posted Jul-10-2007 07:56 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by rjbram:
WhoDay -
It looks like you are making good progress. Can you tell me what was your initial pace when you started LHR running?

---

I do have one route, however, that I use for my long runs that is flat. I still find it difficult to account for the effect of heat, but if I look back at my training log I can see a definite increase in "aerobic(?) efficiency".

On long runs I currently start well below MAF (MAF-10) and try to maintain a steady pace over the course of the run.

Over 10 weeks I've noticed two improvements:

1. My HR for a given pace has lowered 5-10 bpm. I would guess that my pace for a given HR has improved 30-60 secs.

2. My pace/HR does not erode as sharply during a run. In the beginning, after 4 miles or so, my HR would rise sharply for a given pace OR my pace would slow sharply for a given HR. I still see the HR drift, but it is much more gradual and doesn't become significant until much later in my runs.

You asked a simple question and I'm sorry that I couldn't answer it in a simple fashion. Certainly, running slower has allowed me to get stronger and more efficient. I know, however, that there will be a time to begin to include more intense workouts.

Thank you for the question!

IP: Logged

posted Jul-10-2007 09:54 AM               

IP: Logged

posted Jul-10-2007 10:24 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by litefoot:
Hi LHR trainers!
Just wanted to chime in here with a few comments and some questions if I may. I've been on HH's Novice Supreme program for 12 weeks training for the Death Valley marathon in December. I'm 47 and started running at or below my MAF (133) a couple of weeks ago. My typical pace is about 9:30 to 9:40.
Is it normal to find discomfort in the legs/knees when slowing down the pace and adjusting one's form? Since I'm building a mileage base for the first time leading up to the marathon, should I not worry about interval/speed work. Part of me wants to make a good showing and the other part says just train to finish. Last question: I want to set up a training zone on my HRM. Does 123-133 sound right? Thank you all.

---

Why are you doing this program?

123-133 is fine if you are in a healthy state.

--Jimmy

MAF Jog Log
zzzzzzz

IP: Logged

posted Jul-10-2007 11:26 AM            

I'm 47 as well so we share the same MAF. I'm not familiar with Higdon's Novice Supreme program, but I did look over it briefly.

A training pace of 9:30-9:40 that is <MAF is very good IMO. As a comparison, I've been running my long runs at 10:15-10:30 pace.

I experienced some discomfort in my calves when I began LHR training. Hills accentuated the discomfort. I don't know what your base was before beginning the Supreme program, but some of your discomfort could be from ramping up mileage.

The latter part of the Supreme program is the same as Higdon's old Novice I program. Higdon doesn't include any speed work in that particular novice programs, although he does include limited marathon pace work in the Novice II program.

Finally, a training HR zone of 123 - 133 sounds good to me, especially for long runs. When I begin a long run I have an HR of approximately 123 and then focus on maintaining that pace and allowing my HR to rise as the run progresses. On shorter weekday runs I usually try to maintain an HR of 128 on flats/downhills and allow for a rise to 133 on hills. Needless to say, my pace fluctuates accordingly.

IP: Logged

posted Jul-10-2007 11:52 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Who Dey:
Thanks Docster. This thread is wonderful for us newbies as we can learn from the experiences of others!

During my last marathon cycle I became injured towards the end and my training suffered considerably. I was very surprised that I could salvage a 8:45 pace. I typically trained at about 60 sec over marathon pace, so I think I was on track to run 8:30 or so prior to getting injured.

Now I'm running at what might be 2 minutes over marathon pace and that is difficult to wrap my mind around. I live in Cincinnnati, so the summer is not as brutal as in some places, but we get our share of heat and humidity (it's supposed to hit 93 today).

Do you incorporate any speed work into your training or do you subsist entirely on <MAF running? If you do use speed work, when do you begin to use it?

I apologize if these questions have been asked and answered before. As I make my way MAFing along, new questions come to mind as I progress.

