posted Oct-15-2007 10:49 AM               

[This message has been edited by Scott3294 (edited Oct-15-2007).]

[This message has been edited by Scott3294 (edited Oct-15-2007).]

IP: Logged

posted Oct-15-2007 11:21 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Scott3294:
Great thread...brand new to the low heart rate idea.
One question/observation...it seems the theory can be boiled down to a very simple idea: Find your MAF, and stay on it for your run.

---

Find your MAF, and stay BELOW it for your run.

Many of us find the greatest aerobic benefit at MAF-5 to MAF-10

IP: Logged

posted Oct-15-2007 11:39 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by TommyL:

Find your MAF, and stay BELOW it for your run.

Many of us find the greatest aerobic benefit at MAF-5 to MAF-10

---

In addition, I have found that in order to stay BELOW MAF, I have to start 10 beats below, because my HR will climb slowly throughout the run. I will be close to my MAF HR for the last mile or two on a 5-7 mile run, for example. The average HR for the entire run ends up being 6-8 beats below MAF.

IP: Logged

posted Oct-15-2007 11:44 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Scott3294:
Great thread...brand new to the low heart rate idea.
One question/observation...it seems the theory can be boiled down to a very simple idea: Find your MAF, and stay on it for your run.
What has me confused is that many of the posters in this thread are talking about pace...running 7 beats lower than their target by the end of their run...etc. It seems to me that pace has nothing to do with this...if you have to run fast to to hit your MAF you do it...if you have to walk to hit your MAF you do it.
I am not being a smart A#% here, I am trying to understand, why are folks concerned about pace? If your MAF is 140 (mine) and the program says stay on your MAF, why, when I look at many of these examples, are they all over the place (within 5 to 10 of their MAF) and not ON their MAF?
Thanks for any clarity.
Scott

[This message has been edited by Scott3294 (edited Oct-15-2007).]

[This message has been edited by Scott3294 (edited Oct-15-2007).]

---

You can do this program staying around MAF, but it is almost always an exercise in slowing down from mile to mile. According to Training For endurance, you'll basically be doing an MAF test on every run. Maffetone suggests a zone of MAF -10 to MAF (if your MAF is 140, then the zone is 130-140). warming up to the MAF-10 after 15-30 minutes. Then maintain that pace, letting your HR drift up over time. This will still be an exercise in slowing down when you first begin, but it won't be as bad as if you try to stay on the exact MAF number. Everyone does it a little different, but that's the idea.

I usually warm-up to MAF-15 then go from there.

--Jimmy

MAF log
profile

IP: Logged

posted Oct-15-2007 11:50 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Scott3294:
Great thread...brand new to the low heart rate idea.
One question/observation...it seems the theory can be boiled down to a very simple idea: Find your MAF, and stay on it for your run.
What has me confused is that many of the posters in this thread are talking about pace...running 7 beats lower than their target by the end of their run...etc. It seems to me that pace has nothing to do with this...if you have to run fast to to hit your MAF you do it...if you have to walk to hit your MAF you do it.
I am not being a smart A#% here, I am trying to understand, why are folks concerned about pace? If your MAF is 140 (mine) and the program says stay on your MAF, why, when I look at many of these examples, are they all over the place (within 5 to 10 of their MAF) and not ON their MAF?
Thanks for any clarity.
Scott

---

You have the right idea. I run at my MAF and usually have no idea of miles as I run by time. I have a sense of pace because I've been doing this for many years. I don't wear my monitor while biking because I never push myself hard enough to get close to my MAF.

You make a good point about all the talk about pace. I'm not sure why some people don't run at their MAF most of the time (except warm up and cool down). If the effort (perceived exertion) is too hard while the pace relatively slow, it tells me there's some mechanical problem. I think most people would get maximum health and fitness benefits at MAF, not 10 below or where ever.

IP: Logged

posted Oct-15-2007 11:57 AM            

Pfitzinger suggests running long runs at 20% slower than goal pace.
If you can get your sub-MAF long run pace to match 20% slower than your marathon PR, then I think it's an indicator you are making good progress developing your aerobic fitness, and pushing that wall way back!

e.g. my marathon PR is 7:43 pace. If I can get my long runs to average
9:15 pace, then that's some progress. I look back to some runs when I was using Pfitzinger, and the 20% pace was producing MAF +20 HR by the end of the run.

Just an idea on something to play with.

