Skip navigation
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

74377 Views 1,198 Replies Latest reply: Jan 8, 2008 3:34 PM by formationflier RSS Go to original post 1 ... 74 75 76 77 78 ... 80 Previous Next
  • scott3294 Rookie 63 posts since
    Oct 25, 2007

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

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

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

  • TommyL007 Rookie 93 posts since
    Dec 14, 2007

    quote:


    Originally posted by Scott3294:

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


     




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

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

  • bdags061 Rookie 61 posts since
    Dec 14, 2007

    quote:


    Originally posted by TommyL:


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

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


     



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

  • jjwaverly_42 Pro 388 posts since
    Dec 14, 2007

    quote:


    Originally posted by Scott3294:

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

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

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


     



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

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

    --Jimmy

    MAF log[/URL" target="_blank">
    profile[/URL" target="_blank">

  • DavidD063 Rookie 360 posts since
    Jan 25, 2007

    quote:


    Originally posted by Scott3294:

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


     




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

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

  • jjwaverly_42 Pro 388 posts since
    Dec 14, 2007

    Here's something to shoot for, marathon MAffers...

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

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

    Just an idea on something to play with.

    --Jimmy

    MAF log[/URL" target="_blank">
    profile[/URL" target="_blank">

  • scott3294 Rookie 63 posts since
    Oct 25, 2007

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

  • jjwaverly_42 Pro 388 posts since
    Dec 14, 2007

    quote:


    Originally posted by Scott3294:

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


     



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

    --Jimmy

    MAF log[/URL" target="_blank">
    profile[/URL" target="_blank">

  • IceStorm213 Rookie 352 posts since
    Nov 1, 2005

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

  • gregw070 Rookie 244 posts since
    Dec 14, 2007

    quote:


    Originally posted by martinjames:

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


     



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

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

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

  • willamona Rookie 387 posts since
    Dec 14, 2007

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

    ----



    ***********
    My myspace[/URL" target="_blank">
    No Complaining[/URL" target="_blank">
    Low Heart Rate Training FAQ [/URL" target="_blank"> Because many have asked...
    You have poopie pants.

  • jjwaverly_42 Pro 388 posts since
    Dec 14, 2007

    quote:


    Originally posted by gregw:



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

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


     



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

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

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

    --Jimmy

    MAF log[/URL" target="_blank">
    profile[/URL" target="_blank">

  • jjwaverly_42 Pro 388 posts since
    Dec 14, 2007

    quote:


    Originally posted by willamona:

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


     



    Splitsahol, please...

  • catwoman73 Rookie 105 posts since
    Dec 14, 2007

    quote:


    Originally posted by Scott3294:

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


     



    Hi Scott- welcome to the thread!

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

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

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

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

    Pam

    ----



    ME![/URL" target="_blank">

1 ... 74 75 76 77 78 ... 80 Previous Next

Actions

More Like This

  • Retrieving data ...