active network espn
Community: Exchange advice in the forums and read running commentary Resources: Personal running log, calculators, links and other tools for runners News: Running news from around the world Training: Articles and advice about fitness, race training and injury prevention Races/Results: Find upcoming races and past results Home: The Cool Running homepage
Cool Running homepage  Search Cool Running Community
Click to view Gregolowe's profile Legend 324 posts since
Jul 6, 2006
510. Dec 22, 2007 12:27 PM in response to: formationflier
Re: Basebuilding, low heart rate training, via Maffetone/Mark Allen/Hadd/Mittleman
See, that 's all I want. Is that too much to ask for, an 8:30-9:00/mile?
I debated whether to do the test today in light of the sleep I lost over the weekend but I felt back to normal so I went for it. I feel totally rested, no big deal. Maybe it took something out of me though. I guess if nothing else I haven't lost any fitness, or much at least.

http://This message has been edited by Gregolowe (edited Aug-21-2007).
Click to view dcv2002's profile Legend 259 posts since
Dec 14, 2007
511. Aug 21, 2007 1:18 PM in response to: formationflier
Re: Basebuilding, low heart rate training, via Maffetone/Mark Allen/Hadd/Mittleman
Greg,

Please be aware that I was not a totally new runner back when I started MAFing in April. I just had a 3 month layoff between Jan-Apr. Before my layoff I was running 830s at around MAF. I ran a 306 marathon last year, so don't judge my 4 month improvement to yourself, I had a pretty big base in 2006....

Plus you're running/on your feet for 5 hours! That's gotta take a lot out of you for at least a couple of days. I just did my first run over 2 hours last Sunday (14.9 @ 8:54/2:12:xx).
Click to view aharmer's profile Legend 460 posts since
May 25, 2005
512. Aug 21, 2007 1:24 PM in response to: formationflier
Re: Basebuilding, low heart rate training, via Maffetone/Mark Allen/Hadd/Mittleman
Hi Greg,

Just keep the faith that you're doing good things for your body with this training. I've posted this several times, but the biggest mistake people make (in my opinion) is quitting and going back to running every run at marathon intensity or higher. Maff training is not some lunatic fringe method. A majority of your miles should always be at this intensity...forever. Elite runners run a majority of their miles at this intensity...they just happen to be moving at 6:00/mile at this intensity. After you use the Maff training to help build a solid aerobic foundation, you simply start incorporating some faster runs to condition other physiological systems. The easy running should never be "quit" or discontinued, especially with your goals of ultrarunning. I'll give you a personal example of gradual progress.

I began Maf training in May 2006, and continued exclusively for about 5 months leading up to a 100k in October 2006. My paces improved dramatically. The training helped me immensely and allowed me to place very well in an ultra that I never imagined being able to even finish. After the 100k I did another short phase of exclusively Maf training, and then began mixing in some higher intensity stuff. Didn't abandon low HR training, just combined it with some faster stuff each week which I've continued until today. Prior to the 100k I did two 30 mile training runs. Both were done at 9:30/mile and HRs were 126 & 129 (My maf is 125, I made a conscious decision to let it ride up slightly during these longer runs). Fast forward to last week...very similar weather conditions, 30 mile training run in prep for an upcoming ultra. 8:45/mile with avg HR of 119. That's pretty significant progress, and that's in addition to the initial improvements in 2006. Not meant to toot my horn here, just a real life example of the improvements that can be made with patience. Building a good aerobic base isn't a quick fix...it's a change in philosophy that takes years. Best of luck, I believe you're doing the best thing possible for your new passion of ultra running.

