Low HR Training

Go On A Trip To RQ-land and other Allenish Places (Read 1557 times)

wbr


    If I train at HR below my MAF-10 to MAF range will I become a more efficient fat-burner faster than if I train in the 10BPM range?
    Flower, I would also love to know the answer to this question. As you know I just started MAFFing and am still trying to find my way. 180 - my age = 120. I try to alternate 110-120 bpm days (running and walking) with 100-110 days (walking). But I'm thinking of dropping the weekend long run for a few weeks and just doing 3-4 miles or 60 minutes 5-6 days per week. thoughts anyone? Bob


    Wasatch Speedgoat

      If you haven't yet read it, get and read Stu Mittleman's book, Slow Burn. He explains a lot in there what you all are asking. Basically 180-age-5 if you are just beginning. Stick to that and if you need to walk, then walk. I'm not sure that running any slower than that will help you get fitter....as a matter of fact in Slow Burn, Stu suggests how to adjust the zones to suit you...which I think we all need to do rather than blindly follow a formula. I am now running at 130, which I know is a lot slower than I need for aerobic development, but it's an experiment just to see if I can and do improve at this HR. I will say I feel better than i have in years, but don't feel like i'm preparing myself to run a good marathon Wink Steve

      Life is short, play hard!

      Rudolf


        Steve, thanks for teh Aaken link, last few days I had the need to simply relax and read some old aaken discussion so teh timing was right as allways - thank You master Universe. just went through initial4 pages but got lot confirmation from it and lots of stuff showing me how to tweak my programm teh stuff which did not feel right is expalined right there, seems easy to read if You knbow what You looking for... Flower my personal feel and experience is offering this answer to You questions : My number 180-53=127, but 127 did not feel easy enough during run and was very hard walking effort Intuitively I did trained at lower HR, getting used first to walks at 80-100 range lately founding that 115-117 is borderline recovery HR allowing for few hours effort or recovery from higher HR walking bellow that feels realy easy and feels like fat only. If I am realistic with the +- factors in the formula, and now nearly 1 year older : 180 - 54 - 10 = 116 That seems like spot on HR for testing purposes and could be the 50-50 sugar-fat spot during 2-3 hours session depleted no food no sweet drinks nothibg, just mineral liquids before, walking at 80-90 range seems like there is no need to eat at all , very little sugar if any used. However if I do it with teh stopwatch and gently push for a bit faqster pace and try to do second half same time or slightle negative split, my HR start going higher (combine with dehydration and heat cardiac drift), as soon I get to 100 area, I am using sugars and within 20 minutes at this HR zone I am starting to feel huinger signals tummy rumbling, stomach acid and my mind is creating cooking recipes, remebering various food parties and stuff like taht meaning I am burning sugar and running low on it, teh point where this seems to be happening sooner is around teh 105-107 HR. to sum it up, using formula 180-age-10 is my attitude since nobody is realy healhy and aerobicaly fit anymore than taking this maf HR further maf-10 gives the critical sugar-fat training point and going further 10 point lower gives close to fat only zone. so in my view calculate maf=180-age-10 than under maf - 20 to maf - 30 should be fat safe zone aand here lots of session needs to be done depleted in fasting mode, might take weeks to get body to switch. teh zone maf-10 to maf-20 will use some sugars so should not be used that often, maf Hr should only be used for tests (every 3 weeks ?) the nonimportant races is fun to do controled at MAF HR + 10, +20, +30 and keep database of those results and only occasionaly very important races going flat out (for these I am not wearing HRM any more, not wearing stopwatch, just going as fast as I can at correct technique, of course being aware of the distance ahead of me so trying to get the pace with even splits or slightly neg splits.


        Wasatch Speedgoat

          Yes, Van Aaken is the original and the master. We can learn a lot from his ways....one key to his teachings is to move a lot, even if a lot of it is walking! The more hours you do, the fitter animal you will be! Steve

          Life is short, play hard!

