Low HR Training

12

Maffetone Base Plan to Armstrong Base Plan (Read 956 times)

Shondek


    I've decided to leave  Uncle Phils plan and follow L.Armstrongs instead,which is quite similar.

    The main problem I had with running close to maf was that I always did a positive split.

    All my runs over the years have been out and back and I would judge it by comparing the outward time with the homeward time and hopefully they would be roughly the same with same effort.

    At the moment my 2 hour runs would be 1 hr out and 1hr 8min back.

    Armstrong seemed to take drift into account .His base lasted 3 months and the first 2 months were at maf-5.

    6 days a week for the first month and 4 days a week for the second month with the same amount of training time .The last month is back to 6 days and all with a maf maximum.

    My first maf-5 2 hour run was exactly 2 hours..I think this way makes more sense 

    Any thoughts comrades?

    gooner2004


      Hi any chance of sharing the plan or telling us where this can be found?

      jimmyb


        I've decided to leave  Uncle Phils plan and follow L.Armstrongs instead,which is quite similar.

        The main problem I had with running close to maf was that I always did a negative split.

        All my runs over the years have been out and back and I would judge it by comparing the outward time with the homeward time and hopefully they would be roughly the same with same effort.

        At the moment my 2 hour runs would be 1 hr out and 1hr 8min back.

        Armstrong seemed to take drift into account .His base lasted 3 months and the first 2 months were at maf-5.

        6 days a week for the first month and 4 days a week for the second month with the same amount of training time .The last month is back to 6 days and all with a maf maximum.

        My first maf-5 2 hour run was exactly 2 hours..I think this way makes more sense 

        Any thoughts comrades?

         

        Please share the Armstrong program and how it relates to the Maffetone Method. Also, I do believe a negative split would be 1:08/1:00, not the other way. Cool    Heart rate drift is reflective of stress. Keep that in mind.

        Log    PRs

        Shondek


          Please share the Armstrong program and how it relates to the Maffetone Method. Also, I do believe a negative split would be 1:08/1:00, not the other way. Cool    Heart rate drift is reflective of stress. Keep that in mind.

           Sorry I meant to say I always fail to do a negative split,it's changed now I've already left the link to the Armstrong base plan somewhere here a few months ago.

          I dont ever think Maffetone claimed that training aerobically was his idea/method.

          I've decided that the highest  heart rate below maf that gives me a slightly negative  split is the rate for me to train at as it means I can do a proper warm down .and just do a walking maf test ..I think testing at Maf is too risky if you are not  sure you calculation of maf is 100% accurate.

          His program is very similar to Maffetones intermediate and advanced .I am more comfortable with Armstrongs plan as I feel more in control and refreshed when I finish and I know it's tried and testedSmile .....and in month 2 ,3 days off!!!

          My maf plan was to keep it going til I stop improving any ideas how I could incorporate LAs in this way.  my maximum run will be 2.5 hrs 

           

          http://www.motleyhealth.com/fitness/lance-armstrongs-diet-and-fitness-workouts

             Sorry I meant to say I always fail to do a negative split.I've already left the link to the Armstrong base plan somewhere here a few months ago.

            I dont ever think Maffetone claimed that training aerobically was his idea/method.

            I've decided that the highest  heart rate below maf that gives me a slightly negative  split is the rate for me to train at as it means I can do a proper warm down .and just do a walking maf test ..I think testing at Maf is too risky if you are not  sure you calculation of maf is 100% accurate.

            His program is very similar to Maffetones intermediate and advanced .I am more comfortable with Armstrongs plan as I feel more in control and refreshed when I finish and I know it's tried and testedSmile .....and in month 2 ,3 days off!!!

            My maf plan was to keep it going til I stop improving any ideas how I could incorporate LAs in this way.  my maximum run will be 2.5 hrs 

             

            http://www.motleyhealth.com/fitness/lance-armstrongs-diet-and-fitness-workouts

             

            You have me very confused with the link that you posted and Lance Armstrongs training plan. Where does it talk about Maffetone? Where does it talk about run training? Where does it talk about MAF minus training? The article never mentions how he came to any of his HR ceilings for base training.

