Kiho Maru
I would argue AGAINST adding the 2-3 mile MAF sessions twice a week. REST (days off) will do you far more good than extra miles. Lots and lots of running "coaches" would call these extra days "junk miles" ... merely added to increase your mileage. Hudson would say "... what is the purpose ..." ?
My thought is that you will gain more benefit with adding 1-2 miles to your 10 mile run (or long run) rather than running another day. REST DAYS are very important, especially when coming off an injury or trying to stay healthy. Another option ... easier on the body but still very beneficial ... is to run TWICE A DAY on your Mon and Wed (weekday) runs. That will increase the mileage during the week, still give you the next day REST, but not tax your system to much on a given day. I do my MAF at the beginning of the Mon or Wed run (which serves as a good warm-up) and then complete interval or temps workouts.
Mileage for the sake of mileage is not the goal of a good training program. The long run builds endurance, which is the core of most programs. Hudson argues that every minute (mile) of each workout has meaning (done for a purpose).
Pond View
No ... I just run once per day. Hudson says to "consider" running twice a day when your daily mileage exceeds 10 miles. However, that does not apply if you are RESTING the next day. So Mon (10), Wed (10), and Fri (20) would be fine with Hudson ... and also get you to the 40 mile per week goal. It would also give you four REST days.
This would be MY thought process ... if I were in your shoes (which I'm not ... so the bets are off). But for the sake of conversation:
1. What are your "priorities" (not goals)? I assume you might say "get healthy", "stay healthy" and "run a good (relative) marathon in Dec 2009". OK, find (or adapt) a running program which will honor those priorities, in that order. Hudson's Masters Plan will help with the first two items (get healthy, stay healthy) because of the large number of REST days. And right now, the best choice might be COMPLETE REST (exercise machines are out). And with a Dec 2009 marathon date, you could be at 20 miles per week now, add just 1 mile per week to any of the three days and still be well above 40 miles by race day. My point is that you have LOTS of time to increase the mileage gradually, even above the 40 mile target. Take your time, and REST. (Do you get the impression that I really, really value rest?)
2. Pick ONE training program ... and stick with it to the end (unless there is a good reason to stop, like you are injured). Combining parts of "this" program with parts of "that" program is not fair to the program or to you. Hudson explains that training programs have a "purpose" for every single run day, and coaches have different approaches on how to combine various types of training runs (even which types of training runs to include and when). If Hudson is the man ... then give him a chance ... and your full loyalty. Or find a better program for YOU. You must have CONFIDENCE in the program, and give it your best shot.
3. I don't think of LHR training as a "program", but a piece of the puzzle that can be incorporated into any running program, especially Hudson's Master Plan. Run your "easy" runs as easy (slow) as you want, and stay true your MAF test rate. Also, with a Dec 2009 marathon, you don't need to do the "speed" stuff (limited as it is) in the Hudson program for a number of weeks. Concentrate on building up the mileage (which translates to endurance) at an "easy" pace.
4. Throw your stop watch away ... for now. MAF tests, at 1-mile increments, are fine based on my reading (as opposed to half-mile increments). And for the Hudson runs ... an "average" and "maximum" HR for the total run (segment) is just fine for monitoring progress. Hey, strap on the Garmin 305 and watch TV sitting down on the couch. I'll bet your HR moves around for no particular reason (other than maybe excitement, etc). You're driving yourrself nuts trying to "guess" why the HR is this or the HR is that for small segments of the run. Undoubtedly this is why Maffetone suggested that we MAF test only once per month, or so. He was (is) a very wise man, because we become obsessed with numbers. (I was a Statistics teacher at the college level for many years, and love to analyze numbers.)
5. With the exception of MAF tests ... just run and enjoy the runs. Build up the mileage slowly (at a nice "easy" pace, however you define that), and then switch to the Hudson (or whomever) plan with 20 weeks remaining before the Dec 2009 marathon.
The "journey" should be fun ... not just the "destination". At least that's how I would analyze the task at hand. Just one opinion ... nothing more.
