@jimmyb A little update... My friend has not yet had time to do the test with me yet (We were going to do it for each other, btw. I still believe that it means less artifact if there is someone helping with the handling of the buttons etc.) But anyway I've been thinking and I want to ask you this, is my impression correct that you equate MAF with AeT (aerobic threshold)?
@jimmyb
A little update... My friend has not yet had time to do the test with me yet (We were going to do it for each other, btw. I still believe that it means less artifact if there is someone helping with the handling of the buttons etc.) But anyway I've been thinking and I want to ask you this, is my impression correct that you equate MAF with AeT (aerobic threshold)?
The definition on that page is similar to how I've been describing MAF. My MAF is about 40 beats below my AT. Since the fibers use sugar, there is a spike in the sugar/fat ratio once the body engages them, defining the deflection or MAF.
Thanks for sharing that.
The definition on that page is similar to how I've been describing MAF. My MAF is about 40 beats below my AT. Since the fibers use sugar, there is a spike in the sugar/fat ratio once the body engages them, defining the deflection or MAF. Thanks for sharing that.
np
would you say the base building in the maffetone method is to be interpreted as always running below AeT? (AeT obviously being Aerobic Threshold)
np would you say the base building in the maffetone method is to be interpreted as always running below AeT? (AeT obviously being Aerobic Threshold)
If the AeT as described in the Wikipedia entry is indeed the same thing as Dr. Phll's MAF (the last stop before the body engages the anaerobic system), then one could say that. It's Dr. Phil's premise, as you already know that when running below MAF, you keep the anaerobic system out of the picture. If running below the AeT also excludes the anaerobic system, then they're most likely the same thing. I'm not really sure, as I'm only just recently aware of the AeT (you changed my life, C). When I have time, I want to look into it more.
well glad if I could change your life for the better.
I was thinking that one way to find this threshold is watch how you respond when you run long on low glycogen. so far, I consistently find that there is a certain HR below which I can still run without feeling any load even when low on calories. if I go above this HR, I can still keep moving but it's somehow harder, and, note I'm not the type who is affected much by hunger but still I do feel that I could do with some extra calories if I had any food or energy drink with me.... it's not a nice feeling but as long as there is still some glycogen left in the system, you can tough it out. I'm good at that anyway, my point is that this would possibly be another way to detect the aerobic threshold. the logic is that below it you don't need as much glycogen or other sugars to keep going as it's more fat burning without anaerobic activity. (I don't even feel the hunger much then, I would feel it when I go above that HR.) what do you think?
...ps: that HR for me does coincide with a slight breathing change as well. that's the first point of HR where I feel a change in my breathing. (there's other points later where there's a breathing change but this is the first one, at lowest HR)
How do you know when your low on glycogen? I know when I'm out (hit the wall) during a hard effort like a marathon. My speed drops dramatically and there is nothing I can do about speeding up. It's truly like hitting a wall. One minute you're good, the next you're done.
There are other factors that make the run feel harder at some point like exhaustion, dehydration and lactate build-up (which isn't going to happen below MAF). If you're at the point of toughing it out during a run and can still maintain speed, then it's probably not glycogen depletion. And you will be able to tough it out, unless something drastic happens for another reason.
As far as detecting the AeT. Without testing in a lab, I don't think you can know for sure if the body sensations or changes in breath you describe are relating to the kick-in of the anaerobic system. Though you can make a reasonable assumption that it is so if it keeps happening around your MAF heart rate within 5-10 beats either way. You have something to relate to in this case. Combine that with your growing self-knowledge about how long and hard you can go without need for food, bonking, hitting the wall, whatever, and you can reasonably assume that at certain efforts, you're probably not anaerobic at all. I would accept it. This isn't a scientific review board, and if someone tells me that through self-observation that they've learned this, this, that and that and they think this, this, that, and that, and they are making it through training healthy and uninjured, and keep making better times in races, then I give the self-observation method a thumbs up just as much as I would the lab guys.
To invoke Mark Allen (I looooovvvvvve invoking Mark Allen), check out his aerobic speed when he was ready for races and how it compared to the marathon time he ran in the Ironman. You can see he was able to to do these events close to his MAF, and not so close to LT, because he was so fast while burning fat. That's the goal of this method for anyone on any level. Get as fast as you can using the aerobic system. Try to reach the point where running at MAF is uncomfortable. Not many get to that point that I've been aware of, but if you can get close, your endurance will be approaching legendary status. In my world, my 2006 self is legendary.
well glad if I could change your life for the better. I was thinking that one way to find this threshold is watch how you respond when you run long on low glycogen. so far, I consistently find that there is a certain HR below which I can still run without feeling any load even when low on calories. if I go above this HR, I can still keep moving but it's somehow harder, and, note I'm not the type who is affected much by hunger but still I do feel that I could do with some extra calories if I had any food or energy drink with me.... it's not a nice feeling but as long as there is still some glycogen left in the system, you can tough it out. I'm good at that anyway, my point is that this would possibly be another way to detect the aerobic threshold. the logic is that below it you don't need as much glycogen or other sugars to keep going as it's more fat burning without anaerobic activity. (I don't even feel the hunger much then, I would feel it when I go above that HR.) what do you think? ...ps: that HR for me does coincide with a slight breathing change as well. that's the first point of HR where I feel a change in my breathing. (there's other points later where there's a breathing change but this is the first one, at lowest HR)
I have never hit the wall in this fashion. So when I said "low" on glycogen, I just meant partial depletion of glycogen. The kind you can get in the last few miles of a half marathon race too. Sure it could be exhaustion or dehydration but I don't think so because I'm not feeling this thing if I stay under or consciously make myself drop below the certain heart rate I mentioned. Sorry, it's hard to describe the feeling beyond just saying it feels a bit "anaerobic". A bit like in those last few miles of a half marathon, just not as terrible/intense. And if I'm going below that heart rate, the feeling is switched "off".