             

            It could easily be based off of his Max HR (201) and that would put it at 72-75%, which is pretty much a standard percentage for a LHR training system. We don't even know if the MaxHR was based on a running or cycling test. If it was running, then you can expect an average of 10 beats lower for a cycling MaxHR and that would put his workout ceilings atbetween 75-80percent.

             

            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

             

            jimmyb


               Sorry I meant to say I always fail to do a negative split.I've already left the link to the Armstrong base plan somewhere here a few months ago.

              I dont ever think Maffetone claimed that training aerobically was his idea/method.

              I've decided that the highest  heart rate below maf that gives me a slightly negative  split is the rate for me to train at as it means I can do a proper warm down .and just do a walking maf test ..I think testing at Maf is too risky if you are not  sure you calculation of maf is 100% accurate.

              His program is very similar to Maffetones intermediate and advanced .I am more comfortable with Armstrongs plan as I feel more in control and refreshed when I finish and I know it's tried and testedSmile .....and in month 2 ,3 days off!!!

              My maf plan was to keep it going til I stop improving any ideas how I could incorporate LAs in this way.  my maximum run will be 2.5 hrs 

               

              http://www.motleyhealth.com/fitness/lance-armstrongs-diet-and-fitness-workouts

               

              That link didn't offer up much.

               

              I'm not sure if you paid for his program and have agreed not to share it----that's okay---but could you at least share his heart rate zones for particular workouts, or something about how his program uses MAF. Does it use MAF? Or are you just combining programs?

               

              Tell us a story. Cool

               

              Thanks, S.

               

              --Jimmy

              Log    PRs

              Shondek


                You have me very confused with the link that you posted and Lance Armstrongs training plan. Where does it talk about Maffetone? Where does it talk about run training? Where does it talk about MAF minus training? The article never mentions how he came to any of his HR ceilings for base training.

                 

                It could easily be based off of his Max HR (201) and that would put it at 72-75%, which is pretty much a standard percentage for a LHR training system. We don't even know if the MaxHR was based on a running or cycling test. If it was running, then you can expect an average of 10 beats lower for a cycling MaxHR and that would put his workout ceilings atbetween 75-80percent.

                 Easy Tiger!!...I mean Toast!...I don't know ,I bring you what I must admit circumstantial evidence and you send me back to the murky waters filled with dogma,dodgy training methods and what can only be described as dire rhetoric from running's equivalent to the chattering classes.

                I am flabbergasted but not broken.You guys want spoon fedSmile

                I not only apologize for the 'z' in apologise and the length of the post but any comments you disagree with ,feel free to shoot me down:as if you wouldnt..

                I have come to the conclusion that base training is dead easy and a no brainer...leave brain at entrance as very little thought is required.

                 

                LYDIARDS BASE TRAINING EFFORT.

                 

                1)Pick a flat out and back route,say 30 mins out.If it takes 30 mins to get back with the same effort this is your training effort for at least 3 months.Lydiard says as long as you can.We know its as long as you improve.

                 

                At the start of the base this effort is well below anaerobic threshold.(maf).Lydiard says you can run at and close to An Th from time to time as this gives the quickest improvement but not until you've built a proper base as its too easy to slip into the anaerobic zone.

                 

                When I managed a negative split I ran at maf-5 with an average heart rate of 117 including warm up and warm down.

                What was i doing for the last 7 months..Every other day running at Maf!!..Absolute BONKERS..what was I thinking.All my runs were positive splits.

                 

                What does Maffetone say initially you will find it easy to run at maf...Yes mentally it feels easy to run at maf but physically it's difficult to maintain the pace at maf..so my conclusion is it is not easy...especially outdoors...and who wants to do a de-acceleration run?

                 

                2)Lydiard says you can do 50m wind sprints with long recovery in the base phase as this wont affect  your progress .

                 

                This type of running avoids the issue of burning too much sugar..the sprinting if kept less than 9 seconds with 5min recovery it apparently uses atp as a fuel source with  no lactic byproduct .Although Maffetone says otherwise.I dont see the point of using fast twitch muscles during base but when tried my legs usually feel fresher the next day.

