posted Oct-27-2007 12:56 PM            

I have been running for 3 years, but without specific goals and consistency.

I have read the maffetone book on fitness and as much of this thread and previous as I can. I just bought a HRM.

My current goals are to build my base to a consistent 20 miles per week (I am 3 weeks into it....16, then 18 then 20). Running one long of 7 and 3 shorter varying from 3.5 to 5.5).

Today I used the HRM for the first time and basically just tried to keep it from beeping at me. (meaning under an 85%)
I slowed down my 6 mile run to an avg of 11 min pace (this is about 1 min slower that my usual pace).
Of my total 66 mins, 45 were in the zone , 1 under and the rest 20 min were over.

So do I just keep doing this until I see time improvements, say 3 months or so?

Am I right not to add intervals until I am happy with my base?

I know this is basic, but heck you guys are experts....and I know you can set me on the right path.

IP: Logged

posted Oct-27-2007 01:57 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by seton:
True "basic training" question:

I have been running for 3 years, but without specific goals and consistency.

I have read the maffetone book on fitness and as much of this thread and previous as I can. I just bought a HRM.

My current goals are to build my base to a consistent 20 miles per week (I am 3 weeks into it....16, then 18 then 20). Running one long of 7 and 3 shorter varying from 3.5 to 5.5).

Today I used the HRM for the first time and basically just tried to keep it from beeping at me. (meaning under an 85%)
I slowed down my 6 mile run to an avg of 11 min pace (this is about 1 min slower that my usual pace).
Of my total 66 mins, 45 were in the zone , 1 under and the rest 20 min were over.

So do I just keep doing this until I see time improvements, say 3 months or so?

Am I right not to add intervals until I am happy with my base?

I know this is basic, but heck you guys are experts....and I know you can set me on the right path.

---

What do you mean by "under 85%" above?

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

IP: Logged

posted Oct-27-2007 02:01 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by marktman:
Hi all on week 3 now and still loving the maf approach. I have a couple of questions I am beginning to wonder about while progressing in maf.

First, how important are recovery weeks every 3-4 weeks since all my runs are at an easy and comfortable pace. I am increasing roughly 10%/week but feel great and haven't felt worn down yet. Should I schedule lighter weeks or just do as my body seems to tell me.

Second question involves weightlifting. I will eventually want to get back in lifting but have hopes to run a hm and a full one next year if the training keeps progressing, so was wondering when might be a good time to start incorperating lifting also. Getting mileage up is first priority if you think lifting would interfere with the maf training until some future point in my training.

Thanks tons,
Mark

---

I don't use any recovery weeks, but Jimmy swears by them. I think
ultimately it depends on how much mileage you're doing and how your
body is responding. If you're doing low mileage and you're not seeing
any cumulative fatigue, you can probably do without a drop-down week.
If fatigue is building up, then your body is asking for one.

I've always maintained my upper body lifting, although not to the
extent I did before I started running. The main question is how much
and how hard, relative to your overall volume.

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

IP: Logged

posted Oct-27-2007 02:41 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by dfcameron:
BigDave,

Great progress! This is the kind of stuff that people need to see. My progress was somewhat similar - although I started around 9:40 at 100 mi/month - and peaked at 8:40 at 357 miles for the month. At that point, I started getting muscle issues, so backed down a bit. I just finished my "best" marathon in 3:28 - not my fastest time; but my best marathon (fastest time was 13 years ago).

Good luck in the continued progress. What have you done to minimize the chances the heart issues won't recur?

---

Well I am on Plavix, a blood thinner to keep from getting blood clots on the stents. Take zocor for cholesteral.

There really isn't much I can do. I have bad genes. I wasn't over weight, didn't smoke, didn't have high cholesteral, ate good, had been running 20-70 miles per week for 4 + years. I am only 40.

My dad had a heart attack at 50 and my uncle had one at 45. You can't get past family history. I was younger, skinnier and in better shape then anyone I saw in the hospital the few days I was there.