As far as detecting the AeT. Without testing in a lab, I don't think you can know for sure if the body sensations or changes in breath you describe are relating to the kick-in of the anaerobic system.
I will tell you what heart rate it is after I've posted my treadmill test and you've analysed it If you don't mind a little experimenting here... (Only one little hint, it's far below my LT HR. Another hint, it's also below the HR that I got from the blood lactate test done 2 years ago...which I still think must be an artifact or something.)
Hm well, in what way is it uncomfortable running at MAF for those aerobigods? Is it uncomfortable in a muscular sense? I could relate to that in some way if that's the case. When I was a beginner, I found running at 85% of maxHR easy in a muscular sense. After a couple of months of building a base with easy-ish miles, 85% was no longer easy. Within a year I got to an even lower ceiling for what felt easy muscularly. Three more years passed and it's still the same. Interesting. Wonder if it'll ever go lower from that.
And well your current self could become even more legendary with training and some luck
As for the discomfort at MAF---that's something that Dr. Phil has mentioned in his books and interviews, and that is how the aerobic intervals came about. I don't think he's specifying this for just running, but the other legs of the tri as well. These athletes end up getting so fast at MAF on bike and swim as well, that it's pretty much close to race pace for them, so they work out lower than MAF, and do intervals at MAF to get that benefit. I can't think of anyone in this forum that has reached that point.
hmm. if the MAF HR is supposed to be the same on the bike then I can see that being uncomfortable for me on the bike already. but that's more because I'm not trained well for the bike yet. (I've recently started cycling 2 times a week for an ironman relay ) ...I can hold the same HR more easily when swimming. (not trained well for swimming either but better than for cycling.)
it doesn't truly make sense though that the MAF HR should be the same on bike/in swimming as with running.
I wasn't sure if I should start a new thread on this, since it's related to the original post.
I've been lurking here for awhile.. I've been trying to run at MAF for 3 weeks now. I figured I better do a treadmill test to be sure I'm using a MAF close to what it should be.
Background:
SUBJECT ME:
Age: 38 years old
Running for 11 months, 3-5 times a week.
0% incline.
Started at MAF-20 = (180-38)-20= 142-20 = 122 bpm for 30 minutes
Increased speed by 0.1 kph every 10 seconds.
I think I see MAF at 140-141 bpm. I wasn't sure about the blip at 145 bpm.Here's the full Garmin Connect stats on this test..Treadmill HR Test
I'm hopeful to get some feedback on this. Thanks.
Very interesting thread!
I don't have access to a treadmill these day, but I might have a go at the test on my bike trainer.
Any suggestions for speed increments on the bike? 0.5 km/h instead of 0.1?
Strava profile
Google +
I will be posting two tests very soon! just don't have the time right now. one of them *DRUMROLL* will be mine! yes! and the other one is a friend's. we did it together, helped each other by taking care of the button presses etc and I hope some artifacts got excluded that way.
anyway, I'll be back soon and post them jimmyb: thanks if you can look at them
I've not done this test but I have done a VO2 test and got interesting results. First some history:
I'm 57 and have been using 135 as my MAF HR for a number of years now and was making really good progress over 18 months. But then over a period of a year I regressed all the way back to where I started. So then I went and got a professional test on the bike and run.
For the bike my aerobic threshold was 130 which is in fact what I had figured out on my own using perceived exertion and an application called iThlete measuring HRV.
For the run however they came back with a aerobic threshold of 154! They want me doing my training at 140. I've started that for the last oh eight weeks but haven't budged on getting faster at the same heart rate. Between the HR of 138-148 I'm burning 58% fat. At 149 to 159 I'm burning 45% fat.
Any thoughts on what is going on and what would be a better MAF number to use? Perhaps I just need to stick with 140 a while for the run and maybe through in a interval run each week to kick start things?
background:
38 yro male, 5'11, 215 lbs
running from age ~12-30, stopped for a while, then back at it 2012-present, about 30-50 miles per week.
Did the test yesterday on a treadmill @ 1% grade. Gym has treadmills on lockdown, so I couldn't change the units to metric from imperial (sorry!). Did about a 25 minute warmup and then "boop"ed every 10 seconds.
Using Maffetone, my MAF is 142. Did the test this weekend and got around 8:14-9 for the three mile test (had a decline for each mile).
Bandera 100k 2015 or bust!
Interesting.
I'm not sure if jimmyb is still following this or not. He hasn't responded to the last few folks who have posted test results.
Both you and wb51 seem to have a second deflection point above your calculated MAF number where your HR actually dips a little instead of just staying flat. Not sure what to make of it.
Age: 50 Weight: 224 Height: 6'3" (Goal weight 195)
Current PR's: Mara 3:14:36* (2017); HM 1:36:13 (2017); 10K 43:59 (2014); 5K 21:12 (2016)
I've been training for the last two years with no major injury or no bouts of flu/fever.. I had hesitated to add the 5 HR beats to the 142, so is this what it may indicate?