                 

                LANCE ARMSTRONG

                 

                Lance Edward Armstrong (born Lance Edward Gunderson on September 18, 1971

                 

                Sorry about previous link it's not the original one I posted on this site this is it

                 

                http://www.gametimeworkouts.com/2008/03/lance-armstrongs-3-month-training.html

                 

                I'll let you do the arithmetic 


                Daily Training For October 1999

                Week 1


                4 x per-week fix gear riding for 1 1/2-2 hours 
                with 145 HR ceiling

                2 x per-week road ride on normal bike for 2-21/2 hours
                with 145 HR ceiling, high pedal speed, 95+ rpms

                 

                What's this? Lydiard was a running coach and here is a tour cyclist doing short sprints  with long recovery a cyclist training like a runner??..Heresy !!

                 

                2 x per-week road ride on normal bike for 3 1/2-4 hours 
                with 145 HR ceiling, high pedal speed, 95+ rpms 
                with 3 short flat sprints of 8 seconds each, full recovery between sprints

                 

                Lance the triathlete....I wonder who he looked up to in his sport ..

                 

                In the 1987–1988 Tri-Fed/Texas ("Tri-Fed" was the former name of USA Triathlon), Armstrong was the number one ranked triathlete in the 19-and-under group;


                Mark Allen maybe!?


                Gold 1995 Men's race
                Gold 1993 Men's race
                Gold 1992 Men's race
                Gold 1991 Men's race
                Gold 1990 Men's race
                Gold 1989 Men's race
                Silver 1987 Men's race
                Silver 1986 Men's race
                Bronze 1983 Men's race

                Mark Allen (born January 12, 1958 in Glendale, California) is the six-time Ironman Triathon World Champion.


                I wonder who coached Mark Allen?

                No I dont think LA followed maffetones 180-age and all that he didnt need to he had a team of scientists to work out his RQ .I cant find the link but I read after coming back from cancer he inferred that he had one more chance and he was going to get it right this time and train in a healthy way .

                 

                 

                I think the best way to find your optimum heart rate is to do the out and back effort if your base is sufficient  it'll be close to maf .

                 

                Hats off to Lydiard ...he did all with no machines and trial and error .He is the guy who inspired Maffetone 


                jimmyb


                  Hey Shondek,

                   

                  If you read your firs postt, you said you were following Armstrong instead, I never thought Lance Armstrong---thought it was Neil or some other dude.Cool

                   

                  So, you're saying Armstrong worked at MAF-5 for 2of 3 months base work, and that if you do the same, you end up with an even out and back (as Lydiard said to do)?

                   

                  What through me off was the "follow." Sounds like you are still working below MAF, but leaving room so you don't slow down. I did that for years until last year. In fact, we've been discussing this in the other thread. I essentially ran heart rate plans that allowed for drift (stress). I'd start out MAF-30 or so, and get to a certain heart rate by the 3rd mile or so, then hold that speed. Slowing was rare. I'd have more than enough ceiling room.

                   

                  Doing sprints during base phase may or may not be okay--your MAF tests will tell the tale of that one. I would think that it depends on where you are at.

                   

                  DId Armstrong specifically speak about MAF?

                   

                  I know he worked out at a low HR for 3 moths, as did Mark Allen. With these guys, they were usually ready in 12 weeks for hard stuff.

                   

                  --Jimmy

                  Log    PRs

                  Shondek


                    Hey Shondek,

                     

                    If you read your firs postt, you said you were following Armstrong instead, I never thought Lance Armstrong---thought it was Neil or some other dude.Cool

                     

                    So, you're saying Armstrong worked at MAF-5 for 2of 3 months base work, and that if you do the same, you end up with an even out and back (as Lydiard said to do)?

                     

                    What through me off was the "follow." Sounds like you are still working below MAF, but leaving room so you don't slow down. I did that for years until last year. In fact, we've been discussing this in the other thread. I essentially ran heart rate plans that allowed for drift (stress). I'd start out MAF-30 or so, and get to a certain heart rate by the 3rd mile or so, then hold that speed. Slowing was rare. I'd have more than enough ceiling room.

                     

                    Doing sprints during base phase may or may not be okay--your MAF tests will tell the tale of that one. I would think that it depends on where you are at.

                     

                    DId Armstrong specifically speak about MAF?

                     

                    I know he worked out at a low HR for 3 moths, as did Mark Allen. With these guys, they were usually ready in 12 weeks for hard stuff.

                     

                    --Jimmy

                     Neil Armstrong.lol..Jimmy you're such a card.