            Gino, Did you see an improvement in your pace at 117BPM while you were building your mileage? ...
            Yes. For a week or two I had to run easy and then walk to bring the HR down to 117, and just repeat that. Once I was able to run easy continuously @ 117 I checked to see what that pace was. 3-4 weeks later my mileage had doubled and pace was 40 seconds/mile faster. 3 weeks after that my pace was another 20-25 seconds/mile faster, and I had a nice 3 hour run @ 117.
            You mention your fasting 12 hrs prior to your long runs and drinking water only during the 20 mile long runs - was this a new way for you to run? Had you previously not fasted before your runs? Did you fuel on carbs before you changed to 117BPM? ...
            Ok, to clarify: the "fasting" was just due to the fact that I would eat dinner by 8 PM and not have any Calories before my run the next morning, sometime in the 8 AM - 11 AM timeframe. This was for all my runs, not just the long runs. Drinking no Calories during runs was also for all runs, not just long runs. I did the same things the year before.
            Furthermore, I am interested in more details about how you increased your mileage from 20MPW - how did your weekly schedule look, how many rest days, did you run the same mileage every day, did you use hard/easy in terms of time spent/mileage per day etc?
            I'll answer this in another post...
            lowgear1


            Max McMaffelow Esq.

              and my mind is creating cooking recipes, remebering various food parties and stuff like taht meaning I am burning sugar and running low on it.
              Ah, femme fatale Julia Child and her fat rendering recipies? A maf visionary... Pass the buttah! Precisely how I was "drawn" to lhr/maf. That and lobstah, of course. LOL Forgive the hatchet job, Rudy. ....Just love how your mind works! Bon Appetit !! lg
              ♪ ♫ Hey, hey, we're Maf Monkees And people say we monkey around. ♪ ♫ (The Monkees)
              Give me 12:59 in '09, please. I deserve it! (Maf of course)..No more teens! No more teens! (ME! ME! ME!)
              ♪ ♫ I Thank The Lord For The Night Time...And I Thank The Lord For You ♪ ♫ (Neil Diamond)


              Happy

                Rudolf:
                Flower my personal feel and experience is offering this answer to You questions : My number 180-53=127, but 127 did not feel easy enough during run and was very hard walking effort Intuitively I did trained at lower HR, getting used first to walks at 80-100 range lately founding that 115-117 is borderline recovery HR allowing for few hours effort or recovery from higher HR walking bellow that feels realy easy and feels like fat only. If I am realistic with the +- factors in the formula, and now nearly 1 year older : 180 - 54 - 10 = 116 That seems like spot on HR for testing purposes and could be the 50-50 sugar-fat spot
                Thank you for offering your personal experience and elaborating on it in such detail. Your entire post, not just the small part I quoted above, gives great insight into how you train and how you have worked to adjust your MAF and training paces over the course of the last year. It is striking how you are in touch with your intuition and your body feedback and how you have kept adjusting the MAF down until you've reached a point that feels right - you get good clues from your body in terms of being in sugar or fat burning mode by paying attention to your food fantasies and tummy rumbling etc. You've arrived at 180-age-10 for your MAF. Soon after I started Maffing I subtracted 5 for being injured. I immediately felt a sense of relief and pressure taken off my shoulders and soon my body had adjusted well to being able to run continuously at the adjusted MAF. I felt considerably less pain in injured areas. Recently, I have cut back my mileage/time spent running in order to try to overcome overtraining symptoms and get my training back on an upward curve. It is all good - I need to become healthy. After having done this massive cut back, which I'm currently in the first week of, I have started to get this hunch that my current MAF still needs to be adjusted down by another 5 points. Some of my best runs - in terms of feeling good during the run - have been at heart rates 10-15-20 BPM below my current MAF. I have been reluctant to adjust it down any further. In my feeble mind I am still holding on to the sinking ship of my previous training style - the image of myself being fit and fast is hard to let go of Dead If I take one realistic look at myself I do however see that this image is a fantasy - I am already not fit and fast so I have nothing to loose and everything to gain by subtracting another 5 points from my current MAF. My MAF will be 180-age-10 = 121
                Gino, Did you see an improvement in your pace at 117BPM while you were building your mileage? ... Yes. For a week or two I had to run easy and then walk to bring the HR down to 117, and just repeat that. Once I was able to run easy continuously @ 117 I checked to see what that pace was. 3-4 weeks later my mileage had doubled and pace was 40 seconds/mile faster. 3 weeks after that my pace was another 20-25 seconds/mile faster, and I had a nice 3 hour run @ 117.
                Your posts along with Rudolf's on this thread confirms my feeling/intuition that I am still training at a MAF that is too high. Your experience is amazing. I will immediately, starting tomorrow, start to train to my new lower MAF as calculated above. I expect to do it the same way you did, to run easy, walk to bring the HR down, then run until I hit the MAF, walk it down and repeat that for a few weeks until my body adjusts to running continuously at or below the adjusted lower MAF. If I am right that it needed to be adjusted down I will start to see some of the magic happening in my own running - I can't wait!! Roll eyes OK, I will be patient, LOL! It is time to say goodbye to yet another part of my machismo style of running. I see it flowing down the river to wash away in the ocean. "Someone pass the buttah, please!" and "Bon Appetit" - go LG go!
                5K, 4/28/07 24:16 PR 10K, 5/5/07 49:23 PR 1/2 M, 12/08/07 1:49:34 PR Marathon, 12/09/06 3:57:37 BQ 50K, 10/04/2009 7:27:00 PB 40M, 4/17/2010 11:20:00 PB
                Rudolf


