Pond View
Why not? Just kidding you!
Northernman, It doesn't ALL get wiped out after a marathon. Look at people who've trained themselves so well that they can run a marathon every month - obviously, they would not be able to do that if all their aerobic fitness was wiped out in each and every marathon. The course, inclines, declines etc and how hard the runner races the marathon play into how taxing it is on your body - hydration and nutrition during the race, the weather, the heat etc. etc.
You can read more about these things in almost any book on marathon training (I think).
If you let your body recover properly after a marathon and then start to build your aerobic system again (rather than tearing it down further with anaerobic fast workouts and runs) you will be able to build your aerobic base even stronger than before the marathon because you are not starting over from scratch - year after year of carefully building and nurturing the aerobic system you should be able to gradually build your base much bigger. That's why in many cases older more seasoned runners are better marathoners than very young and relatively immature (with respect to long distance training) runners. It takes time to build that foundation and develop it.
If you are interested in learning more I think Arthur Lydiard has some good explanations in some of his books.
I hope this helps a little - if you want a more scientific explanation, I am of no help. Jack Daniels' book, "Running Formula" is very physiology bound and tries to explain to the ordinary runner what goes on.
They don't, and one marathon doesn't wipe it all out.
What makes the aerobic system regress is chemical stress and too much time off. Chemical stress is the stress put on the body by the hormones and byproducts produced by anaerobic running, too much running, drugs, bad diet, lifestyle, grief, job stress, family stress, etc.
One race is not going to destroy all of your development, nor is a few speed work sessions. In fact, you should see more aerobic development for a brief time. What I've seen is that my MAF pace will improve when I include short speework sessions, and begin to race. As time goes on, the MAF pace will level off and then begin to regress after a few months of hard racing. This regression is due to the internal chemical stresses that come into play when you run anaerobically. Maffetone goes into the actual hormones in his books. They start to impede aerobic growth, essentially it is like taking time off from running in terms of what happens to the aerobic fibers--they cease to grow.
If you see a big dip after a just one marathon or race, it's probably more the accumulated effect of the training leading up to the marathon. Maybe you did no speedwork, but perhaps the 4+ hours trying to run 20 milers did you in. Too much running starts to impede progress. There is no training effect on the fibers after 2-2.5 hours, and after that you are just beating yourself up. Your body starts to overproduce cortisol, which has a catabolic effect on the aerobic system. Do this enough during a training period of 2-3 months and things will start to regress by the end of it. Chuck a marathon on top of that, and you could enter one of the three overtraining categories that Maffetone lays out in his books.
Taking time off is good in many ways in terms of physical repair. Sometimes a week off can increase your MAF pace, as you are finallly running the test rested. Generally, I start to see the tests go down after I've taken two weeks off, and have cut the time on my feet in the weeks following. "If you don't use it, you lose it" comes into play. The scientific term is "Lazius Fatassius Fiberous Diminiosus."
Lack of neuronal stimulation comes into play during time off. The nerves are an important part of the system, and must be stimulated.
I've come to believe that one has to develop a solid aerobic base first, without overtraining, in order to not see such great loss of aerobic fitness during time off. Most of us come to this, as amateurs, and give it 12-16 weeks, then get to the business of speedwork and racing, and never really establishing a rock solid base. Many of us come to the method overtrained, injured, and with a very slow MAF pace. We do the base phase for 3-4 months, feel great, start to experience a few PR's when we get back ou there, but we haven't gone far and deep enough in the base phase. We then regress very easily back to where we were after racing all year, and with some time off. Many of us return to the overtraining state, or reinjure. MarK Allen would take 2-3 months off after race season. He was able to get his MAF back to optimum after 12 weeks. That's a solid base. It could take an amateur a few years to build a base that solid. 99.9% of us won't take it that far though.
This doesn't mean that buillding that base has to completely be void of speedwork or races. Allen spent 4 solid months of pure MAF base-training (improving 1 minute or 12%), then added some brief workouts like Fartlek. After a year or so of mostly MAF workouts, he was sub 6:00 pace (after starting at 8:00+ pace), having improved by at least 30%. What he did was keep in touch with his MAF tests, not allowing himeself to enter a state of overtraining. Most us won't even take it the four months, and forget about doing regular MAF tests. If it took a high level athlete at least 4 months to see just a minute or 12% improvement, it probably will take an amateur at least the same if not more. Many of us enter a state of overtraining and don't realize it, until it gets to a deep level. The question begs: have you really developed a solid aerobic base?
--Jimmy
Awesome, Jimmy. I think you nailed it. Only thing I would add is that "the Method" is really about balance. Maffetone doesn't believe that all anaerobic work will necessarily lead to aerobic decline, only excess anaerobic work. "Excess" here being defined as imbalanced anaerobic stimulus or (somewhat circularly)any amount of anaerobic stimulation that causes decline in your aerobic capacity. Simply put, I think if you're experiencing an aerobic decline after a marathon then the marathon was too much stress/anaerobic stimulation for your body's present state of fitness. If you were well ready for the marathon then you shouldn't see much aerobic decline after it.
Of course, as Jimmy noted, the precise amount of anaerobic work that would be considered excess is always in flux given the different and changing physical, chemical, and emotional stressors we each encounter in our lives. What's o.k. one month might be too much the next. That's why a regular "check up" at your maximum aerobic pace (whether through formal MAF tests or otherwise) is important for Maffetone. Reducing the non-exercise sources of stress in your life - to the extent practicable - also helps.