--Jimmy

MAF log
profile

IP: Logged

posted Oct-15-2007 12:30 PM               

IP: Logged

posted Oct-15-2007 03:01 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Scott3294:
Thanks for the responses! I will chalk the differences up to folks not wanting to slow down too much. I found when I started this last week (a whole week!!) that by mile 8 I was running very slowly...but my HR stayed right on 140 and since I am a rule follower...I just kept slowing down to keep my HR there.
Thanks again!!

---

It's not so much that I don't like slowing down, it's that I prefer to run races and marathons in even to negative splits. So I try to get my runs be the same thing. Negative splits in the MAF-10 zone takes many months for me to get to, but it is possible.

--Jimmy

MAF log
profile

IP: Logged

posted Oct-15-2007 08:41 PM               

IP: Logged

posted Oct-15-2007 08:51 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by martinjames:
Stupid question: Assume that anaerobic threshold (or whatever it's called) is 150 bpm. In a marathon, will there be a significant difference in how you feel at, say, mile 24 if you run at 149 v. 141? In other words, shouldn't you have the same amount of energy left at the end if you've run below the threshold, no matter how far below? I'm not really sure how to ask this better. Does it make sense? I'm coming back from an injury and am thinking of dialing it back just a touch for the Marine Corps, but I'm not sure what I gain by running 8 mi/mile v. 7:40 if they're both below the threshold (except that I'll stay on the course 9 minutes longer.

---

You're probably looking for one of the physiologists to answer, but I'm going to say yes, there's a significant difference. AT isn't a binary on/off thing. For one thing, you'll use spare more glycogen the more below AT you are, so your tank will be more full at the end. This is one reason I think that slower runners run marathons at a lower fraction of their threshold -- the threshold really isn't the limited factor. There are a bunch of other considerations like like heat build up, less force and less resulting muscle damage, etc.

Because of whatever screwed me up at MCM last year, I ran 3:56. I think the slower pace enabled me to come back and run 3:43 four weeks later. Avg heart rate for both was 173, but the slower race was easier to recover from, so I think it's more than just HR relative to threshold.

[This message has been edited by gregw (edited Oct-15-2007).]

IP: Logged

posted Oct-15-2007 08:54 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by martinjames:
Stupid question: Assume that anaerobic threshold (or whatever it's called) is 150 bpm. In a marathon, will there be a significant difference in how you feel at, say, mile 24 if you run at 149 v. 141? In other words, shouldn't you have the same amount of energy left at the end if you've run below the threshold, no matter how far below? I'm not really sure how to ask this better. Does it make sense? I'm coming back from an injury and am thinking of dialing it back just a touch for the Marine Corps, but I'm not sure what I gain by running 8 mi/mile v. 7:40 if they're both below the threshold (except that I'll stay on the course 9 minutes longer.

---

If you're running at 1 heart beat under anaerobic threshold, that
means you're just about at 100% carb for fuel. No matter how
steep your RQ vs HR curve is, it's probably going to take you to
carb depletion before the end of the race, which will leave you
with less accessible energy (glycogen is always required at
any level of effort). It will also make a difference in terms of
lactic acid accumulation. However, I don't believe starting out
a bit slower makes much difference in terms of fatigue at the
end. Now with that said, if you are well-MAF-trained, I don't think
you'll gain a whole lot from going from, say, 145 to 141 if your
AT is 149. It's very much a guessing game, however.

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

IP: Logged

posted Oct-15-2007 09:40 PM            

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

IP: Logged

posted Oct-15-2007 09:57 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by gregw:

Because of whatever screwed me up at MCM last year, I ran 3:56. I think the slower pace enabled me to come back and run 3:43 four weeks later. Avg heart rate for both was 173, but the slower race was easier to recover from, so I think it's more than just HR relative to threshold.

[This message has been edited by gregw (edited Oct-15-2007).]

---

Temperature, how tired you are on race day before the race even starts, stresses of life, difficulty of the course, sun vs. overcast, had too much nookie the night before, didn't have enough nookie the night before, tapered too much, tapered too little, etc.

Sometimes a 173 average is a bad day, sometimes a good day.

If you develop your aerobic system enough, glycogen shouldn't be an issue at all. Being tired at the end from racing hard is different from no glycogen.

