Low HR Training

1

Slightly Over MAF (Read 70 times)

debardelaben


    New to the forum ... been reading through the information ... seems to be a wealth of it here.

     

    I'm 50 years old, and I've been running since last June.  Initially all I could do was 1-minute run/5-minute walk, but I've now progressed to running 10 miles at a 9:00 pace.  But I can feel the stress, so I started looking into LHR training and Maffetone.

     

    I remember reading something about low stress training at 70% Max HR, which I think is ~185.  Most of my runs have seen my HR spike near 170 for the first mile, drop like a cliff to 150 and then gradually rise (over several miles) back to 160 or so.

     

    I've started running with a 140 HR limit for myself and it feels great.  Sure it's slow, but I feel like I could go forever.  It was initially around 11:00 pace, but after a week or so, it has dropped to 10:45.

     

    But now I'm seeing that my MAF (is that the right term?) should be 180-age ... or around 130.

     

    I feel great at upper 130's with a 140 limit, but am I sacrificing aerobic improvement by edging over my limit?

     

    For the record, I ran cross-country back in college in the mid-1980's ... was running a 15:00ish 5k ... 31:00ish 10k ... and then quit running for the next 25 years.  I'm overweight and trying to slowly get back in shape.

     

    Appreciate any information!

      Welcome to the forum.

       

      At age 60, I am pretty much an age grouping middle of the packer. But hopefully I can offer some help. I'm sure that a lot of folks on this forum can offer a lot of detailed suggestions.

       

      My suggestion would be to first go out and do a MAF test to get a baseline of where you are currently.  And then do a MAF test once a month thereafter to track your development as your training progresses.

       

      You can probably find a MAF Test description in the Sticky notes but it's along these lines.

      1. Always do your test on a running track. That way you have a consistent surface and don't have to contend with uphill and downhill running.
      2. Prior to the test, warm up for 15 minutes by walking as briskly as possible.  This will help prevent your HR from spiking when you begin the test. 
      3. After the warm  up, run five miles and make precise notes of the time it takes to run each mile.  During the five mile run, you MUST keep your HR at your MAF HR level even if you have to slow to a walk in order to keep it in the range. (A Garmin running watch with a lap feature is great for recording your mile times.)

      Now that have a baseline, you should do your daily runs according to whatever schedule you are following but keep all of your runs at your MAF HR.  If you can manage a respectable training volume each week, you should see improvement each month when you do successive MAF tests.

       

      Keep it going, doing MAF tests monthly until you are ready to start a training cycle for a race. Volume and patience are the keys.

       

      And don't worry if you find yourself walking a lot to keep the HR in the zone. At first you may at times want to strangle someone. It will get better . . . guaranteed. 

       

      One last suggestion, Maffetone's "Big Book of Endurance Training and Racing" spells this all out very nicely.

       

      Good luck.

       

      Teger

      I intend to live forever . . . or die trying.

      debardelaben


        Great information! Thank you!

         

        I'm afraid my question may have been buried in the middle of my intro.

         

        If you're running slightly over MAF (mine should be 130-135, but I'm running with a cap of 140), how does that affect aerobic base building?

         

        Is it just that you're not getting the maximum effect, or are you entirely negating the benefit by holding the HR just over the line?

        npaden


          The MAF formula of 180 - age is an estimate.  To truly get your MAF you would need to do blood testing while running on a treadmill in a lab.

           

          Some feel that the 180 - age number is a absolute critical number, others don't.

           

          There are a LOT of other folks out there that promote low HR training that start with your individual maximum heart rate and go based on that, the MAF formula doesn't take into account folks with relatively high or low maximum HR number.  In my opinion there is not a one size fits all magic formula for any HR function because there are so many people with large differences in maximum HR.

           

          MAF calculates a lower number so the deviation isn't as much as trying to use an age based formula for maximum HR would be but it can still be significant.

           

          If you use the age based formula to calculate your maximum HR it would be 220 - 50 = 170.  If you have actually used a HR monitor to get to your "you think your max HR is 185" number it should be a much better gauge than some age based formula.

           

          Now using the MAF formula you would get 180 - 50 = 130 for your MAF.

           

          If you actually had a max HR based on your age then that would be 76% of your Max HR. (130/170)

           

          But you don't, yours is 185.  If you used that same 76% X 185 you would get 141 for your MAF number instead.

