
14-26.2 90%

I'm not sure what you'll do with that. It does show in terms of HR how slow I start.

I'm also not sure where you are getting the 83% average theory that you are telling the other poster.

Thanks for the statsgasm, though.

--Jimmy

@@@@
MAF log

IP: Logged

posted Oct-05-2007 07:48 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by leitnerj:
I've posted this somewhere before, but here it is again:

http://trail.motionbased.com/trail/activity/2493531

Got a lot of hills and wind to skew the data, but what the heck.
You can get all you need from the "heart rate" and "laps" options
at the left.

---

Hey Jesse,

Was this marathon what one might call "all out?"
170 average seems low in terms of MHR. Do you feel
you could have squeezed out a faster performance?
Not that 3:11 is sneezable.

--Jimmy

@@@@
MAF log

IP: Logged

posted Oct-05-2007 08:24 PM               

No question I started at too high a HR. My goal was sub-3. The weather was really hot and humid. I made a conscious decision to go out in 1:29 anyway and hope that my fitness was enough better than 3:00 that I could hang on. Nope. In fact, my first 5-7 miles were probably at more like 2:54 pace...not the smartest thing I've ever done.

The 83% is something I got from Daniels' Running Formula. His theory goes from a 5:00 marathoner at 80% down to a 2:05 marathoner at 89%. A 3:00 should be about 86%. Most people I've analyzed have been very close. Your number is actually the furthest I've seen from the curve, his formula has a 3:30 at about 84.5%.

Jesse I'll take a look at yours too...thanks!

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

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

IP: Logged

posted Oct-05-2007 08:50 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by jjwaverly42:
Hey Jesse,

Was this marathon what one might call "all out?"
170 average seems low in terms of MHR. Do you feel
you could have squeezed out a faster performance?
Not that 3:11 is sneezable.

--Jimmy

@@@@
MAF log

---

I'm not sure I'd call it all out because it was so crowded
at the beginning that I couldn't go nearly as fast as I had wanted
to. With that said, I'd say the real reason it looks that way is
that max heart rate is not a very relevant quantity because anything
over anaerobic threshold is of little use for any distance over about
a mile or so. If you really want to equalize efforts for a marathon,
I would say that you should use anaerobic threshold. Mine is
about 178. If you use % of that, I think we'll all look similar
at nearly-full - full effort.

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

IP: Logged

posted Oct-05-2007 09:11 PM               

4 mile: 80.4%, 83.3%, 75.5%
8 mile: 82.9%, 84.6%, 77.5%
12 mile: 83.8%, 85.5%, 78.4%
16 mile: 84.7%, 86.1%, 79.1%
20 mile: 85.6%, 86.6%, 79.7%
24 mile: 86.5%, 86.8%, 80.3%
26 mile: 87.4%, 87.2%, 80.8%

I'm really geeked out now with these numbers flying. Sweat is dripping off my taped glasses into my pocket protector! The next set of numbers shows the three of us at 5, 10, 15 & 20 miles. It shows the percentage of our actual avg HR for the race we were at during different points of the race. For example, Jesse averaged 80.8% of max (169.8) during Boston. At 5 miles his avg was 94.4% of that (160.2). The three columns are Jimmy, Adam, Jesse.

5M 93.0%, 96.1%, 94.4%
10M 95.7%, 97.4%, 96.5%
15M 96.8%, 98.4%, 97.6%
20M 98.0%, 99.1%, 98.6%

Somebody who wanted to run a marathon by HR but didn't have any idea what HR to use as a starting point could use Daniels' recommendations as a starting point. If they know their max they then know what to shoot for as an average for the race, and with the information above, can calculate what their average should look like at different points in the race. Everybody is different, but a dramatic variation from these numbers and you may want to consider either slowing down or cranking it up a bit.
Jimmy ran a pretty significant negative split. I had a significant slowdown. Jesse's data splits ours pretty much down the middle so I'd recommend putting your actual numbers into Jesse's percentages as a starting point.

FYI - These are the percentages of max HR people should be able to sustain for a marathon according to Daniels' Running Formula.
5:00 80%
4:40 81%
4:20 82%
4:00 83%
3:40 84%
3:20 85%
3:00 86%
2:50 87%
2:20 88%
2:05 89%

You won't be surprised to hear that I have a herniated disc in my back and haven't been able to run for a week. Now you'll all have to put up with my insane ramblings until I get back on the road.

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

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

IP: Logged

posted Oct-05-2007 09:16 PM               

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

IP: Logged

posted Oct-05-2007 09:21 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by leitnerj:
I'm not sure I'd call it all out because it was so crowded
at the beginning that I couldn't go nearly as fast as I had wanted
to. With that said, I'd say the real reason it looks that way is
that max heart rate is not a very relevant quantity because anything
over anaerobic threshold is of little use for any distance over about
a mile or so. If you really want to equalize efforts for a marathon,
I would say that you should use anaerobic threshold. Mine is
about 178. If you use % of that, I think we'll all look similar
at nearly-full - full effort.

---

So you ran Boston at about 95.5% of your anaerobic threshold. I forgot, do you define anaerobic threshold as the RQ=1.0 point? Would you think most people would be at about the same percentage of their AT for the marathon distance?

IP: Logged

posted Oct-05-2007 09:31 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by leitnerj:
Well, if you or Jimmy have a clue of your anaerobic thresholds,
you should use % of that heart rate and I bet they'll line up much
better. I know a few folks with much lower max heart rates than
mine with higher AT heart rates. But neither of us is going to sustain
anything over that value for more than a short time.

