quote:<HR>Originally posted by all PAIN no GAIN:
First off ? thanks a ton to all for the responses. So here comes my long winded additional background info that was asked:

My ?all Pain no Gain? handle only refers to a psychological pain, being that I can no longer burn enough calories to rid myself of these newly formed love handles at the slower MAF pace.

I am 37 and have been running for fitness for the last 15 years. About two years ago I started having all sorts of pulled muscles, sores, bruises, and nagging injuries. Some of my triathlete friends believed I was into an anaerobic state and pushing my body too hard. Hence, my new approach.

Previously, I would run 3-5 miles every other day. I ran at or below 8 minute mile. I would be drenched after the run and felt I burned great calories. Now, I have kicked up my running to 1hr 15 min running at 12:30 pace (includes warm-up and cool down). My MAF HR should be 143, which I tried initially very unsuccessfully. I added 5 because of my previous running history and immediately hit this 12:30 pace. And there has been no change for 16 weeks.

How do I know 12:30? Because regardless if I run on a treadmill or a track, that?s what I average. What about conditions? Really not an issue. I live in Northern California where it is 75 degrees everyday with no humidity (yes, places like this do exist!). How about hill training? I live in a valley and don?t really want to add more time to my run by driving an hour to the foothills.

Maybe I eat more to explain the weight gain? I really don?t think so. I am actually eating less since the weight gain because I am paying more attention to it. I have really reduced my carbs. I believe the gain is simply because I cannot burn the calories walking/jogging in an hour compared to my intense 30 minute workout before (but got me injured).

This is my bottom line. I wish to enjoy my runs, but with the added benefit of remaining in shape. I am already devoting 5-6 hours a week to building this aerobic base, which is an incredible increase from my previous routine. I cannot justifying adding more time without eliminating something else (like spending time with the family). I really want this LHR to work, but maybe it is not for me ? I don?t know?<HR>

You're an experienced runner despite your low volume. That MAF **** won't work for you as it doesn't work for me because I'm fit aerobically but have other limiters: joints, ligaments, rigid muscles and body composition.

For someone who is used to running at 8:00 pace 12:30 pace can actually beat you up more. When I run slower there is a lot more up and down motion. When I pick up my pace I'm a lot smoother.
I read a lot of posts about people using heart rate monitors and other artificial means to hit some range with their training. Every now and then it is good to get some feedback but sometimes you should give yourself the freedom of leaving all the wires at home and just go running.
I'm pretty serious about my training right now but when I get frustrated with it I take off the watch and go run trails somewhere away from cars and other artificial distractions. When I am on a run like that if it feels good to run fast I do, if I want to slow it down to enjoy nature I do. I know those runs are great for my training but when I am out there I don't care whether they are or not. I just want to feel the wind in my hair.
If you are on a run and it feels good to pick it up a bit don't hold back because you have to keep your heartrate low. Life has too many rules and restrictions. Run for enjoyment. If you like it you'll find yourself doing it more often and improvement will come without analyzing anything.
You have to find a way to enjoy it. Shed the wires my friend.

quote:<HR>Originally posted by dot:
You're an experienced runner despite your low volume. That MAF **** won't work for you as it doesn't work for me because I'm fit aerobically but have other limiters: joints, ligaments, rigid muscles and body composition.<HR>

EZ Dot,
I consider myself an experienced runner (over 31 yrs/64,600+ miles) and very aerobically fit. I did solid MAF training for 4 months--over 900 miles and feel fitter than I have in years. I will advise that over the yrs I ran 2-3 min slower than 5-10K pace on 90-95% of my runs. That was about 70-80% max HR. With my MAF training I ran at about 62% max. It was hard at first to slow down--even from my normal slow pace--but I was able to increase from 5 to 6 days running and move my mileage from 40-45 miles per week to 55-60--and have felt less fatigue. This from a 64 yr old ****. Ran a 5K last week--first "fast"running in over 4 months and was only off about 5-10 sec per mile off since last Springs 5K pace-- where I did a lot of "fast"--tempo and fartlek runs. I realize we each are unique. MAF has been fun and has worked for me. Just finished a 16 mile run--the first 11 at MAF just under 11 min and finished the last 5 miles at 9 min mile pace. Felt very strong. Thanks for letting me opine. Nick

quote:<HR>Originally posted by Docster:
You couldn't hit MAF -20 sprinting downhill? I mean, seriously, now. Was this like a 10% grade downhill or something?


