I remember earlier this year there was a discussion on which percentage of HRmax the MAF training equaled. Back then some people said it was approx 70% for them and others said it was closer to 65% for them. The consensus, I believe, was that for most people their MAF training HR was closer to 65%, certainly below 70%.

When I look at the above numbers for me, I see that training at 65% intensity gives me a 145bpm, which is much higher than my ageMAF, which is 131. 

Question, the intensity percentages calculated using the Karvonen method are not the same as %HRmax, right? I can answer this myself by using the same HRmax as in the example above, namely 200bpm. 65% of 200bpm=130bpm - which is smack on target for my ageMAF=131

According to Karvonen training at 65% gives me the upper limit of 145bpm.

Training at 65% of HRmax gives me the upper limit of 131bpm. 

**********************************************************************

I don't understand how this information helps me. What should I be taking away from this?

You ask some "tough" questions.  Let's see if I can help sort a few things out.

First, the Standard Method calculates "exercise zones" based on HRmax while the Karvonen Method calculates them on HRreserve.  Which one to use?  That is a personal choice, but the Standard brackets will be lower (more conservative) than the Karvonen brackets.

Second, Maffetone did NOT base his "maximum aerobic heart rate" on either method ... but derived them from other correlations (variables he was measuring in the lab).  So ... it is probably not wise to compare the three brackets (or the Standard Method, the Karvonen Method, and Mittleman Exercise Zones).  True, 65% of the HRmax might equal YOUR maximum aerobic heart rate (200 times 65% = 130), but it doesn't work out that well for me.  My HRmax is 178, and my MAF is 130, so the percentage would be 73% (or roughly 75%).

Third, I probably should have left things alone and not even the mentioned "common exercise zones" often referenced in running literature.  You are running by PACE right now (without regard to HR ... well kind of), so I should have stopped there.  However, I did mention HR to help assure you that you were doing a great job, even by the conventional heart rate criteria.  And that is true.  I was worried that you would look at the 140 (or so) and 150 (or so) figures and become concerned, when related to a MAF of 130.

Bottom line ... you are doing a great job, and everything is just fine from an AEROBIC point of view.  You are not running in an ANAEROBIC zone, which LHR folks warn will weaken your AEROBIC system over the long haul (and I agree), but rather still well within the AEROBIC range.  Just keep doing exactly what you are doing and I'm guessing (not suppost to bet) your MAF tests will show lower heart rates for the same pace in the coming weeks.  There I did it again ... mentioned HR.

Maybe a peak at my web pages ... MAF Test page and Pace Chart page ... will demonstrate what I'm trying to say better than these words.  For several months, I've been running faster PACES (from the McMillan Running Company web site) and yet my MAF tests are also showing improvement.  While the faster PACES have resulted in HR's upward of 145 (remember my maximum aerobic heart rate is 130) ... my MAF tests have improved.  The reason ... in my mind ... is that the "speed" sessions ARE above the 130 threshold, yes, but are still in the AEROBIC range for me (which is 140-151 with the Karvonen Method).

Gomen-nasai (I'm sorry).

I don't know how to use this new Quote style - so my words are mixed with yours below. Sorry. 

 However, I did mention HR to help assure you that you were doing a great job, even by the conventional heart rate criteria.  And that is true.  I was worried that you would look at the 140 (or so) and 150 (or so) figures and become concerned, when related to a MAF of 130.

Thank you, Istvan - you are very diplomatic and careful with how you say things so I understood that you were trying to reassure me. Thank you. I need the reassurance so you read me right. I was worried that I was beginning to run at HR that were no longer in the aerobic area/too high. So your information (using the Karvonen method commonly refered to in running litterature) did reassure me. I am surprised to see that I can be running at HR even higher than that before I become anaerobic. I think my biggest surprise these past weeks has been to discover how high my HRmax may be - 207bpm instead of 171bpm=220-age. I need to pay close attention to my max HR readings when I do another long-run with a last mile at moderate to hard effort (progression long run per Brad Hudson/Matt Fitzgerald) - that's when I went into my anaerobic zone last time. 

Could it be right that my HRmax is 207?

 

Bottom line ... you are doing a great job, and everything is just fine from an AEROBIC point of view.  You are not running in an ANAEROBIC zone, which LHR folks warn will weaken your AEROBIC system over the long haul (and I agree), but rather still well within the AEROBIC range.  Just keep doing exactly what you are doing and I'm guessing (not suppost to bet) your MAF tests will show lower heart rates for the same pace in the coming weeks.  There I did it again ... mentioned HR.

I like your idea of doing maf-tests as I progress even with this new style of running.

 

Maybe a peak at my web pages ... MAF Test page and Pace Chart page ... will demonstrate what I'm trying to say better than these words.  For several months, I've been running faster PACES (from the McMillan Running Company web site) and yet my MAF tests are also showing improvement.  While the faster PACES have resulted in HR's upward of 145 (remember my maximum aerobic heart rate is 130) ... my MAF tests have improved.  The reason ... in my mind ... is that the "speed" sessions ARE above the 130 threshold, yes, but are still in the AEROBIC range for me (which is 140-151 with the Karvonen Method).

I am excited for you and I will look at your log/maf tests again to get more reassurance - your recent marathon PRs are also testiment to the fact that your training is working for you. I appreciate all your help and information and there is no reason to appologize - you have done nothing wrong and everything right! 

 

Gomen-nasai (I'm sorry).

Rock On!