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

IP: Logged

posted Oct-27-2007 03:16 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by marktman:
Hi all on week 3 now and still loving the maf approach. I have a couple of questions I am beginning to wonder about while progressing in maf.

First, how important are recovery weeks every 3-4 weeks since all my runs are at an easy and comfortable pace. I am increasing roughly 10%/week but feel great and haven't felt worn down yet. Should I schedule lighter weeks or just do as my body seems to tell me.

Thanks tons,
Mark

---

Welcome to Slowtwitchia!

The idea of the cutback week is to allow for recovery and adaptation. It helps to stay healthy and to ward off potential overtraining and overuse injuries, which still can occur using MAF or HADD. Depends on the volume I would say. I take them religiously whether I'm feeling zippy or not. I find that when I first get up to 50-60 miles per week I really feel that I need them, and less as I go a little higher, but I still take them. You'll have to be the judge on when you need them. You might find, according to your volume, that you might need one every 5 weeks and that works.
I got the idea of the every 4th week from several different coaching sources, and seemed like a good idea.

I can't address the 2nd question as I lift nothing heavier than a large tablespoon full of potential spare tire.

--Jimmy

MAF log

profile

IP: Logged

posted Oct-27-2007 10:50 PM            

1. For the recovery week every 4th week - I don't use it either; but I don't do a long run every weekend. Many runners who do mileage in my range (averaging 50 MPW over the last 20 months; 75 in the 4 months leading to the marathon) do a 20+ mile run every weekend. I tend to do a 25-30 one weekend; then about 2 weekends of 18 for my long run; then back to 25-30; then 2 weekends of 18; and so on. Jesse's got strong recovery - more so than most, I believe.

2. For weight lifting; I run ultras and carry fluids, food, etc. I can't maintain form if I don't do some lifting. Also, I need to do abs/core work 2x week or my midsection gets weak and my legs have to work too hard.

3. For the 90% rule; for me - my anaerobic threshold is at 90% of max HR. It doesn't start there if I haven't been training, but it gets there after a number of weeks of base-building. So... I found if I do intervals at 91% of max HR, I get the anaerobic benefit. If I do them at 96% of max HR, I do too, but I crap out earlier - and recover a lot slower. I can run a half-marathon at 90% of max HR and its a race - shorter, its a nice tempo run. So, I buy off on Maffetone here.

4. Still anything above a pace of about 78% of max HR for me starts me accumulating lactic buildup. I can run for up to 3 hours at 78% or below routinely, and feel fine. Going over 3 hours, or over 78% wears me down. Not sure why, but I take that 78% as MAF.

IP: Logged

posted Oct-28-2007 08:16 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by leitnerj:
What do you mean by "under 85%" above?

---

max aerobic heart

IP: Logged

posted Oct-28-2007 09:57 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by seton:
max aerobic heart

---

I'm sorry but I still don't understand. Are you saying
that you are running at 85% of your MAF value,
i.e., 85% of (180 - age +/- n*5)? If so, why so low?
If you're running at 85% of max heart rate, well,
that's way too high to see any aerobic benefits. So,
just to make sure I understand what you're talking
about, what approach are you following? (Maffetone:
180-age +/- n*5)? How old are you? What target
heart rate are you using?

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

IP: Logged

posted Oct-28-2007 11:26 AM            

Who is the greater marathoner Mark Allen or one of 25 guys
running mileage and long tempo at altitude?

Was I hallucinating when I read how all these guys train.
Sell is/was running up to 175 miles a week with workouts at
threshold. Ritz just ran a 20 plus miler at 2:14 marathon pace.
Ryan Hall - 4:50 a mile at altitude.

How can you say that 85% of max is not aerobic?

IP: Logged

posted Oct-28-2007 11:35 AM            

"
Lactate Threshold: Training runs of 20-60 minutes at 85-87% of HR or 85-87% of vVO2 aids in developing a high level of aerobic threshold.
High-End Aerobic Endurance: Endurance training at 70-80% of maximum HR or 75-80% of vVO2. The duration of runs should be 30 minutes to three hours. The runs should be on soft surfaces and hills. Negative split effort is most desirable."

