I just thinking about what my own efforts (1/4, 1/2, 3/4) feel like to me and how they relate to my heart rate and pace.

 

I have always rated my effort to run at MAF or below to be about a 2 or a 3 out of 10.  MAF for me is about 70% max HR.  Today I ran above MAF at about a 76% max HR and it felt like a 5 out of 10.  I ran a portiion of a run at 82% max HR the other day and it felt like a 7 or an 8 out of 10.

 

So for me:

 

1/4 effort:  MAF or 70% max HR (in the 11s)

1/2 effort:  76% max HR (10s)

3/4 effort:  82% max HR (9s)

 

I notice that at 1/4 effort, it requires almost no concentration to maintain pace.  At my 1/2 effort, I have to conentrate to maintain pace.  At my 3/4 effort, I have to concentrate more.  But, in all three, I am not really breating hard.  The breath test says these are all pretty aerobic.  My beathing is not noticably different at any of these paces.

 

Better conditioned runners probably have a 3/4 effort at a higher max HR and I could see this corresponding to tempo pace or just below the LT for others.

Are there individual differences?  Lydiard said it's all about individual differences.  When he posited the varying effort levels, he was getting at a subjective assessment from the athlete.  "Everyone has different fitness levels and backgrounds, irrespective of age or sex, there there is no  hard and fast schedule to follow." ("Running with Lydiard @ 28).  In "Running with Lydiard" it seems that he starts by asking a runner to go on a 30 minute max effort run (id @27-8).  The fastest pace that could be maintained evenly on an out and back course over 30 minutes represented the runners' current best aerobic pace (id.). This sounds similar to the so called 30 minute lactate threshold field test that is often used to set intensities, but, obviously he wasn't intending a 1/4 effort run to be at 1/4 of that pace. 

 

Livingstone attempts to quantify the effort levels by reference to heart rate reserve in "Healthy Intelligent Training" for him, a 3/4 effort run (which he equates to "marathon intensity") coincides with 75-80% of HRR.  ("Healthy Intelligent Training @ 54).  His "bread and butter" aerobic runs are in the zone of 60-75% of HRR (id.).  Of course Livingstone's system is premised on the "anaerobic threshold" occuring at or around 80-85% of Max HR. (id.).

 

Hadd tried, I think, something similar to Livingstone with his system - a "by the numbers" quantification of what Lydiard was getting at in base training.  Hadd used MHR rather than HRR, of course.  If you look at Hadd's training of Joe, you see Joe was doing 4 shorter runs at 75-78% MHR, 2 medium long runs at 83% MHR, and a long run at 80% of MHR.  (Hadd @ Part V "B").  (For this reason, I've always looked at Hadd as the "odd man out" in this group's splash page.  Dr. VanAaken, Dr. Phil, Stu Mittleman, and Mark Allen all basically target a lower level of intensity than Hadd in the base phase.  Small point and not terribly important in the scheme of things.  Just my $0.02.

 

Now Lydiard didn't really have heart rate monitors available to him during the bulk of his coaching years.  He developed his system through personal experimentation on himself, so I'm not surprised he didn't recommend them latter but rather encouraged his athletes to train intuitively and subjectively.  That said, I don't think he'd completely disregard them today.  So, Run48, I think you're wise to use a combination of Heart Rate and perceived effort to gauge what you're doing.  The combination of the two is greater than the sum of the parts.  Livingstone would agree (see p. 52).

 

I still think it is really important to understand that there are substantive differences between the way in which  Lydiard and Livingstone use the word "aerobic" and how Dr. Phil uses that word.  I believe they are not necessarily talking about the same state even though they use the same word.  Lydiard training - particularly those 3/4 effort runs - will require a greater amount of carbohydrate than MAF training (both as an absolute number of calories and as a relative contribution to energy requirements compared to fat).  In fact, if I were going to take issue with Hadd, it would be that Hadd recognizes this point approvingly (see Hadd @ "Addendum to Part II") but then still sets Joe's training levels in a way that would require him to use more carbs and less fat.