50% to 59% = 124 to 140 = Moderate Activity (Maintenance)
60% to 69% = 141 to 156 = Weight Control (Fat Burn)
70% to 79% = 157 to 173 = Aerobic (Cardiovascular)
80% to 89% = 174 to 189 = Anaerobic (Lactic Acid)
90% to 99% = 190 to 206 = VO2 Max (Speed)
Addendum: Must kick myslef off the computer ASAP but just glanced at the mile splits on the Garmin and saw that it recorded what it calls the best pace per mile split. It turns out I hit 6:50 min/mile and 7:11 min/mile for some of those strides. That should be close to 3K pace - those are the highs, so that means I mostly ran the strides slower than 3K pace - right on the money, good girl
I stand corrected.When I was writing the post, I didn't remember that Istvan was giving you info from a program by Fitzgerald. I just remembered that you were doing what he was doing. Essentially, I was just making an observation in that post as a matter of fact that you had switched away from LHR-training and entered an higher HR/anaerobic phase. Trying to get your story right so I could examine your MAF tests a bit more properly.
I wish you the best in your new training regimen, and hope your body responds well, and you stay healthy at the same time. And have a great marathon. That's what I want for everyone here--including me.
--Jimmy
Phil Maffetone was an endurance sports coach who made his name by developing a training philosophy that was characterized by an extreme overemphasis on the importance of fat metabolism. He taught his athletes to do virtually all of their training at a very low intensity to maximize fat metabolism and stimulate physiological adaptations that increased the body’s capacity for fat oxidation in subsequent workouts. Over time, Maffetone believed, the athlete would be able to swim, bike or run faster and faster at the same, low, fat-burning intensity. (I’m using the past tense not because Maffetone has passed on, but rather because he seems to have reinvented himself as a musician.)
There are a numerous problems with the Maffetone Method. The fact that the body’s ability to increase its fat burning capacity is far more limited than Maffetone believed is the smallest of them. A much greater problem is that it’s impossible to maximize performance in standard endurance sports events such as half-marathons and Olympic-distance triathlons without doing a fair amount of training at high intensities. Threshold workouts, VO2max intervals and even all-out sprints produce valuable fitness benefits that complement those resulting from slow and steady workouts, which simply cannot replicate these complementary benefits on their own.
Having said this much, I have very recently come to a place where I appreciate the value of exercising at a very low intensity–specifically, of running at a very slow pace–more than I did before. I did not come to this place voluntarily. My body seems to have been seriously disrupted by my recent relocation and return to outside-the-home work for the first time in seven years. I’ve been running very poorly ever since my return to San Diego. For a while I tried to get through it with the right mixture or patience and pushing, but recently I decided to try another tactic. I cut out all of the threshold runs, interval workouts, and even moderate-intensity base runs that were causing me such misery and replaced them with what I generally consider to be recovery runs, in which I run as slow as necessary to feel comfortable, even if my pace is utterly embarrasing to my ego.
I have found that, by essentially embracing necessity in this way, I am indeed able to “feel good” once again when running, and one should feel good when running most of the time, even when training very hard. I’m also able to spend just as much time running as before, and I’ve even begun to take advantage of the gentleness of my training by going longer than I had been planning to do before I took evasive action. Yesterday I did my first two-hour run in a while.
My rationale for taking this approach has little to do with fat metabolism and everything to do with the nervous and immune systems. I saw my poor running as a symptom that my body was under stress. I changed my training in a way that heeded my body’s message to me yet without sacrificing my desire to maintain (or regain) a high level of fitness. I certainly have not yet reaped benefits that will allow me to once again run faster and comfortably, but I think I’m on my way. In any case, I’m now planning to continue running very slowly longer than is strictly necessary, as a little experiment to see how far the Maffetone Method can take me.
<small style="font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 0.9em; line-height: 1.5em; color: #777777; ">This entry was posted on Monday, March 3rd, 2008 at 7:04 pm and is filed under Running. You can follow any responses to this entry through theRSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.</small>