If you are coming at this training without a solid aerobic foundation, then, as Maffetone writes, almost any anaerobic training is likely to be counter-productive. So, in what I would consider the "classic" Maffetone model, you'd first need to build a level of aerobic fitness sufficient to balance the level of stress you experience in your non-exercising time (which could also entail a long recovery from prior overtraining and/or injury). Next you'd next need to develop an aerobic reserve over and above that base level so that you could buffer both the excess stress you'd inflict on yourself through anaerobic training and the reduced amount of aerobic work you'd be doing at that time. Then, and only then, would you add anaerobic training or racing, but only just until you'd balanced out the two systems again - remember, Maffetone says only relatively short phases of anaerobic training are needed. Once your anaerobic fitness had roughly equalled your aerobic you'd have achieved all the benefit you could safely gain from that round and you'd need to build additional aerobic capacity through further "base" training before you could safely resume the anaerobic training.
Right now I am experiencing the impact of excess anaerobic stimulus - created, I admit, somewhat intentionally for the express purpose of testing this hypothesis. Almost immediately after I added hard running and racing following my April marathon I got sick. I rested for a week then raced - reasonably, though not great. I then took a few days off and hit the hard workouts again and - quel surprise - got sick again. Bottom line - your body knows when it's had enough, and if you persist and push your body past that point it will rebel and get the rest it requires by making you sick and/or injured. You're better off being smart and volunteering for the rest and easy aerobic work long before your body makes you do it. The other bottom line: hard workouts are like hard liquor - a little goes a VERY long way and the hangovers from excess can be brutal.
If there's a point on which I'd be inclined to quibble with Jimmy (because I couldn't even say it rises to the level of a "disagreement") it's on whether it's useful for mere mortals like me to assess my training strategies against someone like Mark Allen. Mark was an elite athlete before he met Maffetone. I am not. The "Lucy" case study Maffetone describes may be a more realistic model for ordinary everyday folks like me - though even she experienced dramatic improvements albeit at a slower rate.
Awesome, Jimmy. I think you nailed it.....
Great post, G.
I use Mark Allen as a benchmark, figuring an elite went into the training with his particular baseline. I'm hoping I get my point across that: if it took that long for him to improve 12%, what do you think it's going to take an amateur? Probably won't be faster. Don't expect to move faster than him.
He improved 35% in one year from 8:15 to 5:20. As a walker, Lucy went from 18.5 to 13.5 in 10 months, a gain of aprox 33%. She then started running. It took her one year more to get to 11 minutes, a gain of 19% in her first year of running. Then dropped to 9:15 after just 6 more months. A gain of 16%. Eventually she was runnning 8:45.
She did this without overtraining or regressing. She didn't develop as fast as Mark Allen. Most likely, if you have a lot of running experience under your belt, and you aren't too bad off when you start MAF training, you'll move a bit faster than a total beginnner, or someone in a sorry state of health.
As far as training strategies, very few, if any, amateurs could match what that guy would do in training without serious impact to health. Especially amateurs over 40!
Thanks. Yours - as always - was a tough act to follow.
Yeah, I'm being a weenie when I quibble over whether Allen or Lucy is more appropriate. The basic point's the same. Maybe I just relate better to "Lucy" than Allen. Allen's base phase training would thrash me, and I still ain't 40 yet.
A book of case studies would be cool. I know coaches like to promote their success, but I wonder if he's ever had cases where his method didn't work or needed modification. You know I sometimes doubt whether the 180- formula is really a "one-size fits all" model (even with the adjustments). It would be interesting to see if he ever had to "break the mold" (on the low end or high end) to achieve positive results.
Max McMaffelow Esq.
It's amazing the beautiful discussion that a great question will generate!
Splains why in my formative years, I was fascinated with "I Love Lucy". Wouldn't miss it.
Regrettably, I didn't manage to get off my "Lazius Fatassius" until the advent of C25K.
Better late than never. I'll always love Lucy!
..I can dig it.
Dr. MLK,Jr brithplace
BQ is 3:45 @55. You can qualify at 53 or 54 depending on your b/d. Qualifier is good for 2 yrs. My target is 2011.
I was under the impression that a BQ is good for about 18 months at its maximum. The way I understand it is: If I qualified after the qualifying date is set by BAA (late september) in, let's say 2009, I have the option of running the next Boston Marathon in April 2010...unless it fills up or my marathon was too close to April to allow for recovery and prep...in which case I would be allowed to enter the 2011 Boston Marathon...unless I qualified again in 2010 after the Late Sept qual date for the upcoming year.
Is this right?
MTA: Of course you can qualify for Boston at Boston.
Will you be 55 by April 2010? If not ,your BQ time would be 3:35 to run in 2010 for age group < 55. You can run a 3:55 in late 2009 and qualify for for 2011.Assuming you will be 55 before Boston's 2011. BQ times are good for about 17 months. Late Sept 2010 to early Feb 2011. My goal is to BQ in the spring of 2010.
The plan is to run a 15 miler in Sept (Stn Mtn, GA) a half in Oct (ATL) a full in Mar (ATL ING) find a full to BQ in the spring
Noticed you are running the 13.1 in Atlanta Oct 4.So am I, I hope to see.