---

Good questions, Who Dey! No need to apologize. My speedwork right now is once a week. I alternate a 3 to 4 mile tempo run at 5K pae + 30 seconds, give or take. (I use McMillian's calculator to find my tempo range) The next week I will do 1M repeats at close to 5K pace.

As I get closer to my goal race (Twin Cities marathon on 10/7) I will throw in one or two MP runs of 8 to 10 miles, and I'm also running the Virginia Beach HM over Labor Day, where I hope to run under 1:33. The other speedwork I do is to run the last 1/3 or so of a few long runs at MP.

I'm kind of bad in that I don't really follow any marathon schedule. I get plenty of miles in (I will peak around 80 in August) and I do the speedwork mentioned above. I'm trying to stay healthy and not introduce too many hard workouts, as I feel what I'm doing now is a great balance for me.

IP: Logged

posted Jul-10-2007 01:11 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by jjwaverly42:
Why are you doing this program?

123-133 is fine if you are in a healthy state.

--Jimmy

MAF Jog Log
zzzzzzz

---

Jimmy,
I decided to get back into running and wanted a long-term goal to keep me motivated. So I decided to train for a marathon. HH's program was the first one I found when searching on the 'net, and it was free. I have no other reason for choosing his program. I'm beginning the 16-week ramp-up in mileage next week, so I'm all ears if you know of a program that might serve me better.

IP: Logged

posted Jul-10-2007 01:29 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Who Dey:
Welcome litefoot.

I'm 47 as well so we share the same MAF. I'm not familiar with Higdon's Novice Supreme program, but I did look over it briefly.

A training pace of 9:30-9:40 that is <MAF is very good IMO. As a comparison, I've been running my long runs at 10:15-10:30 pace.

I experienced some discomfort in my calves when I began LHR training. Hills accentuated the discomfort. I don't know what your base was before beginning the Supreme program, but some of your discomfort could be from ramping up mileage.

The latter part of the Supreme program is the same as Higdon's old Novice I program. Higdon doesn't include any speed work in that particular novice programs, although he does include limited marathon pace work in the Novice II program.

Finally, a training HR zone of 123 - 133 sounds good to me, especially for long runs. When I begin a long run I have an HR of approximately 123 and then focus on maintaining that pace and allowing my HR to rise as the run progresses. On shorter weekday runs I usually try to maintain an HR of 128 on flats/downhills and allow for a rise to 133 on hills. Needless to say, my pace fluctuates accordingly.

---

WD,
Thanks for sharing that info. My base before starting my program was zero, nada. I did run 25-30 mpw in my late teens to early 20's. I am excited about LHR, and my "average" HR is <MAF, but sometimes I have to literally walk up the upslopes to keep it down. So I appreciate your advice on running below MAF and leaving some margin for the hills.

IP: Logged

posted Jul-10-2007 01:38 PM            

When I first began LHR training, I tried to run exactly at my MAF (133).

I frequently run on hilly routes and I found very difficult to maintain a constant HR ... the required fluctuations in my pace was aggravating. I was always looking at the HRM and was not able to run very smoothly.

A flat course was/is easier to maintain a constant HR, but, again, I was annoyed by having to slow my pace as the run progressed. On some days it seemed like my pace kept slowing so much that I would eventually be running backwards.

It's much easier for me to factor in a little HR cushion for both hilly runs and long flat runs. I find that my pace evens out a bit (not so many drastic ups and downs in pace) and that my overall pace for the run improves. The only downside is that I don't get as much of a speed work effect on downhills.

Bottomline ... it's fun (and probably good for you too!) to mix up your workouts ... run some well below MAF and strive for a constant pace ... run others at a tighter HR range and allow the pace to rise/fall as necessary.

(Can't believe I'm actually offering advice to someone in this thread as I've been the one being schooled by the experienced ones here!)

IP: Logged

posted Jul-10-2007 01:52 PM            

Thanks for the additional input. Going through this the first time there is a great deal that one must take on faith, although the past experiences of others helps lessen the difficulty of that leap of faith.