<HR>

Really! I did a 10k race not to long ago and it was 4 miles uphill and 2 downhill. My pace on the downhill was a 5:45 avg and my avg HR was 118. My MAF HR is 153. In fact I have a hard time reaching my so called MAFF HR on any easy runs including 50-100 meter striders. Usually my easy runs are done at HR's 100-110 bpm thats my maf -40 or 55% of my max HR.

Back when I tried MAFF my pace at a 153 HR was 11:30 m/m. Of course that was before I learned what it is to train rather than jog around worrying about my HR.
I needed training days which at first were just a few days of HR's 160-165. Besides my pace getting faster I soon found my old MAFF HR that once was dreadfully slow to be too fast for a easy run. It was the consistancy of the 160-165 days that did the trick.

So my question stands. If getting some time at higher HR's why would Jesse advocate downhill strides? I would use uphills(and I do).

quote:<HR>Originally posted by runawayjesse:


So my question stands. If getting some time at higher HR's why would Jesse advocate downhill strides? I would use uphills(and I do).<HR>

Once again, I never spoke about higher heart rates; I'm just talking
about MAF heart rate, which is low.

For most people who do not have aerobic fitness, uphill running,
even running flats easily brings them well over MAF. Easily.
Uphill running is not a way to get faster leg turnover and stay below
MAF - it's a way to get slower leg turnover and have difficulty
staying below MAF. (I'm not suggesting that running up hills is
a poor form of training, but it certainly isn't the component of MAF
training that will give you a faster pace at low heart rates.)
One of the best ways to see pace improvement
(and for some people the only way) using strictly low heart rate
running (nothing above MAF, as I did) is to get in a good volume of
mileage down hills. It is actually a chapter in Maffetone's book.
It's also an item in the FAQ.

Just as a side note, out of the several people who have had limited
to no success with a long period of MAF training who have actually
provided me real data, one of the following was always true:

1. The person added 5 beats because he/she has been running
a long time.
2. The person just ran slowly all the time, never practicing any
faster turnover running from the downhill component (or even
treadmill, where most people will get more turnover for a given
level of effort).
3. The person let the heart rate climb over MAF either on hills
or later in runs as heart rate drifted.
4. The person just kept average heart rate below MAF and didn't
make sure to stay strictly below MAF.

It's clear from your note that you did not incorporate the downhill
running element into your training when you tried this, so that's
a great piece of data.

Why are these important? Because the crux of the approach is
to run using a high percentage of fat for fuel by running at low
respiratory quotients. For those who have trained in the high
end aerobic regime or anaerobic, the RQ will be high even at
low levels of effort and it takes time and volume to turn that
effect around. For some, it will likely require subtracting 5
from the MAF value and really biting the bullet for a while. It
takes an endless amount of patience just as it did for me.
I ran at strictly low heart rates for about 6 months to start, even
though it had me at dead slow paces. I had one excursion during
that period - a single one mile race, which I had improved from
my previous time by over 30 seconds.

------------------
MyRunningLog[/URL" target="_blank">
MyStuff[/URL" target="_blank">
Low Heart Rate Training FAQ[/URL" target="_blank">
My marathons and ultras[/URL" target="_blank">
My races and reports[/URL" target="_blank">

quote:<HR>Originally posted by all PAIN no GAIN:
First off � thanks a ton to all for the responses. So here comes my long winded additional background info that was asked:

My �all Pain no Gain� handle only refers to a psychological pain, being that I can no longer burn enough calories to rid myself of these newly formed love handles at the slower MAF pace.

I am 37 and have been running for fitness for the last 15 years. About two years ago I started having all sorts of pulled muscles, sores, bruises, and nagging injuries. Some of my triathlete friends believed I was into an anaerobic state and pushing my body too hard. Hence, my new approach.