IP: Logged

posted Oct-28-2007 12:22 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by fredurie:
If you were training at threshold or slightly below which is high
end aerobic, and which many great coaches tout as the best
way to reach your potential, isn't it around 85% to 90% of
maximum heart rate?

Who is the greater marathoner Mark Allen or one of 25 guys
running mileage and long tempo at altitude?

Was I hallucinating when I read how all these guys train.
Sell is/was running up to 175 miles a week with workouts at
threshold. Ritz just ran a 20 plus miler at 2:14 marathon pace.
Ryan Hall - 4:50 a mile at altitude.

How can you say that 85% of max is not aerobic?

---

Sorry, Fred, but you just don't get it. You never have and you
probably never will. Your mind is clouded. You're comparing people
who have extreme levels of talent and years of solid training to
new runners with very limited or no talent (a category that I'm
in) who have done almost nothing to develop their aerobic systems.
Seriously, do you think the people who post here are in the
competitive wire forum, as competitors, even?

Ok, with that said, let's just dissect your statement. First of all,
anaerobic threshold does not occur at a fixed percentage of max
heart rate. Even within a class of fast and talented runners. Most
people with very high max heart rates will have anaerobic threshold
occur well below the max. Before I started this type of training,
I had a max HR of 210 and an anaerobic threshold of 165, and that
was after having run 3 marathons and going through 2 full 18 week
Pfitzinger training regimens. That's less than 80% max heart rate
before I went anaerobic. Nowadays my AT is somewhere above
177. That's still around 85% of my max heart rate.

Now, with all that said, you still don't get what this thread is all about.
Whether you like it or not (and I know it makes you steam with anger
and dismay!), the core of this approach involves training your body
to use fat as a primary source of fuel. This doesn't simply involve
running aerobically, but it involves running at a low enough heart rate
such that you are using mostly fat as the energy source, which means
a respiratory quotient less than about 0.85. For almost everyone,
and certainly for those with weak aerobic development, an RQ of
0.85 will be much, much less than 85% of HRmax.

So, let's say that 85% HRmax for a given individual is just below
AT. Then let's say that said person has decided that to build
his aerobic system, he will run all runs at that level of effort, i.e.,
just below AT. Is that what you do? Every run is a tempo run?
I seem to recall quite a few of your posts (most, even) where you
say that you just ran for an hour or so at a HR of 85. 92. 70.
Are those all just below your AT? Would you do all of your runs at
tempo pace? Do you think that would beneficial for a new runner?
How about an experienced runner, training for the Olympic qualifiers?
I went from horrible marathon times (for me) to consistently qualifying
for Boston, pretty much any time I want, with no tempo runs at all.
That's not to say they're not good for something, but definitely not
every day!

Now, of course, if you ever bothered to read the FAQ and the links
within, you'd have an idea of this. Just to be clear, I will never in an
unsolicited fashion tell someone how to run who is capable of beating
the crap out of me at any distance. However, if someone is trying
to correct some of the common problems I identify in the FAQ, I
will tell them what worked for me and many others.

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

IP: Logged

posted Oct-28-2007 12:36 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by fredurie:
If you were training at threshold or slightly below which is high
end aerobic, and which many great coaches tout as the best
way to reach your potential, isn't it around 85% to 90% of
maximum heart rate?

Who is the greater marathoner Mark Allen or one of 25 guys
running mileage and long tempo at altitude?

Was I hallucinating when I read how all these guys train.
Sell is/was running up to 175 miles a week with workouts at
threshold. Ritz just ran a 20 plus miler at 2:14 marathon pace.
Ryan Hall - 4:50 a mile at altitude.

How can you say that 85% of max is not aerobic?