I "feel" like I'll need to add speed work at some point and I know that's a part of LHR training (i.e., it's more than just bunches of miles at LHR). My challenge will be to be patient in adding the speed work.

LHR training has allowed me to run more (more frequently and longer) and that gets me heady at times. I believe that I can improve on my marathon PR of 3:49, but I'm not sure that I can jump all the way to a BQ of 3:30. Maybe ... maybe not. I don't want to get greedy and add 3:30-type speed work when maybe I'm not ready.

You might not be following a specific training program, but the description of your training reminded me of Pfitzinger's approach. I'll probably follow something similar ... complete base training and then add tempo runs, MP runs, and occasional shorter races. I'm a little shy about adding mile repeats and such as I'm afraid the intensity might be too much this goaround.

Thanks again!

IP: Logged

posted Jul-10-2007 02:14 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by litefoot:
Jimmy,
I decided to get back into running and wanted a long-term goal to keep me motivated. So I decided to train for a marathon. HH's program was the first one I found when searching on the 'net, and it was free. I have no other reason for choosing his program. I'm beginning the 16-week ramp-up in mileage next week, so I'm all ears if you know of a program that might serve me better.

---

What I meant was why are you choosing to try MAF training? What are you trying to achieve by doing MAF? I just like to make sure I know what someone is going for.

MAF training is tough at first, but if you stick with it, it pays off. It's all about fat-burning and health while achieving your race goals at the same time.

--Jimmy

Jog Log
zzzzzzz

IP: Logged

posted Jul-10-2007 04:14 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Who Dey:
Docster,

Thanks for the additional input. Going through this the first time there is a great deal that one must take on faith, although the past experiences of others helps lessen the difficulty of that leap of faith.

I "feel" like I'll need to add speed work at some point and I know that's a part of LHR training (i.e., it's more than just bunches of miles at LHR). My challenge will be to be patient in adding the speed work.

LHR training has allowed me to run more (more frequently and longer) and that gets me heady at times. I believe that I can improve on my marathon PR of 3:49, but I'm not sure that I can jump all the way to a BQ of 3:30. Maybe ... maybe not. I don't want to get greedy and add 3:30-type speed work when maybe I'm not ready.

You might not be following a specific training program, but the description of your training reminded me of Pfitzinger's approach. I'll probably follow something similar ... complete base training and then add tempo runs, MP runs, and occasional shorter races. I'm a little shy about adding mile repeats and such as I'm afraid the intensity might be too much this goaround.

Thanks again!

---

I think you have a great plan to be honest. The mile repeats are challenging, but I'm doing 3x for now, and still not running at full 5K pace when I do them. The worst problem I have right now is my back....I could barely run today because of it. Too bad MAF can't help fix a bad back.

IP: Logged

posted Jul-10-2007 05:05 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by jjwaverly42:
What I meant was why are you choosing to try MAF training? What are you trying to achieve by doing MAF? I just like to make sure I know what someone is going for.

MAF training is tough at first, but if you stick with it, it pays off. It's all about fat-burning and health while achieving your race goals at the same time.

--Jimmy

Jog Log
zzzzzzz

---

Jimmy,
Yep, I misunderstood your question. I'm choosing MAF in addition to HH's program because I want to build my base the right way, not just adding miles without regard to pace. All you guys, along with Mark Allens testimonial, have convinced me that MAF is the way to go. I'm pretty excited.

IP: Logged

posted Jul-10-2007 07:53 PM            

I did 3.75 miles in the rain on a dirt/gravel track (read: mud and huge puddles). Each loop is 1.25 miles and I was running at a really slow pace (avg just under 14:00 mpm).

Lap 1 - 154 HR - 17:30 (14:00 mpm) Started raining 3/4 of the way
Lap 2 - 163 HR - 16:00 (12:48 mpm) Pouring down rain
Lap 3 - 159 HR - 19:00 (15:12 mpm) Running through huge puddles

http://www.coolrunning.com/cgi-bin/log/display.cgi?u=RacingThoughts;s=RacingThought

IP: Logged

posted Jul-10-2007 07:57 PM            

Getting some good barefoot walking and running in. Very little running but what I do, I do at very fast cadence although I don't move forward very fast.