                  thanks everybody for listening to my tummy rumblings. Aaken was coaching young guns at elite level, say they were in their 20's ro so. Aaken would not let them run faster than 150, but often much lower. now with some nice number manipulations : 180 - 20 - 10 = 150 I read this, that even the elite fast young guns do have the -10 factor in there
                  lowgear1


                  Max McMaffelow Esq.

                    Ah, Victory Garden is gonna be sweet this year. when ur corn gets planted and vour fruetsa nd veggies are in u pretty munch got id covered. thats intellegent design and notsome johnny come lately govt food shape dajury what happens to pyramid with whole grains etc and gemoetry. Squares in beltway mo wonder cant figure circle from hole inground no wonder head of govt up in dark matter place and inter net forum wide eyed pee brained goo ggooing leader of free world now come to garden party to measure how far tomato is and if one radish hang too low., buckshot may be picked out of butt before harvest. some herbs maybe to no meat so much but maybe baloney teh sausage and other cheap cuts, but stick with colorful veggy and fruit it is better anyway fresh You in Darwin so know home school is okay? just have ammo in case ti keep rabbitt on run and have fence but where i rn it is engine on track and no enginerr serious! no caboose ether. Signs tell me so . no b.s. in rr yard by teh levee "caution, trains may be operated remotely wihout engineer" what else is new mr president oh, I've got to run. chow lg
                    ♪ ♫ Hey, hey, we're Maf Monkees And people say we monkey around. ♪ ♫ (The Monkees)
                    Give me 12:59 in '09, please. I deserve it! (Maf of course)..No more teens! No more teens! (ME! ME! ME!)
                    ♪ ♫ I Thank The Lord For The Night Time...And I Thank The Lord For You ♪ ♫ (Neil Diamond)
                    GMoney


                      to sum it up, using formula 180-age-10 is my attitude since nobody is realy healhy and aerobicaly fit anymore than taking this maf HR further maf-10 gives the critical sugar-fat training point and going further 10 point lower gives close to fat only zone. so in my view calculate maf=180-age-10 than under maf - 20 to maf - 30 should be fat safe zone aand here lots of session needs to be done depleted in fasting mode, might take weeks to get body to switch. teh zone maf-10 to maf-20 will use some sugars so should not be used that often, maf Hr should only be used for tests (every 3 weeks ?) the nonimportant races is fun to do controled at MAF HR + 10, +20, +30 and keep database of those results and only occasionaly very important races going flat out
                      It's interesting to see how the zones you describe link up to what Mittleman recommends as the baseline for his zone settings in "Slow Burn". Are you familiar with the different sensory cues he describes for each zone? Without the HRM do you allow your sensory experiences to guide you in your workouts?