 

By focusing on the "fat burning" zone, MAF training gets at different metabolic pathways than Lydiard.  Pursued consistently and regularly, each type of training should also promote different genetic expression.Their metabolic results can be much different even if their end pyhsical outputs look the same (i.e. you get faster).  Lydiard can make you fast in the so-called "high aerobic" state.  Dr. Phil promises that if you do MAF consistently and faithfully you will (within certain limits) get fast without ever needing to go "high aerobic."  I think this is what Dr. Maffetone referred to when he wrote about the "chemical benefits" of his system in "The Maffetone Method" (see "The Maffetone Method" @ 43-4).

 

This post is getting long, but if you'll indulge a couple more points

 

1.  Obviously, we're only talking about differences in "base" training here.  Once we get to "anaerobic" training (whatever that means) the differences are even more pronounced.  And, as we all know, neither Lydiard, nor Dr. Maffetone (nor Hadd) though only aerobic training is necessary all the time.

 

2.  There's much more to "The Maffetone Method" than just running at MAF - if you just run at MAF without making the other life changes he recommends (diet, stress reduction, etc.) you might not progress or your progress might be slower.  Likewise there is much more to Lydiard than just "miles build champions."

 

3.  Whatever differences there might be between Lydiard's and Dr. Maffetone's philosophies (and I admit I could well be parsing their words too closely), they are obviously much closer in spirit than either is to something like FIRST or PowerRunning.

 

4.  I am loathe to even mention his name here (because he can be such a polarizing pundit), but, if you didn't see it, Lyle McDonald recently wrote a long series on endurance training that some of you might find helpful.  You can access Part 1 here.  Just use caution - Lyle McDonald's writing is not for everyone, and he makes Hadd (and even me) look succinct by comparison.  I don't condone or condemn what he wrote, I'm just sayin' it's there.

Matt Fitzgerald (who does not subscribe to LHR-style training as far as I can tell) writes:

Recovery intensity feels energizing, not effortful.  In other words you feel as though you're increasing your energy (even though you're not) rather than using energy.  After completing a recovery workout, you feel better than you did when you started.

 

Moderate aerobic intensity feels more comfortable than easy.  Whereas running at recovery intensity usually requires a deliberate "effort" to hold back, running at moderate aerobic intensity is like finding a natural "groove."  As moderate aerobic intensity phases into high aerobic intensity you begin to feel a certain, very subtle strain.  If you're intending to run at moderate aerobic intensity, you should not feel this subtle strain.

("The Cutting Edge Runner' @ 51.  Emphasis added).

 

Bear in mind, that Fitzgerald uses the word "aerobic" in a similar oxygen-based sense as Lydiard.  For him,  high aerobic runs are "aerobic" even though "carbohydrate provides virtually all of the energy for muscular contractions." (Id @ 43. Emphasis added.)  Even at his "moderate aerobic" level, "[e]nergy comes predominantly from carbohydrate." (Id. Emphasis added.)  It is not until you get all the way down to Fitzgerald's "recovery" pace that "energy is supplied equally by fat and carbohydrate." (Id.)  That balance of fat and carbohydrate is the hallmark that Dr. Phil uses for defining the upper limit of the "aerobic" state in his method. ("The Maffetone Method" @ 19-22.)  For most people, I would suspect that MAF pace probably corresponds somewhat roughly to Fitzgerald's "recovery pace" (understanding, of course, that MAF is really established by our metabolic state and the 180- formula, not a specific pace).

 

Incidentally, Fitzgerald believes that "high aerobic" pace generally occurs between marathon pace down to about 10% slower than marathon pace.  ("The Cutting Edge Runner" @ 43.) So he's aiming for the same general ballpark with that intensity level that Lydiard targeted with his 3/4 effort runs. But note that neither Lydiard nor Fitzgerald recommended running at that intensity level every day - not even close.  You feel like you could do them daily and "whip yourself into shape," but their "subtle strain" (as Fitzgerald describes it) equates to significant stress.  Do them too often, and you'll overtrain, get hurt, and/or burn out.  To me that's the real danger of those "high aerobic" runs: Many runners feel as though they can do those high aerobic runs far more often than (in my opinion) they should be doing them.