---

My LT runs are between 85-90%. They are the highest end aerobic runs according to the popular definitions which are based on the need for oxygen, or the lack of. Maffetone defines aerobic as the ability to use more fats and less sugar for energy, and anaerobic as the ability to use more sugar and less fat for energy. His definitions take into account the source of the enrgy and the type of fiber. (Page 19, Training For Endurance 2nd Revised Edition by Dr. Phil Maffetone)

The way I see it, whether an LT run is called aerobic, anaerobic, or bickybibooneous, they work really well, and I like doing them.

The question as to who the better marathoner is, Mark Allen, or the elite mountain people. That might be an apples and oranges question since he was a triathlete, but Allen did run a 2:40 marathon at the Ironman in very, very hot weather. Pretty fast after that very long swim and bike ride. His aerobic fitness was probably as good as any elite in any sport.

--Jimmy

MAF log
profile

IP: Logged

posted Oct-28-2007 12:46 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by jjwaverly42:
My LT runs are between 85-90%. They are the highest end aerobic runs according to the popular definitions which are based on the need for oxygen, or the lack of. Maffetone defines aerobic as the ability to use more fats and less sugar for energy, and anaerobic as the ability to use more sugar and less fat for energy. His definitions take into account the source of the enrgy and the type of fiber. (Page 19, Training For Endurance 2nd Revised Edition by Dr. Phil Maffetone)

---

Just to be explicit, Maffetone uses the common definition of
RQ = 1 as the point where the transition is made to anaerobic,
i.e., where you just hit 100% carbohydrate used for fuel. Given
that lactic acid is the by-product of this metabolic process (where glycogen
is the energy source), it also happens to be quite close to most
definitions of lactate threshold. With that said, running above
that value, according to McMillan and others, will not be effective
in raising anaerobic or lactate threshold, because you will always
be in a deficit of clearing the lactic acid from the system. Running
slightly below is the most effective at doing this, but the more
volume you run at this effort, the less effective you will become
at using fat as a fuel source. Without having been tested, one
really will not know the personal value for anaerobic threshold and
it will be a different percentage (could be vastly different) for
different individuals. In fact, I've got a number of people who have
sent me their vo2max test data, and the percentage is all over
the place, indicating that % max heart rate is a poor estimator.

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

[This message has been edited by leitnerj (edited Oct-28-2007).]

IP: Logged

posted Oct-28-2007 01:05 PM               

IP: Logged

posted Oct-28-2007 01:23 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by bluelake:
This is not a MAF question, but I know many of you have read Maffetone's books. What do you think about his philosophy on running shoes? Do you prefer cheap shoes with less cushioning? I'm a heal striker and always buy those with good heel cushion. Maybe I'm contributing to this type of strike by with this type of shoe.

---

Way off topic, however, this comes up sometimes in relation to the slower running initially associated with MAF training. There is a long thread on shoe hype (a few months old?) that was good, although there were a bunch of angry people (maybe shoe industry people) who would not let the discussion thrive.

Maffetone wrote somewhere that he noticed as shoes got thicker (they used to be much thinner without all the junk in them) there were more shoe-related injury. When he looked in the medical literature he was surprised at the studies showing increased injury with increased support in shoes. He wrote about this in his books. So it’s not like the 180 formula or other MAF stuff, which he developed. The shoe information he talks about comes right out of the published literature.

I’ve been running for a long time and never converted to the thick oversupported shoes as they were introduced in the 70s and 80s. Some of the cheap flat ones are good, but I’ve also paid $$ for some of the real flat racing shoes. Other than twisting an ankle on a rough trail years ago, I've never had a running related injury.

A running gait, no matter how slow we run, means we land on the mid to front of our foot. A ‘heal striker’ is associated with a walking gait, and puts undue stress on our mechanics (unless we’re walking).

IP: Logged

posted Oct-28-2007 01:29 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by fredurie:
If you were training at threshold or slightly below which is high
end aerobic, and which many great coaches tout as the best
way to reach your potential, isn't it around 85% to 90% of
maximum heart rate?

Who is the greater marathoner Mark Allen or one of 25 guys
running mileage and long tempo at altitude?