--Jimmy

MAF log
profile

IP: Logged

posted Oct-15-2007 10:07 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by willamona:
I ran Steamtown again this year. I dod not do so well. I think it's the down hill thing. I set a course PR by 40 minutes but no BQ. Meh. I am looking for a flatish spring marathon.

---

Splitsahol, please...

IP: Logged

posted Oct-15-2007 10:30 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Scott3294:
Thanks for the responses! I will chalk the differences up to folks not wanting to slow down too much. I found when I started this last week (a whole week!!) that by mile 8 I was running very slowly...but my HR stayed right on 140 and since I am a rule follower...I just kept slowing down to keep my HR there.
Thanks again!!

---

Hi Scott- welcome to the thread!

I, personally, don't feel there is any benefit to a) starting your run at MAF, and slowing down as the run progresses to keep your HR at MAF, vs. b) starting at, say- MAF-10, and holding the pace as the run progresses, allowing your HR to rise. As long as you are staying under your MAF HR, you will reap the benefits. I feel there is room for both approaches- and I use both, depending on what I feel like doing on any given day. It helps keep me from getting bored. That's just my opinion, though. In the end, you have to find what works for you.

You are right- as runners, I don't think any of us really like slowing down- especially when we first start low HR training. Its really tough to have faith that by slowing down, and not doing formal speedwork, we are going to become better runners. But after only 3 months of low HR training, I don't have as much trouble with the idea of slowing down, because I've seen how much this approach has changed my running for the better.

Of course, most runners, by their very nature, are competitive- we don't just want to become BETTER runners (i.e.- less injured, more efficient, etc), but we want to be FASTER runners, too. That's why we talk about pace so much, and we get upset at having to run at a slower pace than what we got used to prior to MAF training. But I think I'm starting to realize that the pace I run at on a day to day basis while MAF training is really irrelevant- I will get the aerobic benefits no matter what my pace is, as long as I stay under MAF. This has been a tough lesson to learn, and I think it takes a while to learn it. That's why you only hear us newbies whining about pace, and you never hear people like Jesse or Jimmy complaining- they probably learned that lesson a long time ago!

Anyway- I'll stop rambling now. Best of luck with your training.

Pam

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

IP: Logged

posted Oct-15-2007 10:40 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by willamona:
I ran Steamtown again this year. I dod not do so well. I think it's the down hill thing. I set a course PR by 40 minutes but no BQ. Meh. I am looking for a flatish spring marathon.

---

A 40-minute course PR??? Sounds like you did pretty well to me! Sorry you didn't BQ, though- how far off were you?

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

IP: Logged

posted Oct-15-2007 10:52 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by leitnerj:
If you're running at 1 heart beat under anaerobic threshold, that
means you're just about at 100% carb for fuel. No matter how
steep your RQ vs HR curve is, it's probably going to take you to
carb depletion before the end of the race, which will leave you
with less accessible energy (glycogen is always required at
any level of effort). It will also make a difference in terms of
lactic acid accumulation. However, I don't believe starting out
a bit slower makes much difference in terms of fatigue at the
end. Now with that said, if you are well-MAF-trained, I don't think
you'll gain a whole lot from going from, say, 145 to 141 if your
AT is 149. It's very much a guessing game, however.

---

Thank you, but I am so not smart enough to digest this. For whatever reason, I don't seem to be prone to bonking, so I'm not too worried about depletion (or course, now I'm going to blow up next time out). So it sounds like, on the margin, not much of a difference.

Intellectually, I was envisioning some threshold under which lactic acid doesn't accumulate and that it didn't matter if one was 1% or 10% or 25% under that threshold. I supposeI that's too simple and linear.

Since I understand "no guts no glory," I think that'll have to take the day. It's probably stupid, but I have to finish quickly to drive my kid to his soccer game in Fredericksburg, Virginia that afternoon. That's a good reason, right?

IP: Logged

posted Oct-15-2007 10:56 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by willamona:
I ran Steamtown again this year. I dod not do so well. I think it's the down hill thing. I set a course PR by 40 minutes but no BQ. Meh. I am looking for a flatish spring marathon.

---

Hmm. That's good and too bad. Most importantly, I praise your use of the word "Meh."

IP: Logged

posted Oct-16-2007 08:36 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by jjwaverly42:

Sometimes a 173 average is a bad day, sometimes a good day.

---

Right. That's why I'm telling James that it's more than just HR relative to threshold that will determine how much the marathon takes out of you.