 

So it sounds to me like the experience you describe represents crossing from Fitzgerald's "moderate aerobic" pace into his "high aerobic" pace.  If this is what's going on, then you're still running quite a bit above the fat-burning MAF state.  By running above MAF, you'll be getting the bulk of your energy from carbohydrate, not fat.  That energy balance will not encourage to become a better "fat burning runner." Though you still might get faster running at those paces, if you do then it will be for different reasons and you probably will not experience the other benefits Dr. Phil attributes to increased fat burning.

 

Sorry if I'm starting to sound like a broken record here.

this is a very interesting description! I guess my training today was kind of like this recovery intensity. I did a run mostly below 155bpm (!!!, wow. well, almost all the time, except the first few laps. a lot of the time was spent below 153 too.) and it's really funny because now I feel my legs are stronger than ever before . that would totally coincide with the description.

ok, this neat description is not 100% of what I feel because I do have to hold myself back at higher levels (mostly because my pace is probably too low for my leg muscles), but it does feel like the groove thing mostly around 165-169bpm, very comfortable but not "too" easy anymore, though still easy. I think the strain thing for me comes into play at around 170-175bpm, there it's in a somewhat noticeable way already. quite subtle but noticeable as I increase the load, so at 175-179 it's not as subtle anymore, but more noticeable.

as for the difference that seems to happen at the threshold of maybe 160-162, that is not like the strain that I feel in the 170's, but it could very well be related, maybe it is a very light version of it. one thing's for sure, beyond 180-182 it's easily noticeable

BTW, the part about easily doing too much of the higher intensity aerobic runs is so true... (before even reading this post here, I was already starting to think I had a bit of that problem in the last few weeks when doing most runs over 160bpm. I was starting to wonder about that after doing this really low intensity run today! because this one seemed so different.)

PS: no worries, you aren't a broken record, run48 is right about how it needs to be conveyed in many ways before one starts to really understand something.

Matt Fitzgerald (who does not subscribe to LHR-style training as far as I can tell) writes:

Recovery intensity feels energizing, not effortful.  In other words you feel as though you're increasing your energy (even though you're not) rather than using energy.  After completing a recovery workout, you feel better than you did when you started.

 

Moderate aerobic intensity feels more comfortable than easy.  Whereas running at recovery intensity usually requires a deliberate "effort" to hold back, running at moderate aerobic intensity is like finding a natural "groove."  As moderate aerobic intensity phases into high aerobic intensity you begin to feel a certain, very subtle strain.  If you're intending to run at moderate aerobic intensity, you should not feel this subtle strain.

(...)

Sorry if I'm starting to sound like a broken record here.

...and GMoney's given me more books to buy!

The most cutting criticism of my running that I've received in my entire life came from my (then) 8 year old daughter: "Daddy, you read so many books about running. How come you aren't faster?"

 

"The Maffetone Method" doesn't really contain much on transitioning out from a "base" phase.  In it, Dr. Phil does reiterate a point Lydiard also makes - you don't need a long period of anaerobic training to reap all the benefits you're likely to attain from it.  Lydiard is clear that the hill bounding drills are essential to train the legs for faster anaerobic running.  Hadd's 200/200 workouts might also achieve the same effect.

I just thinking about what my own efforts (1/4, 1/2, 3/4) feel like to me and how they relate to my heart rate and pace.

 

1/4 effort:  MAF or 70% max HR (in the 11s) (HR=132)

1/2 effort:  76% max HR (10s) (HR= 140)

3/4 effort:  82% max HR (9s) (HR = 150)

 

I have read some more about what 3/4 effort might really mean.  I found the following quote from the article pointed to by the link.