           

          For the vast majority of the people their MAF would calculate within a few beats of each other doing it under either scenario, but for folks with significantly higher or lower Max HR numbers than the age based formula I think the MAF formula using a set number minus you age is going to be off as well.

           

          Is 130 a good number to train at?  For sure.  Is 140 a good number to train at?  I think so.

           

          Could you use a number somewhere in between?  You bet.

           

          My max HR is 191 measured with a HRM at the finish of a race.  I'm 46, but started using MAF when I was 44.

           

          Based on the age based formula for me at the time when I was 44 it said my MAF should be 136.

           

          Doing the math based on the age based max HR that my max HR should have been 176 which would have put the MAF number at 77% of my max HR.  But based on my actual max HR a MAF of 136 was only 70% of my max HR.  I still used the 136 and still do, but I don't sweat it if I end up with a run at 138 or 141.

           

          Now, I think it is important to be able to have a standard target low HR number to do a test on over time so you can measure your fitness, but I don't think that has to be 180 - age.

           

          It is interesting though that 185 X 70% gets you to that same 130 MAF that the 180 - age formula would.

           

          Lots of numbers and calculations, but the key takeaway is that running truly easy can make a huge difference in your aerobic function and it really does pay off.  Lidyard, Daniels, etc. are all in agreement on that as well as Maffetone.  They just don't all agree on the exact HR to train at but all agree in easy and low.

          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)

          debardelaben


            Thank you both for the great replies!

             

            It's encouraging to see how others have benefited so much from this form of training.  I need to go through the treadmill test I've seen outlined here and know for sure.  In the meantime, I'll focus on "easy" training and just enjoy running.

            petert


              Hi Debardelaben:

               

              I'm brand new to the forum as well, but thought I could chime in with an answer to your specific question...

               

              "If you're running slightly over MAF (mine should be 130-135, but I'm running with a cap of 140), how does that affect aerobic base building?"

               

              Maffetone would say no, you should NOT exceed your peak MAF number, during aerobic base building phase.  He would you are sacrificing aerobic improvement by exceeding it.

               

              (important... Maffetone has been quoted saying approximately an 85% success rate with the formula, meaning the formula may NOT be 100% accurate for you, individually)

               

              He's come up with this formula by measuring thousands of runners and their gaits and breathing patterns and getting a heart rate from that, with the goal being basically to minimize stress on the body while running, and ensuring that a majority of the energy comes from  burning fat.

               

              But... when exceeding your MAF heart range (theoretically), you exceed the point at which a majority of the energy comes from fat, and switch to burning a higher % of sugar (carbohydrates).  Once you get into the higher % of sugar-burning, it takes a bit of time to get back into fat burning, and the less fit someone is, the longer it takes.

               

              So when Maffetone says your range is 180 - age -+ (other factors he mentions), he's very careful to say that you should never exceed that top number while building your aerobic base.

               

              As an example, my MAF range is now 126 - 136.

               

              I consider 136 a hard stop, and try never to exceed it if possible, but the range I set on my watch is 106 to 136, and it doesn't matter to me if I'm below 126.  (my progression will just be slower below 126)

               

              Another factor... those times you list from 25 years ago show that you had a STRONG aerobic base back then, and I would imagine you will be quite fast very soon!

              debardelaben


                Thank you, petert!

                 

                I've been "loose" with my upper threshold on most of my runs, allowing it to slip up to 140.  When that does happen, I ease off the pace so my HR drops back down, but I do get a few "over the limit" peaks during a typical run.  My understanding from what you're saying is that it's not directly harmful to my aerobic base, but it does causes me to slip out of the fat burning zone and consequently it will take my body some time (minutes???) to slip back into the zone as my HR drops.  Another local runner I talked with said those miles in the "in-between" area (over MAF, but still easy) are essentially garbage miles, not helping you develop base or speed.

                 

                Sounds like it would be best to keep from ever crossing the threshold ... until I switch over to speed work at some later date.

                 

                Interestingly enough, I usually get an HR spike during my first mile ... maybe as high as 160 or so ... even at a low pace, and then my HR drops like a cliff below MAF and I can maintain it there for the rest of the run.  Not sure what's happening with the spike, but it shows up in most of my runs.  Perhaps I need to start off walking for a few minutes instead of running at first, even though it's very slow and my pace doesn't really change throughout the whole run.

                petert


                  Sure, hope it helps.

                   

                  For the initial spike, yes, I think Maffetone would say do some walking, let your body warm up before running, and I don't think he would like to see that initial spike.