---

Good point. My AT is about 176-179 or about 88-90% MHR. According to our bored--filling--in--the--emptiness--with--mad--statistical--rantings friend, Adam, I averaged 87.4%. Pretty close. Last 7 miles were AT and over.

As you know, i usually don't wear a HRM in a race. I use the HRM in training, and to help find a good race-pace to go for. Once I make a pace plan, I go by that. So, much of this is kind of meaningless (though it's fun). I believe the mind can push the body past statistical ideas.

--Jimmy

@@@@
MAF log

IP: Logged

posted Oct-05-2007 09:54 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by aharmer:
So you ran Boston at about 95.5% of your anaerobic threshold. I forgot, do you define anaerobic threshold as the RQ=1.0 point? Would you think most people would be at about the same percentage of their AT for the marathon distance?

---

Yes, where RQ = 1. And that was just average. I generally go over
it in the last part. It took me a number of marathons before I could
get that close to AT for so long.

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

IP: Logged

posted Oct-05-2007 09:58 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by jjwaverly42:
Good point. My AT is about 176-179 or about 88-90% MHR. According to our bored--filling--in--the--emptiness--with--mad--statistical--rantings friend, Adam, I averaged 87.4%. Pretty close. Last 7 miles were AT and over.

As you know, i usually don't wear a HRM in a race. I use the HRM in training, and to help find a good race-pace to go for. Once I make a pace plan, I go by that. So, much of this is kind of meaningless (though it's fun). I believe the mind can push the body past statistical ideas.

--Jimmy

@@@@
MAF log

---

Right. For myself, correlating the training and racing HR data
and trying to figure out what's going on
is much more important than doing well in the race! I feel I've
really learned how to optimally use the monitor during the race
after many tries at it. I think I've removed prospect for a bad
day ... even on a bad day.

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

IP: Logged

posted Oct-05-2007 10:08 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by leitnerj:
Right. For myself, correlating the training and racing HR data
and trying to figure out what's going on
is much more important than doing well in the race! I feel I've
really learned how to optimally use the monitor during the race
after many tries at it. I think I've removed prospect for a bad
day ... even on a bad day.

---

You're pro-Borg and I'm sure if you could have it implanted (which I think you can) you would. Me, although I'm completely into the idea of a Data, I wouldn't want us to turn into a half human-half machine collective....actually I just like the naked feeling in the race--like I'm wearing no bra. Actually, I haven't worn it much after a half marathon when the strap came undone--I lost 2 seconds. Actually, I wear the damn strap so often, it has imprinted itself in my skin like the Shroud of Turin.
Ah, Fridays, go Red Sox...

---Jimmy

P.S. I'm showing my Trekkiness. For you others who are hiding yours, here is the great Bill singing Rocketman:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NN3MGN899yE

And Taxi:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBWOmHUvKBw

@@@@
MAF log

IP: Logged

posted Oct-05-2007 11:08 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by jjwaverly42:
Hey Jesse,

Was this marathon what one might call "all out?"
170 average seems low in terms of MHR. Do you feel
you could have squeezed out a faster performance?
Not that 3:11 is sneezable.

--Jimmy

@@@@
MAF log

---

Ahchoo.

IP: Logged

posted Oct-05-2007 11:11 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by jjwaverly42:
The only marathon I ever recorded with a HRM. I didn't use the HRM to dictate pace. I just let it record what happened HR -wise while I attempted to stick to a pace plan.
I did a 3:30 BQ (sugarloaf USA):
MHR=199

1) 8:30 152 76%MHR
2) 8:32 159 78% MHR
3) 8:16 162 81% MHR
4) 8:11 167 84% MHR
5) 8:10 168 84% MHR
6) 8:11 171 86% MHR
7) 8:17 171 86% MHR
8) 8:13 170 85% MHR
9) 9:00 173 87% MHR
10)8:35 171 86% MHR
11) 7:58 169 85% MHR
12) 7:46 168 85% MHR
13) 7:38 175 88% MHR
14) 7:46 175 88% MHR
15) 7:47 173 87% MHR
16) 7:35 172 86% MHR
17) 7:25 174 87% MHR
18) 7:46 176 88% MHR
19) 7:36 179 90% MHR
20) 7:51 181 91% MHR
21) 7:58 181 91% MHR
22) 8:17 180 90% MHR
23) 8:18 179 90% MHR
24) 7:54 183 92% MHR
25) 7:33 187 94% MHR
25.2) 1:42 189 95% MHR
26.2) 7:33 189 95% MHR

I'm not sure your theory covers what I did.
Here's my report for the race, gives a good play by play:

http://www.rirr.org/race_reports/racereport_sugarloafUSA_mara_2006.html

--Jimmy

MAF log
profile

[This message has been edited by jjwaverly42 (edited Oct-05-2007).]

---

I can't believe you kicked it up like that in the last 3 miles.

IP: Logged

posted Oct-05-2007 11:28 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by martinjames:
I can't believe you kicked it up like that in the last 3 miles.

---

A great man once wrote: "If you haven't hit the wall, you can go harder. It hurts a lot, and you feel like you are going to explode and die, but you can keep going."

IP: Logged

posted Oct-06-2007 03:16 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by aharmer:
So you ran Boston at about 95.5% of your anaerobic threshold. I forgot, do you define anaerobic threshold as the RQ=1.0 point? Would you think most people would be at about the same percentage of their AT for the marathon distance?

---

Adam,

I came across on a good forum discussion that 'R' value of .92 to .96 would be possible if some energy is taken in during the race. Poster was referring typical marathon pace of
performance oriented marathoners.(I think he is Jack Daniels)

Sorry to hear your injury. I wish you quick healing.

Oguz

IP: Logged