Was I hallucinating when I read how all these guys train.
Sell is/was running up to 175 miles a week with workouts at
threshold. Ritz just ran a 20 plus miler at 2:14 marathon pace.
Ryan Hall - 4:50 a mile at altitude.

How can you say that 85% of max is not aerobic?

---

Fred,
Do you have pictures of these runners on your wall? I have been following this thread for over 1 yr and you pop in from time to time and give examples of what elite runners do. I, for one, don't care. The vast majority of people on CR and participating in this thread will never be world class or or sub 2:15 marathoners. I guess with the standard under 2:05--2:15 may be too slow to be elite.

You probably gag when folks post that they are grinding out the miles to maybe break the 5 hr or 4 hr marathon barrier. I don't know if you know it or not--but not too many folks have the genetics/mindset and time/dedication to run 175 mile weeks. For those that do--more power to them. I don't see too many of them posting on this thread.

I thank Jesse, Jimmy and other positive posters who are actually providing their insights and experience relevant to a majority of us who are thankful we can run and maybe have a life outside of running. There must be forums for folks that can maintain 5 min miles for the marathon--this forum doesn't appear to be it. Nick

IP: Logged

posted Oct-28-2007 01:39 PM            

OK... I need to chime in here on a few things as a result.

1. For the guy new to this thread (asking about 85%), I've found that training at 85% of the heart rate I'd hit when at my anaerobic threshold is a great place to train and make progress aerobically. Sounds like using heart rate doesn't work for everyone - works decently for me. For me, though, over time, I've been able to get both my anaerobic threshold, lactate turnpoint, and I guess MAF closer to my maximum heart rate by training. I haven't been able to move my maximum heart rate though.

2. For Fred's comments; realize Fred's been very successful and he's entitled to his opinion. I have met Brian Sell though, so I can add some insight here. Sell's running log is on-line for selected periods. Sell does 80% or more of his running at 6:10-6:45 min/mi pace. I'd imagine that for Sell, this would be at or below MAF for him - given he can run a marathon at a shade under 5:00 min/mi pace. Yet, when Sell does a hard workout, it can be a 15 mile tempo run at anaerobic threshold (4:45 min/mi pace now, it seems, or somewhere around there). In addition, Sell really pushes it in his interval training. Sell didn't get to 160 MPW over night. I first met him as a senior in college; and he'd worked up to 90-100 miles/week gradually over his 4 years of college. After getting out, he was running 100 MPW and took 6 years to get to his current state.

3. A key to all of this is that running at a slow, easy pace allows the body to build aerobic capacity and to run slow enough to not build up wastes - so that one can build up training. This takes a while... the body doesn't adjust overnight. Once you've really built a strong aerobic capacity, though, you can include more runs at a harder faster pace without breaking down too much - and will likely improve. But... its pointless until you have a deep base.

All for now... .off to mow the lawn for the last time this season.

IP: Logged

posted Oct-28-2007 01:58 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by leitnerj:
Just to be explicit, Maffetone uses the common definition of
RQ = 1 as the point where the transition is made to anaerobic,
i.e., where you just hit 100% carbohydrate used for fuel. Given
that lactic acid is the by-product of this metabolic process (where glycogen
is the energy source), it also happens to be quite close to most
definitions of lactate threshold. With that said, running above
that value, according to McMillan and others, will not be effective
in raising anaerobic or lactate threshold, because you will always
be in a deficit of clearing the lactic acid from the system. Running
slightly below is the most effective at doing this, but the more
volume you run at this effort, the less effective you will become
at using fat as a fuel source. Without having been tested, one
really will not know the personal value for anaerobic threshold and
it will be a different percentage (could be vastly different) for
different individuals. In fact, I've got a number of people who have
sent me their vo2max test data, and the percentage is all over
the place, indicating that % max heart rate is a poor estimator.