Previously, I would run 3-5 miles every other day. I ran at or below 8 minute mile. I would be drenched after the run and felt I burned great calories. Now, I have kicked up my running to 1hr 15 min running at 12:30 pace (includes warm-up and cool down). My MAF HR should be 143, which I tried initially very unsuccessfully. I added 5 because of my previous running history and immediately hit this 12:30 pace. And there has been no change for 16 weeks.

How do I know 12:30? Because regardless if I run on a treadmill or a track, that�s what I average. What about conditions? Really not an issue. I live in Northern California where it is 75 degrees everyday with no humidity (yes, places like this do exist!). How about hill training? I live in a valley and don�t really want to add more time to my run by driving an hour to the foothills.

Maybe I eat more to explain the weight gain? I really don�t think so. I am actually eating less since the weight gain because I am paying more attention to it. I have really reduced my carbs. I believe the gain is simply because I cannot burn the calories walking/jogging in an hour compared to my intense 30 minute workout before (but got me injured).

This is my bottom line. I wish to enjoy my runs, but with the added benefit of remaining in shape. I am already devoting 5-6 hours a week to building this aerobic base, which is an incredible increase from my previous routine. I cannot justifying adding more time without eliminating something else (like spending time with the family). I really want this LHR to work, but maybe it is not for me � I don�t know?<HR>

It probably is not for you. It wasn't for me either. As someone who
was able to run a 5k in 21:xx at the time, it was brutally painful
to start out at a 17 minute mile and to spend months at 12 minute
miles. However, I ended up basically getting forced into it due to
injuries. It's very likely that adding 5 beats still had you at a very
high respiratory quotient, hence using a larger percentage of
glycogen vs fat for fuel during all your runs. So, while you may have
been burning slightly more fat than you had been, you were just
slowing down a lot and not even getting the benefits of training
your body to use fat efficiently. Hence you were running in a no
man's land. Then to top it off, without the downhill segment, all
you were doing was going slowly. You were running the prime
example that everyone states when someone brings up low
heart rate training, "run slowly, get slow." If you don't have something
forcing you into an approach like this, then you'd better have
extreme patience. For me, I needed that patience for over 6 months.
But that was running 45-65 miles per week.
Now I run all of my training runs faster than I did before I started
and at about 30 beats lower heart rate. I'm also faster at every
distance, starting at one mile. And I still haven't added a lick of
speedwork or tempo runs. Maybe I will some day, but I'm a pretty
lazy guy and I want to see how well I can do without ever
working hard.

What I would recommend to you is that you try something else
for a while. Try runawayjesse's suggestions and see how they
work for you - they will definitely be more enjoyable for you in
the short term, possibly the long term as well. He also contends
that on very limited mileage, the harder training will burn a lot
more calories than easier training and it sounds like you've
experienced that. Based on your mileage,
I assume you're not targeting any marathons in the short term, so
you don't really have the overpowering frustration of someone who
has experienced burnout after burnout at marathon mile 20!
My feeling is that to see success with low heart rate
training, you would have to
target 138 and stay strictly below that, not going over at all.
Also, you'd probably have to find away to incorporate some good
downhill segments to get some turnover in at the low heart rates.
It doesn't sound like you've really got enough motivation to deal
with the frustration involved (and that you've already, understandably,
experienced an undue amount of frustration).

------------------
MyRunningLog[/URL" target="_blank">
MyStuff[/URL" target="_blank">
Low Heart Rate Training FAQ[/URL" target="_blank">
My marathons and ultras[/URL" target="_blank">
My races and reports[/URL" target="_blank">

quote:<HR>Originally posted by leitnerj:
Sounds like you've seen some great progress since you've moved
out of jogging mode. What were your race times at 10k through
marathon before and after each form of training?

<HR>

Why does it have to be 10k- marathon? I have't raced many 10k-marathon races(by choice) and you already know this. I'm training or my first marathon now so I'll keep you posted.

Untill now I enjoyed the 5k. I put a lot of focus into that distance. Admittely I had no interest in running a marathon. I like to run fast, I like the training involved in 5k training, I enjoy a season of races and putting training all together. It's just what has really floated my boat. Brought my time from 22:07 to a 18:55. I do long runs of 20+ miles far under MAFF, my resting Hr went from 70 to 42 and I can RUN at HR's under 100bpm, so I'm pretty confident I am aerobicly endowed.