------------------
My Profile[/URL" target="_blank">

"Pain is temporary. Regret hurts forever."
URL=http://www.analytical-training.blogspot.com
Click to view Gregolowe's profile Legend 324 posts since
Jul 6, 2006
513. Aug 21, 2007 1:45 PM in response to: formationflier
Re: Basebuilding, low heart rate training, via Maffetone/Mark Allen/Hadd/Mittleman
Allright Dvc and aharmer, those two posts did the trick. Thank you. I'll keep after it for awhile. Both of those paces sound great. You must have so much fun running at that level of comfort for long distances. Doubt tends to creep in around the edges of my thinking when I see other runners not doing this kind of training and they're making it just fine. Two examples: Davey Crocket (check out his adventures on crockettclan.org/running/) and Dean-you-know-who. Reading Dean's book is one of the things that inspired me to start running again (again, since I haven't really run since high school (I'm 38), though now it's been almost 2 years going). He's hardcore and just runs. He won his first ultra, just running as hard as he could, breaking 9 hours I believe. He says he tends to run at a HR around 150 and has a very low resting heart rate. He runs at a fast pace though. I don't think he has done low HR training, so how did he get there? He just ran and got more "fit".
So, when I get frustrated, I look at people like that and I can be tempted to junk the whole thing and just go run and have fun. That's my ultimate goal, to run quickly at low heart rates so as to have as much fun as possible in remote places for long distances.
Click to view DavidD063's profile Legend 361 posts since
Jan 25, 2007
514. Aug 21, 2007 2:22 PM in response to: formationflier
Re: Basebuilding, low heart rate training, via Maffetone/Mark Allen/Hadd/Mittleman
quote:<HR>Originally posted by BrandonE:
Originally posted by DavidD:
We burn both sugar and fat for energy (very small amounts of protein) all the time, and if we program our body to burn more sugar (such as with high glycemic foods, or anaerobic training), we burn less fat.<HR>

Sorry to jump in the middle here, but does anaerobic training really "program your body to burn more sugar"? What about HIIT, which according to everything that I've read is supposed to be great for burning fat, and is specifically supposed to raise your metabolism post-exercise far more than any other form of exercise?

Sorry to jump in the middle here, I'm just confused.


By the way, hi everyone, I've been lurking and reading this thread for a few weeks now. I'm just in wk 8 of C25k, but I've started doing it LHR for the past three weeks. Only noticeable change so far is the ease of the run, which is much better than going faster, but no increases in speed for me yet. Still a tortoise like 14:17 pace for me to keep it under my MAF.


Any training has an impact on our body, which is what I'm calling "program." We program ourselves when we train, eat, study, etc.

When we do anaerobic training, our body responds. One response is that our mix of fuels (sugar and fat) shifts toward more sugar burning. This is easily measured on a treadmill (called respiratory quotent - RQ). Likewise, doing aerobic training shifts our metabolism to more fat burning -- the whole idea behind Maffetone's program (and this thread).

I think the confusion comes in when we only look at what happens DURING a particular workout, or ONLY post exercise. If we look at what happens overall to the metabolism -- over a 24-48 hour period -- it's a better image of what's going on and how the body will respond more longterm.

Another misunderstanding is the issue of calories burned. If we burn more calories because of a particular workout, some of those calories will be from fat. However, we should not conclude that this workout burns more fat when, in fact, we burn even more sugar, AND our net result is we raise RQ (meaning we train the body to burn more sugar overall).

I think it gets confusing because there is so much bad information (and wrong information) in the magazines, especially runner's world. They literally mis-educate the reader (on purpose I believe).
Click to view DavidD063's profile Legend 361 posts since
Jan 25, 2007
515. Aug 21, 2007 2:28 PM in response to: formationflier
Re: Basebuilding, low heart rate training, via Maffetone/Mark Allen/Hadd/Mittleman
quote:<HR>Originally posted by jellybelly:
Hi all. I am going to give this type of training a try. My MAF hr is so low -- 137. I gave myself an extra 5 beats because I am an experienced runner...so I guess I am going to be doing a lot of walking. Since I am going so slowly, shall I up the length of my runs? My staple runs are an hour and my hr is usually up in the 160's to 170's. I'll add a 1.5 hour run in every so often. I have, or hopefully, had a hr problem which has fixed through catheter ablation.

I guess I should make it a goal to base train through the fall.

I haven't trained for anything in 2 years, My last race was a 1/2 marathon in October 2005. That November, dizzy symptoms that I had been having were diagnosed as ventricular tachycardia and I even suffered a cardiac arrest during one of my ablation procedures and was implanted with an internal defibrillator. So, maybe I have an advantage now... if anything were to happen to me during a run, I wouldn't have to wait for someone to appear with the big paddles!

There's a 15K in Central Park in the winter. That might be a good goal for me.

jb

<HR>


Glad you made the switch. But why add 5 beats because you have experience? The most common mistake with the 180 formula is deriving too high a heart rate. It may take a few weeks to realize you're not responding as well because of this, then you wasted a few weeks. Be as accurate (and honest) as possible with the 180 formula. (We've all been through it...)
Click to view DavidD063's profile Legend 361 posts since
Jan 25, 2007
516. Aug 21, 2007 2:34 PM in response to: formationflier
Re: Basebuilding, low heart rate training, via Maffetone/Mark Allen/Hadd/Mittleman
quote:<HR>Originally posted by Ace8:
There is a chapter in Complete Book of Running (a Runner's World publication) that discussed the difference between (i) muscle-bound fat in the muscle fibers, and (ii) fat stored in fat tissue. I thought that is what you were aluding to. The fat in the muscle fibers is readily available during exercise while the fat in fat tissue is not as available (this source is slower to respond). Depleted muscle fiber fat takes 7 days to rebuild this fat after it is used, which is why one should eat fat regularly.