                      Wasatch Speedgoat

                        I know that is where I was at one time and want to get there again. Basically you do the math to get the MEP, which is 180-age+10 (for me 133). Map is down to 20 below and Sap is 20 above that number. Now what he describes (and i just read this chapter last night) to fine tune your zone is to run up to your top MEP number. If you are breathing heavy and don't feel "comfortable" , adjust down 5 beats and repeat until you are just at that point where you are not breathing heavy. I am at the other end....I run at 133 and I am not breathing or sweating heavily at all. Today I let it drift up to 138 and I was just beginning to feel like my breathing was beginning to labor a bit....or that I was noticing it for the first time. So I'm thinking i am more like 128-138, but to stay safe I will have my zone a little below that at 125-135. I am most comfortable at the upper end of that zone...I will recheck that every once in awhile to see if it's something that changes depending on how tired you are (like your RHR), which I think may be the case. Like I said in an earlier post, I don't think it's magic. When your comfortable, you are in a good aerobic training zone, when your getting into that heavy breathing, back it off a notch unless it's a planned harder day. I still like reading how Gino just backed his zone way down, which allowed him to run more miles and he pr's at the half and marathon! Now that's good science! Steve

                        Life is short, play hard!

                        wbr


                          If you haven't yet read it, get and read Stu Mittleman's book, Slow Burn. He explains a lot in there what you all are asking. Basically 180-age-5 if you are just beginning. Stick to that and if you need to walk, then walk. I'm not sure that running any slower than that will help you get fitter....as a matter of fact in Slow Burn, Stu suggests how to adjust the zones to suit you...which I think we all need to do rather than blindly follow a formula. I am now running at 130, which I know is a lot slower than I need for aerobic development, but it's an experiment just to see if I can and do improve at this HR. I will say I feel better than i have in years, but don't feel like i'm preparing myself to run a good marathon Wink Steve
                          Steve, I bought the book today on ebay for $2 + $3.99 S&H. Thanks
                          Rudolf