 

” While three-quarter effort is hard to define, I analyzed the times that Lydiard’s best runners completed the three-quarter effort runs in, and it’s clear that this effort was slightly faster than marathon race pace (probably between 30K and marathon race pace) but slower than what we call tempo run pace."

 

http://runningtimes.com/Article.aspx?ArticleID=12686

 

I have read other places that also confirm that 3/4 effort is probably more like MP or slightly below.  This definitely matches my perceived effort vs HR that I quoted above from an earlier post.  It also brings Lydiard more in line with Hadd, I think.

 

My experiment to have a mix of aerobic runs, like Lydiard recomends, so far, feels like a success this spring.  I definitely feel like a stronger runner, and my MAF tests have shown progress with this mix.  I actually have also been mixing in strides too.  This is another new thing I have added.  This is consistant with Lydiard in that he actually had his runners do 100m intervals, once per week in the base phase.

 

Strides, if done properly, do not appear to compromise aerobic development.  The sprints are so short that my HR only goes to about 150 and then a long jogging rest period to get HR back to the 120s and 130s.  There is no lactate accumulation.   I have been reading alot about strides, and one runner was quoted as saying that for the payback vs the investment, strides have had the biggest return of all of his training drills. I would definitely agree with that.  I have noticed that my stride has gotten longer, and feels more natural and fluid. 

 

Many use downhill running to get the same effect, but I have never liked it.  I always felt like the down hill running beat me up, and beat up my quads.  Strides on a level ground, or uphill feel like they help you to push off more strongly.

 

So, even if my race times do not improve this season, I am enjoying the variaty of aerobic runs.  Actually, I am finding that I like the 1/2 effort ones the best.  I save the 1/4 effort ones for the long ones.  I have not done that many 3/4 ones, and now that I know they are not necessarily true tempo runs, I am more likely to add them once in a while.

My experiment to have a mix of aerobic runs, like Lydiard recomends, so far, feels like a success this spring.  I definitely feel like a stronger runner, and my MAF tests have shown progress with this mix.  I actually have also been mixing in strides too.  This is another new thing I have added.  This is consistant with Lydiard in that he actually had his runners do 100m intervals, once per week in the base phase.

 

Strides, if done properly, do not appear to compromise aerobic development.  The sprints are so short that my HR only goes to about 150 and then a long jogging rest period to get HR back to the 120s and 130s.  There is no lactate accumulation.   I have been reading alot about strides, and one runner was quoted as saying that for the payback vs the investment, strides have had the biggest return of all of his training drills. I would definitely agree with that.  I have noticed that my stride has gotten longer, and feels more natural and fluid. 

 

Many use downhill running to get the same effect, but I have never liked it.  I always felt like the down hill running beat me up, and beat up my quads.  Strides on a level ground, or uphill feel like they help you to push off more strongly.

 

So, even if my race times do not improve this season, I am enjoying the variaty of aerobic runs.  Actually, I am finding that I like the 1/2 effort ones the best.  I save the 1/4 effort ones for the long ones. 

 

how long are these strides in meters? how much is 150 for you in terms of MHR % (or how many beats above MAF)? pardon my ignorance

 

downhill can tax the quads for sure... so will uphill runs, though. the muscles just have to get used to it :P

 

as for race times, did you mean that for the future? you are actually hoping for improvements, right?

 

I'm finding a mix may help me too...

The other thing to note is that Lydiard only has you running 3/4, once per week.  His break down is:

 

1/4 - four times per week

1/2 - two times per week

3/4 - one time per week

 

So, my feeling is it is better to be conservative on this 3/4 effort.  It is only once per week, so why take a chance by running it too hard.  The majority of the miles are still run at 1/4 effort.  I must admit that I am not currently following this breakdown because I do not run 7 days per week.  If I did, I would try to follow it.  But, I am running about 4 times per week, so I find myself doing the 1/2 effort more often.