---

I could be wrong here but from my understanding when you hit a point when you are using 100% of carbohydrates as a fuel source that means the exercise is 100% anaerobic. You can only maintain 100% anaerobic exercise for seconds before your body fails to operate. I'm talking like 35 secs in elite runners, less for mortals. Like lifting a heavy weight at the gym you can't carry on that type of exercise.

I'm not sure about the RQ thing but are you sure a 1 value doesn't mean a 50/50 mix or something? If you could exercise at a 100% anaerobic state for a long time Tyson Gay would be capable of running a 2:30 mile. Think about it.

IP: Logged

posted Oct-28-2007 02:50 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by runawayjesse:

I could be wrong here but from my understanding when you hit a point when you are using 100% of carbohydrates as a fuel source that means the exercise is 100% anaerobic. You can only maintain 100% anaerobic exercise for seconds before your body fails to operate. I'm talking like 35 secs in elite runners, less for mortals. Like lifting a heavy weight at the gym you can't carry on that type of exercise.

I'm not sure about the RQ thing but are you sure a 1 value doesn't mean a 50/50 mix or something? If you could exercise at a 100% anaerobic state for a long time Tyson Gay would be capable of running a 2:30 mile. Think about it.

---

I don't think Maffetone says the transition from aerobic to anaerobic is the RQ of 1. It would be much lower, probably in the .8 range. More importantly, it's an individual thing, the reason we use heart rates. Also, an RQ of 1 brings you out of the practical range for testing (increased error). One is usually never at a point where they don't utilize ANY fat or protein for energy.

IP: Logged

posted Oct-28-2007 03:05 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by DavidD:
Originally posted by leitnerj:
Just to be explicit, Maffetone uses the common definition of
RQ = 1 as the point where the transition is made to anaerobic,
i.e., where you just hit 100% carbohydrate used for fuel.

I don't think Maffetone says the transition from aerobic to anaerobic is the RQ of 1. It would be much lower, probably in the .8 range. More importantly, it's an individual thing, the reason we use heart rates. Also, an RQ of 1 brings you out of the practical range for testing (increased error). One is usually never at a point where they don't utilize ANY fat or protein for energy.

---

By anaerobic, I certainly mean fully anaerobic (all carbohydrate
used for fuel, probably all fast twitch muscles employed), and you're
right - at
that point, the testing is not precise enough. But, the point is that
after that point, I don't believe you're using any elements of the
aerobic system (either that, or such use is negligible), so it defines
in some sense a ceiling. Certainly you are using
anaerobic properties well before an RQ of 1 - in fact, you will always
use anaerobic properties, right? And you're never in a state
of burning 100% fat and you will probably always bring in the
fast twitch fibers, and so forth. I'm not equating anaerobic
to being above the MAF and I believe the MAF value (which should
correspond to RQs between .78 and .85, roughly) represents a
point of inflection in the RQ vs HR curve, where a very significant
increase occurs in how much carb vs fat is used for fuel. I think
of MAF as most akin to what is sometimes called "aerobic threshold"
and RQ =1 as the anaerobic threshold. Ultimately, however, these are
just definitions and it's the methodology that matters for this approach-
spend a lot of time using mostly fat for a fuel source and you're
efficiency at using fat for fuel will improve greatly (and you will adjust
the RQ curve that I referred to such that you will burn fat at higher
and higher heart rates as a consequence - that is definitely what
I have experienced.)

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

IP: Logged

posted Oct-28-2007 03:20 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by dfcameron:
Wow - I post 12 hours ago; and come back early this afternoon to find a whole spate of posts. I see Fred's stirred up the masses.

OK... I need to chime in here on a few things as a result.

1. For the guy new to this thread (asking about 85%), I've found that training at 85% of the heart rate I'd hit when at my anaerobic threshold is a great place to train and make progress aerobically. Sounds like using heart rate doesn't work for everyone - works decently for me. For me, though, over time, I've been able to get both my anaerobic threshold, lactate turnpoint, and I guess MAF closer to my maximum heart rate by training. I haven't been able to move my maximum heart rate though.