What I don't understand is the difference between eating fat versus eating sugar that is converted to fat. The only thing I can think of off the top of my head is that maybe converted sugar goes straight to the fat tissue which is not as easily accessed during exercise.
<HR>


The runner's world information is not very well presented. Muscle fats are always being replenished. Otherwise it would take a week to recover from an easy aerobic run.

When we eat fat, it goes into storage. When we eat carbohydrate, a good portion (40% or more) converts to fat and goes into storage. Hopefully, we also burn fat all day long because we have good aerobic systems. If we don't burn enough fat, and/or eat too much fat or carbs, we gain body fat.
Click to view Long Run Nick's profile Legend 265 posts since
Dec 14, 2007
517. Aug 22, 2007 12:14 PM in response to: formationflier
Re: Basebuilding, low heart rate training, via Maffetone/Mark Allen/Hadd/Mittleman
quote:<HR>Originally posted by aharmer:
Hi Greg,

Just keep the faith that you're doing good things for your body with this training. I've posted this several times, but the biggest mistake people make (in my opinion) is quitting and going back to running every run at marathon intensity or higher. Maff training is not some lunatic fringe method. A majority of your miles should always be at this intensity...forever. Elite runners run a majority of their miles at this intensity...they just happen to be moving at 6:00/mile at this intensity. After you use the Maff training to help build a solid aerobic foundation, you simply start incorporating some faster runs to condition other physiological systems. The easy running should never be "quit" or discontinued, especially with your goals of ultrarunning. I'll give you a personal example of gradual progress.

I began Maf training in May 2006, and continued exclusively for about 5 months leading up to a 100k in October 2006. My paces improved dramatically. The training helped me immensely and allowed me to place very well in an ultra that I never imagined being able to even finish. After the 100k I did another short phase of exclusively Maf training, and then began mixing in some higher intensity stuff. Didn't abandon low HR training, just combined it with some faster stuff each week which I've continued until today. Prior to the 100k I did two 30 mile training runs. Both were done at 9:30/mile and HRs were 126 & 129 (My maf is 125, I made a conscious decision to let it ride up slightly during these longer runs). Fast forward to last week...very similar weather conditions, 30 mile training run in prep for an upcoming ultra. 8:45/mile with avg HR of 119. That's pretty significant progress, and that's in addition to the initial improvements in 2006. Not meant to toot my horn here, just a real life example of the improvements that can be made with patience. Building a good aerobic base isn't a quick fix...it's a change in philosophy that takes years. Best of luck, I believe you're doing the best thing possible for your new passion of ultra running.

<HR>


Aharmer rules. Nick
Click to view Gregolowe's profile Legend 324 posts since
Jul 6, 2006
518. Dec 22, 2007 12:27 PM in response to: formationflier
Re: Basebuilding, low heart rate training, via Maffetone/Mark Allen/Hadd/Mittleman
Let me ask a question. I'm not trying to be contentious nor am I coming from the other side of the spectrum suggesting that running fast is the answer. It's an honest question. How did those elite marathoners get there? Some people, I would think Mark Allen is one, make tremendous progress training anaerobically, which seems to simultaneously boost their aerobic capacity. For example, Mark Allen started low HR training AFTER he had trained fast for a long time. When he started the low HR training, he was able to run at MAF with an 8:30/min mile! That's 3:30/min faster than what I can do now. People seem to make great progress training hard which seems to boost their aerobic capacity as well. It leads me to question whether I shouldn't just go train hard, slowing down when I need to, and let my aerobic capacity take care of itself. What gives? Am I just delaying my progress by going so slow? Like I said, this is an honest question, not an attempt to be contentious. I don't want people to reply with, " Well, we're all an experiment of one so go do that if that's what you want to do and come back and tell us how you did". I guess I'm asking for an explanation of how that kind of progress could be made in the marathoners noted above and in Mark Allen when they're not doing specifically low heart rate training. Dean is another example that comes to mind. Thanks.
Edit: I was just reading Krissy Moehl's Hardrock report. She stated that her heart rate while she was wearing her monitor never went over 150. And that's at altitude!