With the heat, it has been difficult keeping my heartrate within the zone but I've largely been succeeding. Sometimes I have to walk slowly especially up hills.

It's hard to be patient enough to warm up and and then warm down and stick to this but it is kind of fun because it isn't difficult. It is energizing actually, just as Stu Mittleman said in his book.

I did a full body workout on Sunday near my all-time personal record poundages. I might rest tomorrow or I might not. I will be due for an upper body workout mid-week.

IP: Logged

posted Jul-10-2007 08:05 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by RacingThoughts:
Yesterday I was finally able to run over a mile under my original MAF HR of 154. I've been training under 165-170 (MAF+10-15) for three weeks and under 154 for four weeks before that. I think running more w/ less walking has helped improve my form, economy and breathing.

I did 3.75 miles in the rain on a dirt/gravel track (read: mud and huge puddles). Each loop is 1.25 miles and I was running at a really slow pace (avg just under 14:00 mpm).

Lap 1 - 154 HR - 17:30 (14:00 mpm) Started raining 3/4 of the way
Lap 2 - 163 HR - 16:00 (12:48 mpm) Pouring down rain
Lap 3 - 159 HR - 19:00 (15:12 mpm) Running through huge puddles

http://www.coolrunning.com/cgi-bin/log/display.cgi?u=RacingThoughts;s=RacingThought

---

Well done! Really keep pushing towards that number....154. I wonder, though...why did you speed up to 12:48 when you could have (from the looks of it) run another mile at 154 avg. if you had kept your 14:00 pace.

IP: Logged

posted Jul-10-2007 08:55 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by leitnerj:
Exactly. One's best marathon heart rate should be just a few heart beats below anaerobic threshold, perhaps 97% of AT. MAF HR should be about 80-85% AT. My MAF HR: 148. My best marathon HR: 172. My AT: about 177.

---

Interesting. My AeT (139) is about 96% of AT (145), but I'd never want to run a marathon at 139, maybe at 90% of AT (131) if I had a really good mileage base and was in good shape. Two years ago I could run a couple hours at 135, and maybe 40-45 minutes above AT (146-150). Probably not too unusual for a relatively low mpw at the time (35-40).

We won't even mention my "Maffetone" MAF... but the Mark Allen age range adjustments (plus a bit for nearing 70) give a MAF which would be a real easy marathon pace right now, even with the "out of shape, overweight, low mpw" caveats.

IP: Logged

posted Jul-10-2007 09:15 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Docster:
Well done! Really keep pushing towards that number....154. I wonder, though...why did you speed up to 12:48 when you could have (from the looks of it) run another mile at 154 avg. if you had kept your 14:00 pace.

---

I had never run in the pouring rain before. It felt really good and I guess I got a little excited. But yeah, I should have kept a more even pace.

IP: Logged

posted Jul-10-2007 09:15 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by slowgino:
Interesting. My AeT (139) is about 96% of AT (145), but I'd never want to run a marathon at 139, maybe at 90% of AT (131) if I had a really good mileage base and was in good shape. Two years ago I could run a couple hours at 135, and maybe 40-45 minutes above AT (146-150). Probably not too unusual for a relatively low mpw at the time (35-40).

---

How did you determine AeT? RQ=.83? I assume you're using AT
at the point where RQ=1, right? If you've got 6 heart beats between
.83 and 1, that's quite a steep increase! I wonder if that's common
for those over 60 or so.

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

IP: Logged

posted Jul-11-2007 12:44 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by leitnerj:
... I assume you're using AT at the point where RQ=1, right? If you've got 6 heart beats between .83 and 1, that's quite a steep increase! I wonder if that's common for those over 60 or so.

---

Yeah, AT is where RQ = 1. I assume the AeT was that close because I trained March - September last year with the HRM solidly down in the aerobic range (125-133), doing a run-walk where I'd walk whenever the HR got too high, running again when it got down to 123-124 (or below.) A physiologist told me some research has shown that the time when the HR is going from high to low is especially valuable for developing the fat-burning metabolism. I don't have a line on what/where we could find that research (or reference to it) though. Whatever.