                            It's interesting to see how the zones you describe link up to what Mittleman recommends as the baseline for his zone settings in "Slow Burn". Are you familiar with the different sensory cues he describes for each zone? Without the HRM do you allow your sensory experiences to guide you in your workouts?
                            No I have not read the book or any of his articles, I only have seconhad references to it. I do often train without HRM and just follow the intuition, I know I am usualy under 100 and since everyday is different, different course different shoes weather clothse etc I am not recording too much data anyway. back to Aaken, while 180-20-10 = 150, there was reference in discussion, that 150 was actualy the racing HR for the top gun (Northpot ?) the training was done at 130. during aaken hells week = 7 days of running for 1 H every second hour all day, at very slow speed, around 10 km/h for fast runners capable running about 20km/h - how low their HR should have been. Just make teh mental exercise - take You best possible 1H performance - than run exactly half the speed, what would be teh HR and how much MAF HR that would be. It was about 7x1H each day (or 8-9X ?) with very little eating in between, this must have been pure fat for 7 days. Thats what I call the true aerobic base ( I am walking 24H walk race in 3 weeks - so be similar just have to make sure I start slow enough)
                              ... Furthermore, I am interested in more details about how you increased your mileage from 20MPW - how did your weekly schedule look, how many rest days, did you run the same mileage every day, did you use hard/easy in terms of time spent/mileage per day etc?
                              OK, here's some 2008 history, in two chunks. First chunk is after doing a run-walk system the first two weeks of February until I could "run" continuously at my HR 117 target - roughly mid-Feb through mid-April with dates but not days of the week. Second chunk is after mid-April, pretty much days of the week but no dates (cribbed from the "Masters" user group 40/40 threads.) Just laying this out is probably better than me pontificating about some "system" I was using, etc. Usually longer days followed by shorter (or "off") days, take it easier if you feel more tired or need recovery... throw in a shorter week to let the body recover sometimes, etc. I apologize in advance for the length or wordiness of this stuff, but it might give an idea about how I proceeded after a 3-month layoff following the spring/summer/fall of 2007 where I trained at a higher HR. First chunk - all runs easy unless otherwise specified as easier (HR 107 +/-) or easiest (HR 97 +/-.) 2/18 6 miles, roads 2/20 6 miles, roads 2/21 7.5 miles, roads 2/23 5 miles, roads week total 24.5 miles 2/25 7.5 miles, roads 2/27 10 miles, roads + trails 2/29 6.5 miles, roads 3/02 7 miles, roads week total 31 miles 3/03 6 miles, trails; 3.5 miles, trails 3/04 6 miles, roads 3/05 5 miles, roads 3/07 5.5 miles, roads week total 26 miles 3/11 11 miles, roads 3/12 5 miles easier, roads 3/13 10 miles. trails 3/14 4.5 miles easier, roads 3/15 12 miles, trails, killer hills week total 42.5 miles 3/17 11 miles, trails 3/18 6 miles roads 3/19 10.5 miles, roads + track 3/21 11.5 miles, trails 3/23 16.5 miles, roads + track week total 55.5 miles 3/24 4.5 miles easier, roads 3/25 5 miles easier, trails 3/26 5 miles easiest, indoor track 3/27 10 miles, roads + track 3/29 7 miles, roads + trails 3/30 6.5 miles, roads + track week total 38 miles --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Skip a couple weeks of records here... then start the second chunk around mid-April. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- my week (I did too much - but I'll take it easy next week): Mon 4/14 14.5 easy , park trails Tue 4/15 5.2 easier , random route Wed 4/16 13.5 easy , park trails Thu 4/17 5.3 easy , roads+hs track Fri 4/18 15.7 easy , park trails Sat 4/19 8.0 easy AM roads+bridges; 6.7 easy PM park trails Sun 4/20 4.8 easier , recovery run - roads+hs track Week Total 73.7 miles ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Skip a couple weeks here... Mileage was lower because of that 73+ mile week ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- posted: 5/10/2008 at 2:32 PM modified: 5/12/2008 at 10:56 AM Plan - see if I'm recovered from that 70+ mile week a couple weeks ago Mon - off, no excuse Tue - 13 miles easy, nature park trails Wed - 5 miles easier (HR 105) Thur - 13 miles "easy" but killer hills (hit the wall?) Fri - off Sat - 10 miles easy, roads & asphalt trail Sun - off Total - 41 miles --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- posted: 5/13/2008 at 11:08 AM modified: 5/18/2008 at 5:52 PM Plan - get enough sleep and some comfortable runs Mon - 7.5 miles easy (incl HR/pace progression test at track) Tue - 13.3 miles easy (nature park trails) Wed - off Thu - off Fri - 9 miles easy (road/track, HR 111); Sat - 9 miles easy (roads/trail) Sun - 3.5 miles easy(roads) Total – 42.3 ---------------------------------------------------------- posted: 5/19/2008 at 5:33 PM modified: 5/25/2008 at 1:02 PM … Plan for this week: make sure I'm fully recovered from last Sat nite - there went that sleep goal - and Sun morning (severe bloating and pain, eventually diarrhea... no food for 36 hrs before Mon run... not an excuse... just the facts... ) Mon - 10.5 miles easy (very funny incident at hs track...) Tue - 3 miles easy, 1 mile 120m strides, 1 mile easy Wed - 9.5 miles easier (HR 107) Thur - 11.5 miles easy (felt strong) Fri - 5 miles easier Sat - 11 miles (felt like 11+) (?easy?... just a hard day...) Sun - off Total 52.5 miles ... seem to be recovered ok ----------------------------------------------------------- posted: 5/27/2008 at 4:19 PM modified: 6/1/2008 at 9:06 PM Thanks, Holly. Plan this week is to stay healthy (and recover from a nagging quad strain after Mon run) Mon - 11 miles easy Tue - off [follow Holly's lead and join MM... #970] Wed - off, 2 hours walk+easy jogs (quad rehab) Thur - 10 miles easy, trails Fri - off Sat - off Sun - 14 miles easy Total - 35 miles ----------------------------------------------------------------------- posted: 6/3/2008 at 5:40 PM modified: 6/8/2008 at 1:33 P …Plan - take it easy on the legs, have a few rest/off days Mon - off Tue - 13 miles easy, park trails Wed - 5 miles easier Thur - 1 mile easier then 13.5 miles easy, park trails Fri - 4.5 miles easier Sat - 10 miles fairly easy then 1 mile easier Sun - off Total for week: 48 miles --------------------------------------------------------------------- posted: 6/9/2008 at 8:45 PM modified: 6/15/2008 at 9:55 PM …No special plan, just take it easy and keep the legs fresh for Saturday... Mon - 1.5 miles easier, 10.5 miles easy on park trails Tue - 1.5 miles easier, 5.5 miles easy Wed - 3 miles easier, 4.5 miles easy Thu - 1.5 miles easier, 3 miles easy Fri - off Sat - 0.25 miles easiest, 13.1 miles medium, 1.25 miles easier Sun - 1.5 miles easier, 5 miles easy Total - 52.1 miles "Plan" worked ok... legs felt great after Saturday's half marathon -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Oh, well... that's kinda what Mid-Feb through mid-June was like last year. Maybe it gives an idea about how I approached just getting out and running easy to build up the mpw. Gino