http://This message has been edited by Gregolowe (edited Aug-22-2007).
Click to view DanMoriarity's profile Legend 823 posts since
Dec 14, 2007
519. Dec 22, 2007 12:27 PM in response to: formationflier
Re: Basebuilding, low heart rate training, via Maffetone/Mark Allen/Hadd/Mittleman
quote:<HR>Originally posted by Gregolowe:
Let me ask a question. I'm not trying to be contentious nor am I coming from the other side of the spectrum suggesting that running fast is the answer. It's an honest question. How did those elite marathoners get there? Some people, I would think Mark Allen is one, make tremendous progress training anaerobically, which seems to simultaneously boost their aerobic capacity. For example, Mark Allen started low HR training AFTER he had trained fast for a long time. When he started the low HR training, he was able to run at MAF with an 8:30/min mile! That's 3:30/min faster than what I can do now. People seem to make great progress training hard which seems to boost their aerobic capacity as well. It leads me to question whether I shouldn't just go train hard, slowing down when I need to, and let my aerobic capacity take care of itself. What gives? Am I just delaying my progress by going so slow? Like I said, this is an honest question, not an attempt to be contentious. I don't want people to reply with, " Well, we're all an experiment of one so go do that if that's what you want to do and come back and tell us how you did". I guess I'm asking for an explanation of how that kind of progress could be made in the marathoners noted above and in Mark Allen when they're not doing specifically low heart rate training. Dean is another example that comes to mind. Thanks.
Edit: I was just reading Krissy Moehl's Hardrock report. She stated that her heart rate while she was wearing her monitor never went over 150. And that's at altitude!

http://This message has been edited by Gregolowe (edited Aug-22-2007).
<HR>


This is mostly speculation on my part, but I think most elite marathoners run at a low HR most of the time, whether they plan on it or not, simply because of the mileage they're running. Personally, once I get up above 70 miles a week or so, it becomes difficult to run faster than MAF on my daily runs, just due to the accumulated fatigue in my leg muscles. I've never run more than 90, but I suspect that those guys running 120 mpw or more have to run slower than their MAF most of the time just to get that many miles in.



------------------
http://www.runningbio.com/bio/profile/DanMoriarity/index.shtml[/URL" target="_blank">
Click to view dfcameron's profile Pro 124 posts since
Apr 5, 2007
520. Aug 22, 2007 3:07 PM in response to: formationflier
Re: Basebuilding, low heart rate training, via Maffetone/Mark Allen/Hadd/Mittleman
quote:<HR>Originally posted by Gregolowe:
Let me ask a question. I'm not trying to be contentious nor am I coming from the other side of the spectrum suggesting that running fast is the answer. It's an honest question. How did those elite marathoners get there? <HR>


I know a couple of guys who might pass for elite marathoners. One has run 2:18, the other 2:21. Neither actually ran with a heart monitor; although both have taken their pulse after periodic runs. So... I asked the question (via e-mail) and got 2 responses.

First, both ran most of their runs at around 6:30 min/mi pace when they were at that level. That's an all-out 5K for me; but for them - over a minute per mile slower than their marathon PRs. I would guess that this pace is MAF or below.

Second, they took years to build to that point. Both had college coaches that emphasized building a huge aerobic base over the summer coming into the XC season. One of them commented they were expected to step it up from 60 MPW to 100 MPW over the course of the summer. This necessitated slower running to enable the build-up. The other mentioned that each year there were 2 periods of 6 weeks each for anaerobic running/sharpening - the last 6 weeks of the track season, and the last 6 weeks of the XC season. The rest of the time was either recovering from that; or building mileage to a higher level. He said that he run about 70 MPW as a college freshman; 85 as a soph; 95 as a junior; and 100-105 as a senior. Some of these miles were 4 mile morning runs at 7:00-7:30 pace. Keep in mind he could run a mile in 4:12.

So, Greg, not sure how much this helps - but it sounds like their approach is similar - they had to race through school - but the key was years of basebuilding at a comfortable pace.
Click to view JonFrum's profile Amateur 23 posts since
Jul 13, 2007
521. Aug 22, 2007 3:41 PM in response to: formationflier
Re: Basebuilding, low heart rate training, via Maffetone/Mark Allen/Hadd/Mittleman
There's a big problem with "What about Runner X?" questions. If Runner X is an elite runner, he or she probably has a genetic predisposition for success at long distance running. Think about it: if you played basketball every day with Michael Jordan, do you think you would be as good a basketball player as him? Hard work of any kind helps, but those who start with an advantage and also do the most work will be the most successful.
For the rest of us - the average types - the question is "what will help US the most?" Personally, I've been convince of the logic of LHR training, but I have no data to support it. Without a large-scale experiment over years, I think you just have to decide for yourself what's best.
Click to view slowgino's profile Pro 88 posts since
Jan 13, 2007
522. Aug 22, 2007 3:57 PM in response to: formationflier
Re: Basebuilding, low heart rate training, via Maffetone/Mark Allen/Hadd/Mittleman
quote:<HR>Originally posted by Gregolowe:
Let me ask a question. I'm not trying to be contentious nor am I coming from the other side of the spectrum suggesting that running fast is the answer. It's an honest question. How did those elite marathoners get there?
...
Am I just delaying my progress by going so slow?
<HR>