                   

                  I forget what he recommends specifically, but I want to say it is something like 20 minutes warm up if possible, before running.

                   

                   

                   

                   

                  Also, hopefully I didn't mis-explain it in previous post, but Maffetone would say you may be hurting your aerobic development by exceeding maximum MAF range.

                   

                  Personally, I don't think a few seconds of even MAF + 5 is going to harm your aerobic base that much, and I've heard others with a lot more experience than me say as much.

                   

                  If you like podcasts, I would check out "Endurance Planet", www.enduranceplanet.com     They talk about MAF training a lot, and one of the hosts "Lucho" has used it with great success previously.  They also have had many podcasts with Maffetone himself on there.

                   

                   

                  All that being said, the "180 - age" is Maffetone's formula, so assuming that the formula is accurate for you, if Maffetone says don't go over your MAF range ever while aerobic base building then I wouldn't want to disagree with him.

                  debardelaben


                    Ah ... thank you for the clarification!

                     

                    That is more strongly worded that what I "thought" I was reading.  :-)

                     

                    And thank you for the resource ... I love to listen to podcast while I run, so I'll definitely check out enduranceplanet.

                    Shondek


                      The MAF formula of 180 - age is an estimate.  To truly get your MAF you would need to do blood testing while running on a treadmill in a lab.

                       

                      Some feel that the 180 - age number is a absolute critical number, others don't.

                       

                      There are a LOT of other folks out there that promote low HR training that start with your individual maximum heart rate and go based on that, the MAF formula doesn't take into account folks with relatively high or low maximum HR number.  In my opinion there is not a one size fits all magic formula for any HR function because there are so many people with large differences in maximum HR.

                       

                      MAF calculates a lower number so the deviation isn't as much as trying to use an age based formula for maximum HR would be but it can still be significant.

                       

                      If you use the age based formula to calculate your maximum HR it would be 220 - 50 = 170.  If you have actually used a HR monitor to get to your "you think your max HR is 185" number it should be a much better gauge than some age based formula.

                       

                      Now using the MAF formula you would get 180 - 50 = 130 for your MAF.

                       

                      If you actually had a max HR based on your age then that would be 76% of your Max HR. (130/170)

                       

                      But you don't, yours is 185.  If you used that same 76% X 185 you would get 141 for your MAF number instead.

                       

                      For the vast majority of the people their MAF would calculate within a few beats of each other doing it under either scenario, but for folks with significantly higher or lower Max HR numbers than the age based formula I think the MAF formula using a set number minus you age is going to be off as well.

                       

                      Is 130 a good number to train at?  For sure.  Is 140 a good number to train at?  I think so.

                       

                      Could you use a number somewhere in between?  You bet.

                       

                      My max HR is 191 measured with a HRM at the finish of a race.  I'm 46, but started using MAF when I was 44.

                       

                      Based on the age based formula for me at the time when I was 44 it said my MAF should be 136.

                       

                      Doing the math based on the age based max HR that my max HR should have been 176 which would have put the MAF number at 77% of my max HR.  But based on my actual max HR a MAF of 136 was only 70% of my max HR.  I still used the 136 and still do, but I don't sweat it if I end up with a run at 138 or 141.

                       

                      Now, I think it is important to be able to have a standard target low HR number to do a test on over time so you can measure your fitness, but I don't think that has to be 180 - age.

                       

                      It is interesting though that 185 X 70% gets you to that same 130 MAF that the 180 - age formula would.

                       

                      Lots of numbers and calculations, but the key takeaway is that running truly easy can make a huge difference in your aerobic function and it really does pay off.  Lidyard, Daniels, etc. are all in agreement on that as well as Maffetone.  They just don't all agree on the exact HR to train at but all agree in easy and low.

                       

                      Maf  formula is an estimate but its the best estimate we have and has nothing to do with maximum heart rate i worked out my maf to be 124on treadmill  and I am 55 with a maximum of over 200 ..dont know where you get your factoids from ..but I'd sure love to hear more of them npaden

                      npaden


                        The fact is that to know your true MAF, you need to do a real treadmill test with bloodwork.  Everything is just guesses, approximations, etc.

                         

                        When it all comes down to it the key is running easy, not a set in stone specific heart rate.

                         

                        Using a HR monitor can sure help beginning runners to identify easy running though.

                         

                        That's my opinion anyway.

                        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)

                        Buzzie


                        Bacon Party!

                          What bloodwork would that be?