IP: Logged

posted Oct-16-2007 11:05 AM            

Here's my schedule up until the vacation....all these miles will be below MAF of 134, and mostly below or around MAF -5.

All wisdom welcome.
Rebuilding slowly.

--Jimmy

MAF log
profile

[This message has been edited by jjwaverly42 (edited Oct-16-2007).]

IP: Logged

posted Oct-16-2007 11:38 AM               

I've got a bit of a problem. I have a HM on Nov. 4th. I've been feeling pretty good about it, until today- I was out running 8 miles when I started having some shin pain.

My mileage for the last month has been 30-35mpw (higher than I've ever been able to get, thanks to MAF!), and was originally planning on doing 32 miles this week (with a final 12 mile long run prior to the race), then do a lighter week of about 22 miles next week, the following week would be race week. I know I need to ease up on the mileage IMMEDIATELY to prevent this little bit of shin pain from becoming all-out shin splints.

I have 2 questions for you. First- should I slow down as well as reducing my mileage, and aim for a HR of MAF-10 until race day? Secondly, how much should I reduce my mileage? I was thinking of keeping it at 22 miles for this week (instead of my planned 32), and the same for next week. Although I was really hoping for a PR at this race, I'm much more concerned right now with doing the right thing for my health, so any advice would be appreciated!

Thanks, everyone!

Pam

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

IP: Logged

posted Oct-16-2007 12:39 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by catwoman73:
Hi everyone,

I've got a bit of a problem. I have a HM on Nov. 4th. I've been feeling pretty good about it, until today- I was out running 8 miles when I started having some shin pain.

My mileage for the last month has been 30-35mpw (higher than I've ever been able to get, thanks to MAF!), and was originally planning on doing 32 miles this week (with a final 12 mile long run prior to the race), then do a lighter week of about 22 miles next week, the following week would be race week. I know I need to ease up on the mileage IMMEDIATELY to prevent this little bit of shin pain from becoming all-out shin splints.

I have 2 questions for you. First- should I slow down as well as reducing my mileage, and aim for a HR of MAF-10 until race day? Secondly, how much should I reduce my mileage? I was thinking of keeping it at 22 miles for this week (instead of my planned 32), and the same for next week. Although I was really hoping for a PR at this race, I'm much more concerned right now with doing the right thing for my health, so any advice would be appreciated!

Thanks, everyone!

Pam

---

Sounds like an imbalance is beginning to occur.

You need the Heroe pose!

http://www.yogajournal.com/poses/490

Also, try doing this exercise. Works well for all sorts of things like those muscles in your shins:

http://www.egoscue.com/htdocs/global/footpain_02.html

You can also put a soup can in a plastic bag. Then get on a stair or little platform to raise yourself above the floor, then lift the bag with your toes, flexing back toward the shins. A little at a time.

Continue training and see how it feels. Won't hurt you to go MAF-10. An unscheduled day off never hurts.

--Jimmy

MAF log

profile

IP: Logged

posted Oct-16-2007 12:59 PM               

I already made the decision to take tomorrow off from running, go for a swim, and head to yoga class (with a little extra emphasis on hero pose!). I'll go for a run on Thursday at MAF-10 and see how it goes. When I had a look back at my training over the last month, I realized that I'm well overdue for a week of reduced mileage. I kinda forgot to do that once allergy season ended, and I could run again without feeling absolutely horrible. I was feeling so great, I got a little overly confident. Well- lesson learned!

Thanks again!

Pam

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

IP: Logged

posted Oct-16-2007 02:12 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by catwoman73:
Thanks, Jimmy. I'll give it a shot.

I already made the decision to take tomorrow off from running, go for a swim, and head to yoga class (with a little extra emphasis on hero pose!). I'll go for a run on Thursday at MAF-10 and see how it goes. When I had a look back at my training over the last month, I realized that I'm well overdue for a week of reduced mileage. I kinda forgot to do that once allergy season ended, and I could run again without feeling absolutely horrible. I was feeling so great, I got a little overly confident. Well- lesson learned!

Thanks again!

Pam

---

You're welcome.
Cutting back every 4th week by 20-30%, even more if you need it, is a good thing to do for most mortals.
Also, hard (high miles or time)day/easy (low miles or time or rest) day
is a good idea as well.
Recovery is so key to progress.

I wish you well.

--Jimmy

MAF log
profile

IP: Logged

posted Oct-16-2007 02:37 PM               

IP: Logged