                              Happy

                                Thanks Gino - that's an amazing log and very kind of you to let us see it. I have just taken a few minutes here in my chair after dinner to sit down and read your log - not had time to digest or analyze much yet. May not be necessary. It looks like in the beginning you basically ran only 4 days per week with rest days in between, sometimes 2 or 3 rest days in a row, other times just 1. This may have been your "pattern" before you lowered your target HR and started to run at that HR for every one of your runs except a few that were even easier. I am assuming (from what you've said before) that after you started running at the 107 +/- HR you experienced a change in how much energy you had and started running not only longer per run but also more frequently - no longer limiting your run days to 4 per week. It doesn't look like you had a particular goal in terms of weekly mileage that you were trying to achieve every week, did you? It looks more like it sort of happened to you - that your renewed energy took you by surprise and you were so enthusiastic that you just kept increasing your daily run length and the number of days run per week until you found yourself recording a 73 mile week - a huge jump in mileage from being in the 40s and 50s to very quickly be hitting 73. Then you pulled back. Unfortunately we are missing records for a couple of weeks after the 73 mile week. After that you didn't get close to 73 again but you did stay in your 40s and 50s for weekly mileage. When I look at the way you added miles to your running it does look very spontaneous, not following any kind of schedule or deliberate systematic buildup, is this correct? It looks like you played it by ear - went with how you felt - also your comments leads me to think you based your running on how you felt, how rested you were, how tired you were, if you were dealing with an oncoming injury etc etc. Did you set a PR in the Half Marathon at the end of the log? How did your running go after the first half of 2008? Did you continue to build? Did you add anaerobic workouts? Did you start racing more? Again, thank you very much for so kindly sharing your log with us - it has been interesting to read it and to see how Low HR training enabled you to increase your running volume.
                                5K, 4/28/07 24:16 PR 10K, 5/5/07 49:23 PR 1/2 M, 12/08/07 1:49:34 PR Marathon, 12/09/06 3:57:37 BQ 50K, 10/04/2009 7:27:00 PB 40M, 4/17/2010 11:20:00 PB