                          Liz

                          pace sera, sera

                          shane_t


                            MAF is basically a statistical representation of a large population of runners observed by Dr. Maffetone. He watched a bunch of runners and their heart rates and drew a line in the sand. I think the theory is to maximize effort while still staying in a fat-burning, aerobic state.

                             

                            To my knowledge, MAF has no direct connection to max heart rate, aerobic threshold, anaerobic threshold, VO2 max or any other lab-verifiable result. I think treadmill lab tests (not just plain bloodwork) can indicate your aerobic threshold and also your respiratory exchange ratio which would be good indicators of when your body crosses into the glycogen burning mode. Keep in mind that your diet and other factors will change those numbers so even a lab-established heart rate range is subject to change. Which is where the MAF method's simplicity is nice. Just take 180-age and go with it.

                              Most likely the high HR in the first mile is due to static electricity from not sweating enough, or wearing a tech shirt. When the humidity is low, late fall, winter and early spring, my recorded HR is high for about 10 minutes or so, then falls and remains pretty steady unless I'm stressing myself etc.

                               

                              I typically start my runs with one hand held over my monitor to keep my shirt from rubbing the monitor and creating static electricity. I will run slowly for a couple minutes and remove my hand while watching the HR numbers to see if it spikes upwards. If it does I go back to the hand on the monitor for a few minutes and check again. I can usually get my HR to stabilize within 5-7 minutes, then pick up the pace to my MAF HR and slow when I reach the top of the MAF zone (which is MAF minus 10 to MAF), I often wonder if motorist think I'm having a heart attack when they see me holding my chest while running.

                               

                              I also feel that you should not confuse LHR training with MAF training. As Nathan posted, their a couple different ways to determine you LHR zones, but their is only one way to get your MAF zone. They may get you to a similar number, but they also may not.  If you are specifically interested in the MAF method, I'd suggest getting a book or two written by Dr. Phil Maffetone and follow along.

                               

                              I've been at both ends of the training theory spectrum (MAF, LHR and pace based) throughout my running life and have come full circle back to MAF after a couple years of diminishing performance, health, injury and weight gain. I can tell you that going from an easy run pace of 8-9 minute miles back to 12-13 minute miles is very hard on the ego and I'm sure that is where you are right now and that's why you are struggling with setting your pace to the MAF HR and letting it drift up to 140ish.

                               

                              If you want to be a MAFfer, get the book, set you MAF zone and run. Give it 6 months to a year and see what happens. Remember that personal and physical stress, along with environmental conditions will all have an affect on your HR during a run. Running in the summer heat and humidity will be slower then the less hot and humid winter, so going a year will allow you to get back to when you started to truly see the gains you've made with the MAF method.

                               

                              Interestingly enough, I usually get an HR spike during my first mile ... maybe as high as 160 or so ... even at a low pace, and then my HR drops like a cliff below MAF and I can maintain it there for the rest of the run.  Not sure what's happening with the spike, but it shows up in most of my runs.  Perhaps I need to start off walking for a few minutes instead of running at first, even though it's very slow and my pace doesn't really change throughout the whole run.

                               

                              The pain that hurts the worse is the imagined pain. One of the most difficult arts of racing is learning to ignore the imagined pain and just live with the present pain (which is always bearable.) - Jeff

                               

                              2014 Goals:

                               

                              Stay healthy

                              Enjoy life

                               

                                Great post

                                 

                                MAF is basically a statistical representation of a large population of runners observed by Dr. Maffetone. He watched a bunch of runners and their heart rates and drew a line in the sand. I think the theory is to maximize effort while still staying in a fat-burning, aerobic state.

                                 

                                To my knowledge, MAF has no direct connection to max heart rate, aerobic threshold, anaerobic threshold, VO2 max or any other lab-verifiable result. I think treadmill lab tests (not just plain bloodwork) can indicate your aerobic threshold and also your respiratory exchange ratio which would be good indicators of when your body crosses into the glycogen burning mode. Keep in mind that your diet and other factors will change those numbers so even a lab-established heart rate range is subject to change. Which is where the MAF method's simplicity is nice. Just take 180-age and go with it.

                                 

                                The pain that hurts the worse is the imagined pain. One of the most difficult arts of racing is learning to ignore the imagined pain and just live with the present pain (which is always bearable.) - Jeff

                                 

                                2014 Goals:

                                 

                                Stay healthy

                                Enjoy life

                                 

                                1