Jimmy,

I may live to regret that I didn't stick with it a little longer to see more improvement come my way - I have thought about it; it may have seemed to you guys that all of a sudden I dropped pure maffing. However, I had thought about it for a long time and I decided that I was ready to take a step away from it (risky as it may seem) and do something more conventional. I was/am not convinced that the small improvements I saw on a few of the recent tests were due to actual improvements or to inaccuracy in the method of collecting data. 

I am basically sick of not being able to go out there and race and compete. I want to take my family to different places that we can explore while I get to run a marathon. It will be OK with me to run marathons (and other races) that are less than BQ standard as long as I get to run them. I have missed many deadlines due to injury and I am happy not to be injured at this moment. 

The way I see this is that I can always return to pure maffing if I feel a need to do it. Believe me, I have enjoyed the experiment and I appreciate the patience you guys have had with me and the help and encouragement you have given me, you in particular, Jimmy, have been rock solid with your support and I thank you very much for that. I don't think I am done with maffing or LHR training at all. For now, I am simply changing some things and allowing myself to run above the maximum aerobic heart rate as defined by Maffetone. That's all. It is so new to me right now that I don't even know if this is something I can keep doing week after week - I am grateful that I know I can run below MAF for some recovery runs if I start to feel over-stressed. This will restore the balance. You have taught me to pay close attention to how much recovery I need and to make sure I emphasize this important aspect of training. It is priceless advice. I hope your will be interested in following my experiment - I am always interested in your thoughts on what I do. 

Never feel like you have to justify your training choices to anyone, especially me. Do what you want for your own reasons. Everyone learns as they go. A big misconception about "the LHR people" is that we don't think anyone should be running at higher heart rates above MAF. Not true. This method is about health. There are periods when you stay under MAF, and there are periods when you train at higher intensities and/or race.

MAF tests can be used throughout the year to monitor aerobiic progress, no matter how hard you are running.

If the results start to tank, race times begin to  slow, or you are feeling the symptoms of over-training, then rest or a base phase might be in order. That's how MAF training goes. Maintain health, go for better race times. Anyone who thinks I think that someone should never train over MAF has not read my posts, nor my historical logs. I've BQ-ed three times in my first six years with a combination of LHR aerobic base periods, adding higher intensities after 12-16 weeks, and racing.

My response was to your wondering why you didn't progress as fast as some others who were also MAF training. I've been following your training, corresponding, and reading all your posts. Many perusals through your log. I just wanted to write what I've seen you go through. You came into this off an injury, a bit overtrained. You started with a lot of time working out, often going back-to-back-to-back-to back-to back hard. Your aerobic system seemed to be responding once you went to a true hard/easy structure. At the very least, you are feeling really good right now. Healthier than you did when you started. Health is the heart of the Maffetone training. Getting there withgout sacrificing your health, or your future running.

In terms of support, you always have mine. You are a valued contributor to the forum. Keep us posted on your experiments. If all goes well for me, and I reach my aerobic goals, perhaps someday I'll be posting in the anaerobic thread again.

Stay healthy, Flower!

--Jimmy

I am sticking with my current Hard?Easy pattern taking today off.

Some of the thoughts I have are related to how I will be able to increase my mileage enough for a marathon while still only running 3 days per week. I know Istvan runs 10m, 10m, 17-22m on only 3 days per week. But Istvan also runs a marathon every month so this is part of his very marathon race specific preparation which I am not in a position to copy.

My thoughts are that I will continue for a little while longer to run every second day only - when I get to 

10m, 10m, 13-14m I will probably no longer be able to add more miles to the shorter runs - this will make it more difficult to reach the 40s for mileage, which is where I think I should be at least for a good part of the marathon preparation (once I get closer). I have been entertaining the thought of running a short recovery run after the short hard days - in that way I can add some more mileage without adding much stress. That kind of plan might look like this:

10m, 3m MAF, 10m, 3m MAF, 15-22m, off, off

This plan would put me in the 41-48m range with only 3 hard days and 2very easy days plus 2 days off.

In terms of time on my feet it would be approx 2hr for the 10m segments, approx 40min on the MAF days, approx 3-4 hrs on the long runs (which is very long and rather hard on the body and mind). 

There are some other options I have been thinking of doing. One option is to increase the length of the mid-week run beyond 10m on weeks when I don't do a long long-run. It would look something like this:

10m, 3mMAF, 14m, 3mMAF, 14m, off, off

I could alternate those two types of weeks. 

Do you have any thoughts or experience that you would like to share on how to build mileage and how many miles per week etc. etc.? What do you think of the ideas I have outlined above?

LOL!

Istvan is a huge inspiration - I am basically completely copying him so nothing I do is original. I only WISH I could copy him ! At least, I can try. And so can you. I remember you being able to run long runs while staying healthy and enjoying yourself back in the cold winter mornings recently. You can get back to that again quite easily - just use patience as your friend. You run every week anyway so the only difference is how you run every week. If you change things a little you will soon find that your running has changed in a huge way. It's like magic 

I remember that you once said you would like to run a LOOOONG race - an Ultra?

Recently I read an article on a site the GMoney refered to; the article was about how many Ultrarunners run huge mileage and the way they are able to handle that. It was an eye opener for me because it basically stated that many of them run very little between the long runs/ultras - they spend the entire week in between recovering. I'll post a link to it:

http://fitnessintuition.com/2007/04/24/get-over-it-recovery-101/

If your lifestyle allows you to spend the week ends or one of the weekend days running you can perhaps use this approach with great results while also having the best time of your life?!