As far as downhill and turnover I do and always have done plenty of strides. I find uphill strong running to be more beneficial because it stimulates those neglected muscle fibers during a base phase without the heavy lactic buildup asscioated with anaerobic efforts. They just keep things balanced. Downhill running is fine for me on a gently slope but too much is deadly. To much jarring. I would use caution running MILES worth of downhills. Thats for me though, I get enough leg speed days without much of a problem. If you are mostly jogging I guess you need some way to run fast...I guess thats what you were getting at right?


http://This message has been edited by runawayjesse (edited Sep-18-2007).

quote:<HR>Originally posted by runawayjesse:
Why does it have to be 10k- marathon? I have't raced many 10k-marathon races(by choice) and you already know this. I'm training or my first marathon now so I'll keep you posted.

Untill now I enjoyed the 5k. I put a lot of focus into that distance. Admittely I had no interest in running a marathon. I like to run fast, I like the training involved in 5k training, I enjoy a season of races and putting training all together. It's just what has really floated my boat. Brought my time from 22:07 to a 18:55. I do long runs of 20+ miles far under MAFF, my resting Hr went from 70 to 42 and I can RUN at HR's under 100bpm, so I'm pretty confident I am aerobicly endowed.

Basicly what I do as a base phase isn't really far off maff method. What is aerobic for me might not be for you. Though I rarley wear a heart rate monitor 90% of my base miles are at HR's of 120 or lower. Like I said it's the 160-165 strong aerobic days that I get the training benefit. I need the training days otherwise I don't make any fitness gains. I'm suspecting the OP might benefit from this kind of training. Thats why I recommend HADD. When I finally started to see Maff wasn't working for me it was HADD's ideas that started the ball rolling.

As far as downhill and turnover I do and always have done plenty of strides. I find uphill strong running to be more beneficial because it stimulates those neglected muscle fibers during a base phase without the heavy lactic buildup asscioated with anaerobic efforts. They just keep things balanced. Downhill running is fine for me on a gently slope but too much is deadly. To much jarring. I would use caution running MILES worth of downhills. <HR>

Ok, let me explain why I pose my questions to you the way I do.
First, most of your posts are your collection of research on what
a number of coaches have said, not an analysis of results of
typical runners as appear here on coolrunning and not even
an analysis of your own results. You are always
quick to jump and make a statement that everything about
basebuilding at low heart rates is one of the worst things that
you can do and you are the proof. However, proof of what
training did to you in one way or the other comes from very
specific hard data and facts, not a general statement like "I did
low HR training for 30 weeks and my running degraded." For
the statement to have any basis, you should provide your race
times before and after each training period at various distances.
After all, you've said numerous times that low HR training can
only possibly be applicable to ultras, not to anything marathon
or below. Then you should provide your detailed training information,
which also includes how you incorporated hills in your training,
as that is a part of the regimen (although many people can
improve without it). There's absolutely nothing wrong with
posting details of what has worked for you as I believe this
forum is for exactly that - tell people exactly what you've done
and exactly how it helped or hurt. Anecdotal tidbits can be
very misleading and can provide a disservice, especially
those who are really struggling.

Now, I fully agree that Hadd's approach is great. However,
it doesn't seem like you've really read it. First, he only
goes by % of max heart rate if your max heart rate is low to
average. Above a certain max heart rate, he provides a
ceiling aerobic value which will no longer be a set percentage.
Hence, most people will get a very similar Hadd training
heart rate as compared to that from Maffetone or Mark Allen.
Next, Hadd states that you should not be doing any of the
higher heart rate running until you have developed your
aerobic system and can run a decent pace at the lower
heart rates. That's absolutely no different from Maffetone,
Mark Allen, or the other forms of basebuilding. For those
who want to start incorporating the higher heart rate elements,
Hadd provides a much more tangible way of going about it.


------------------
MyRunningLog[/URL" target="_blank">
MyStuff[/URL" target="_blank">
Low Heart Rate Training FAQ[/URL" target="_blank">
My marathons and ultras[/URL" target="_blank">
My races and reports[/URL" target="_blank">