I always use the downhills for cadence, efficient form, and whatever smooth speed I can get out of them, still keeping the HR down where it should be. Learned this 30+ years ago keeping up with the guys on my 21 milers training for that "1st marathon." I found that if I ran downhill thinking of my feet and legs as a "wheel", and imagining myself just rolling downhill, I could just go at higher speed with no extra effort.

Anyway, I think it was the 6 months of LHR-style training that got the aerobic threshold up. Oh, and I ran the longest long runs with no carbs, just electrolytes (Endurolytes.) Would it make any difference that I'm probably about 99% slow twitch? Or that, essentially, I never get hungry?

IP: Logged

posted Jul-11-2007 07:38 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by slowgino:
I found that if I ran downhill thinking of my feet and legs as a "wheel", and imagining myself just rolling downhill, I could just go at higher speed with no extra effort.

---

I too use the wheel imagery ... plus relaxed shoulders ... light foot strike ... no toe push off. When my mind wanders I sometimes get sloppy, but a renewed focus usually brings things under control.

IP: Logged

posted Jul-11-2007 10:05 AM            

My starting mile pace is usually 30 seconds per mile off my average pace. I also don't seem to get much decay on my 6-7 mile runs as I think it takes me a while to warm up. On longer runs of 12 miles, I see some decay in miles 10,11,12 due to warmer weather and being slightly uphill all of those miles.

I had another MAF PR this morning. It was surprising since it was 72F with 100% humidity. Did roughly a 10k in 8:52mpm at AHR 140. I'm probably 20-30 seconds off where I was before the 3 month layoff in less than 12 weeks with limited mileage.

IP: Logged

posted Jul-11-2007 12:19 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by leitnerj:
How did you determine AeT? RQ=.83? I assume you're using AT
at the point where RQ=1, right? If you've got 6 heart beats between
.83 and 1, that's quite a steep increase! I wonder if that's common
for those over 60 or so.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by slowgino:
[B] Yeah, AT is where RQ = 1. I assume the AeT was that close because I trained March - September last year with the HRM solidly down in the aerobic range (125-133), doing a run-walk where I'd walk whenever the HR got too high, running again when it got down to 123-124 (or below.) A physiologist told me some research has shown that the time when the HR is going from high to low is especially valuable for developing the fat-burning metabolism. I don't have a line on what/where we could find that research (or reference to it) though. Whatever.

I always use the downhills for cadence, efficient form, and whatever smooth speed I can get out of them, still keeping the HR down where it should be. Learned this 30+ years ago keeping up with the guys on my 21 milers training for that "1st marathon." I found that if I ran downhill thinking of my feet and legs as a "wheel", and imagining myself just rolling downhill, I could just go at higher speed with no extra e
Anyway, I think it was the 6 months of LHR-style training that got the aerobic threshold up. Oh, and I ran the longest long runs with no carbs, just electrolytes (Endurolytes.) Would it make any difference that I'm probably about 99% slow twitch? Or that, essentially, I never get hungry?

---

There are always some good discussions here.

I think MAF training comes down to this key point: the goal is to increase speed at the same heart rate while reducing RQ. Once that's done, adding anaerobic training, racing and other things further helps IF it's not overdone otherwise the MAF slows and RQ rises. The ultimate result is improved race times, injury prevention and better health.

I think AeT, AT, etc. are terms in a different system of discussing exercise physiology. RQ can bridge the gap between that and MAF, but it's difficult to logically define something in classical physiology and drop in RQ, or even MAF related ideas. That's not to say that Maffetone isn't based on sound physiology, he is (his textbook does a good job is bridging that gap). But rather than use the AeT, AT, etc. terms, RQ is a much better way to relate to levels of intensity, aerobic function, endurance, etc.