---

I agree - I think 85% of anaerobic threshold should be right about
MAF. (I think I may even have that somewhere in the FAQ). However, unless I misunderstood, I thought the poster was asking about 85% of
max heart rate. As we know, max heart rate is easy (at least,
straightforward) to determine, but AT is much more complex, unless
you have a test done.

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

IP: Logged

posted Oct-28-2007 06:51 PM               

We can evaluate fat and sugar burning levels by measuring carbon dioxide and oxygen uptake while running on a treadmill. The ratio of CO2/O2 is called respiratory quotient, RQ. It ranges from 0.7 (100% fat/0% sugar burning) to 1.0 (0% fat/100% sugar burning). At the 50% fat and 50% sugar level, the RQ is .85. This test can help evaluate an athlete by comparing the RQ at different heart rates - from warm up pace to intense effort. When done properly, the test usually shows a steady rise in RQ with the heart rate, and at some point suddenly increases at a faster rate (the “deflection point”) indicating a more rapid change to more sugar and less fat burning. Maffetone has chosen the heart rate just before the deflection point to be the max aerobic rate. With some simple math, he found a formula (the 180 formula) that is quite accurate in determining about the same point he was finding on treadmill tests.

IP: Logged

posted Oct-28-2007 07:06 PM               

Change of subject - I was just digging through some vo2max test
results people have sent me and there are two that I though I'd
take a fresh look at. Both are from runners that are highly talented,
perform very well (sub-3 marathons), but are also prone to injuries
and issues. Additionally, both convey to me their feelings of
how my training is a load of bunk and that my performance improvements
are a simple artifact of building up my mileage (well, each has put it
in a slightly different way, but you get the point). Lastly, both absolutely
require significant carbs to finish medium-long training runs.

Their tests are very predictable: (1) anaerobic threshold is at
greater than 90% max heart rate - consequences of doing a lot
tempo runs and marathon pace runs. (2) very poor fat burning
efficiency - must go to very low heart rates even to get to an
RQ of .85 (50/50 carb/fat).

Interesting thing about both of them - you would not question whether
either is "fit" or is a good runner. They've both been training
fairly consistently for at least a couple of years.
However, to get down into the
proper RQs, both would need to subtract 5 from 180-age. 180-age
would have them at 75-80% carb burn! I don't know either of their
short distance race results, so I don't know if their paces project well.

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

IP: Logged

posted Oct-28-2007 07:14 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by leitnerj:
I agree - I think 85% of anaerobic threshold should be right about
MAF. (I think I may even have that somewhere in the FAQ). However, unless I misunderstood, I thought the poster was asking about 85% of
max heart rate. As we know, max heart rate is easy (at least,
straightforward) to determine, but AT is much more complex, unless
you have a test done.

---

I was quoting 85% as my MAF....I have a polar that calculated my range based upon the 180.
So it seems everyone is in agreement that if I can keep it in that range and build my base that would be a good approach. Like I said, I have been running for 4 years, but without a good plan....so I am not totally out of shape. I found I had to slow my pace by 1 min per mile to keep me in the 80-85% MAF zone but was able to do all the distances that I normally do.
Should I add intervals at some point? Say after 3 or 4 months at a steady 20+ miles per week?
I appreciate the help.

IP: Logged

posted Oct-28-2007 07:21 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by seton:
I was quoting 85% as my MAF....I have a polar that calculated my range based upon the 180.
So it seems everyone is in agreement that if I can keep it in that range and build my base that would be a good approach. Like I said, I have been running for 4 years, but without a good plan....so I am not totally out of shape. I found I had to slow my pace by 1 min per mile to keep me in the 80-85% MAF zone but was able to do all the distances that I normally do.
Should I add intervals at some point? Say after 3 or 4 months at a steady 20+ miles per week?
I appreciate the help.

---

You were quoting 85% of what as your MAF? If it was 85% of your
max heart rate, that will be way higher than MAF. What was the
actual value for MAF (what number, not %) and how old are you?

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

IP: Logged