Mostly, those elite marathoners got there by being born that way and by serious training.

Very few of us are born to be elites. There are many to whom a 6:30 m/m pace is so slow they would never do it. I know a guy whose mid-week training runs are always 5 - 6 minute pace or under. The elites are born with a cardiovascular system and the biomechanics for running that the rest of us can only dream about.

In his book "Real Running", Marty Liquori has a chapter on "Categories of Runners." He classes runners as "World Class", "Category A", "Category B", and "Category C". Category C is the lowest, and if you don't fit there...

FYI, here's a category C runner breakdown:
Times:
Mile under 6:00
10K under 45:00
Marathon under 3:20

Experience: probably running competitively less than a year, and maybe some earlier sports experience.

Competes: maybe 5 to 10 times a year

Weight: Often a factor; maybe will need to watch diet in addition to keeping up training mileage.

Mileage: 20 to 35 mpw, sometimes less.

When I was 40, I had to train somewhere between Categories A and B (60-70 mpw, race 10Ks etc) to get the times for a Category C runner (ok, my 10K was under 40 min but not under 38 like Cat B.)

Ok, so the rest of us aren't ever going to be "elites" or anthing even close to it. How should you train? From a VO2 test you can tell where you need to train to build or keep up an aerobic base. You can also tell where to do some beginning intervals or speedwork (based on AT), once there's a solid base.

One more thing the elites often have that the rest of us don't: personal coaches who are really good at knowing just what the athlete needs at any particular stage of training.

Just build up the mpw, and get a VO2 test that someone will give you training advice from.
Click to view Gregolowe's profile Legend 324 posts since
Jul 6, 2006
523. Aug 22, 2007 4:15 PM in response to: formationflier
Re: Basebuilding, low heart rate training, via Maffetone/Mark Allen/Hadd/Mittleman
Let me see if I can clarify what I'm asking. I don't want to be an elite marathoner. I think what I'm trying to ask is does doing anaerobic work simultaneously improve your aerobic abilities? That's what I was trying to note about the people I mentioned above. Mark Allen is probably the clearest example. He trained all out, no pain no gain. He STARTED MAF running 8:15/min miles. Did his anaerobic development training also increase his aerobic capacity? Would someone who does little slow running show improvement in their anaerobic ability comparable to what people get in low HR training? I think that's more clear.
Click to view Long Run Nick's profile Legend 265 posts since
Dec 14, 2007
524. Aug 22, 2007 4:25 PM in response to: formationflier
Re: Basebuilding, low heart rate training, via Maffetone/Mark Allen/Hadd/Mittleman
John Frum,
Good stuff. There are probably very few sub 2:20 marathoners on CR--and if there are-- I think they would echo your comment. There are not a lot of folks who have the body and mental tenacity or time to run 100+ mile weeks. For most of us we do the best we can.

When I started "seriously" running over 30 yrs ago--if you couldn't run a marathon under 3hrs you weren't considered a "marathoner". Now folks take 5-6 hrs + to complete a 26.2 mile run. Not that there is anything wrong with that. Boston Marathon qualifying times have gotten easier. Local races I attend are sometimes won by someone with a 17:30 5K time. I have run that time in the early 80's and not finished in the top 3 of my age group (40-44) back then. I guess it is all relative.

Maybe the most important thing--at least to me--is to be a lifetime runner. So folks--take it EZ out there. Over the yrs I have trained 2-3 minutes off 5/10K race pace. I attribute the "EZ" running on 90%+ of my runs to have allowed me to run relatively injury free for over 31 yrs and 64,000 miles.

Ihave been running even slower over the last 4 months of LHR training--and love it. I have gone back to running 6x per week and upped my mileage from 40-45 miles per week to 55-60 miles--and feel great. Even with Florida heat and humidity. Long distance running/training takes patience. So, enjoy the journey. Be thankful you can walk--and can run. That is a lot to be thankful for. Nick

PS It is OK to walk when you are out there.