We can't really say AeT is an RQ of .83 (did you mean .85 as the point of 50:50 fat and sugar burning?). Also, it's not normal to be running with an RQ of 1.0, where all your energy is derived from sugar and none from fat, except in the lab or on the track (like a 200 meter event) or on the last 200 meters of a road race (although by then the neuromuscular mechanism is probably not capable of getting to that level of intensity).

IP: Logged

posted Jul-11-2007 12:34 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by slowgino:
Yeah, AT is where RQ = 1. I assume the AeT was that close because I trained March - September last year with the HRM solidly down in the aerobic range (125-133), doing a run-walk where I'd walk whenever the HR got too high, running again when it got down to 123-124 (or below.)

---

The other day, when it was nice and hot, I began to do my usual hot weather slowdown in the last few miles. Since it's the beginning of a new MAF Training Period, it can get really slow (15:00). So, instead, I did what you are talking about in your post. I would walk fast, and when my HR got down to 119, I started to run until it rose to 130, then I began to walk. I did this for the last mile and a half, and I managed to not go over 14:00. As afar as fat-burning goes, Maffetone says a good walk can help the process, so a little run-walking will only help. I listened to one of his interviews on his website, and it seems that he actually gave Mark Allen days of walking as part of his aerobic system rebuild. I do believe some Japanese coaches do the same with their marathon runners.

--Jimmy

MAF log
the exciting land of ME

IP: Logged

posted Jul-11-2007 12:58 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by jjwaverly42:
The other day, when it was nice and hot, I began to do my usual hot weather slowdown in the last few miles. Since it's the beginning of a new MAF Training Period, it can get really slow (15:00). So, instead, I did what you are talking about in your post. I would walk fast, and when my HR got down to 119, I started to run until it rose to 130, then I began to walk. I did this for the last mile and a half, and I managed to not go over 14:00. As afar as fat-burning goes, Maffetone says a good walk can help the process, so a little run-walking will only help. I listened to one of his interviews on his website, and it seems that he actually gave Mark Allen days of walking as part of his aerobic system rebuild. I do believe some Japanese coaches do the same with their marathon runners.

--Jimmy
MAF log
the exciting land of ME

---

This is a great technique (walking/running). I've used it for uphill runs, trails and in the water. I also used it when I did real long workout, where I'd walk for 30 minutes, run two hours, then walk 30 minutes.

I heard Maffetone lecture and he mentioned having all his pro athletes walk at some point in their build up (and during the 'off season'). I think the idea is to develop the very small aerobic music fibers that don't get much action during a run. These are great fat-burning muscle fibers and would get the RQ down.

I recently learned that Maffetone is bigger in Japan than in the US (and he has a few books in Japanese).

IP: Logged

posted Jul-11-2007 01:24 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by litefoot:
Is it normal to find discomfort in the legs/knees when slowing down the pace and adjusting one's form? Since I'm building a mileage base for the first time leading up to the marathon, should I not worry about interval/speed work. Part of me wants to make a good showing and the other part says just train to finish. Last question: I want to set up a training zone on my HRM. Does 123-133 sound right? Thank you all.

---

I found when I initially tried LHR training ( I'm not a full time LHR trainer, I do 1 or two faster workouts most weeks, but my other days are all at MAF pace or slower ) that my knees bothered me quite a bit as I got used to it. After a month or 6 weeks it gradually went away. I think there are subtle changes in your running form and certain muscles may need a little time to get used to it.

As for the interval/speed work, my opinion is probably different than most on this thread, but I think some faster running will help a lot. You don't need to do a lot of it, once a week is fine, but I do think it helps, provided the bulk of your running is at a comfortable pace. It all depends on your goals and experience.

As for the last question, I wouldn't worry about setting a low end of the range. For example, my MAF is 147 ( I'm 38 which gives me 142 and I add 5 beats for running 7+ times a week as per Mark Allen's article ). I start my runs around 120-130 and allow it to drift up while maintaining a steady pace. As long as you're using your normal running action, I believe you're getting aerobic benefits even if you're running well below your MAF value.

IP: Logged