                     

                    I have only started doing maf-5  in the last few days ..still tweeking it.Yes I noticed this issue was written on another thread I should have added it there but I never saw it at the time sorry.Cant understand I never saw it at the time ,it oh yeh it was written the day after my post ..silly me !!?

                    I have a hilly off road run this Sunday which has been consistently 60 mins out 70 mins back although I have been  getting quicker for the same heart rate it's been stuttering .I now hope to see quicker improvement.

                     

                    What is maf?Is it not  just below the Anaerobic Threshold .In that case we should be running our Marathons at Maf.

                    Dr Phil says after a while people experience running at maf too stressful,why is that if it is purely aerobic maybe the persons ligaments and tendons are lagging behind.

                     

                    Jimmy,if you were running below maf for years and getting results what made you want to increase the effort.?Confused..Please dont say Phil said so

                    jimmyb


                       Neil Armstrong.lol..Jimmy you're such a card.

                       

                      I have only started doing maf-5  in the last few days ..still tweeking it.Yes I noticed this issue was written on another thread I should have added it there but I never saw it at the time sorry.Cant understand I never saw it at the time ,it oh yeh it was written the day after my post ..silly me !!?

                      I have a hilly off road run this Sunday which has been consistently 60 mins out 70 mins back although I have been  getting quicker for the same heart rate it's been stuttering .I now hope to see quicker improvement.

                       

                      What is maf?Is it not  just below the Anaerobic Threshold .In that case we should be running our Marathons at Maf.

                      Dr Phil says after a while people experience running at maf too stressful,why is that if it is purely aerobic maybe the persons ligaments and tendons are lagging behind.

                       

                      Jimmy,if you were running below maf for years and getting results what made you want to increase the effort.?Confused..Please dont say Phil said so

                       

                      Always experimenting, S. That's why. I like to be able to say (e.g.) that I ran for years in a zone below MAF, and also tried it where I ran exactly at MAF for awhile. I've done Hadd, Pfitzinger, intervals, tempos, Farltek, 100-mile weeks, etc.. I've tried a lot of things. 

                       

                      Anaerobic threshold is WAY above MAF. When I was tested, it was at 176 bpm, where MAF was at 134 bpm. Think of MAF as the point where you begin to use enough fast twitch fibers where % sugar burning begins to increase rapidly. You've engaged the anaerobic system (fast twitchers). When you have an RQ stress test or V02max test, you'll start out at 100%, 0% sugar. As intensity builds you begin to use more sugar, as sugar is needed to burn the fat in the slow twitch fibers But there's a point where the body engages fast twitch fibers. Right before that, you'll see a leveling on the chart, then a sudden sharp rise. The sharp rise in sugar-burning is also reflected in your HR. The deflection point  HR is your MAF.  THere are two types of fast twitch fibers. Most likely the first you start to engage are the type that can become more aerobic. You also engage these at some point during long runs, if and when you've exhausted your slow-twitchers. 

                       

                      Anaerobic threshold is interchangeable with the term lactate threshold. This article (click) explains it better than I can. Think of it as the opposite of MAF. It's the point where you are beginning to seriously lose touch with the aerobic system/ slow twitch fibers, and becoming fully anaerobic. Doing LT tempo runs can help your aerobic system, as it is still engaged somewhat---but only for so long before it reverses. Usually, if all is going well, and I've done solid base work, when I bring in LT  or MRP tempos, I'll see more progress in aerobic speed.

                       

                      --Jimmy

                      Log    PRs

                      Shondek


                        Hey Jimmy thanks for that .OK so if anything above Maf is anaerobic and the meaning of threshold is point of beginning.I would say maf is very close to anaerobic threshold.Honest I'm not trying to be pedantic Smile

                        jimmyb


                          Hey Jimmy thanks for that .OK so if anything above Maf is anaerobic and the meaning of threshold is point of beginning.I would say maf is very close to anaerobic threshold.Honest I'm not trying to be pedantic Smile

                           

                          Not even close. Is 134 bpm close to 176 bpm? The difference in speed is quite substantial. At the end of june last year my speed at MAF was 10:28, while my speed at AT was 7:41.

                           

                          You start engaging the anaerobic system at MAF, but that doesn't mean you are fully anaerobic. The faster you go after that point, the more anaerobic you become, and the less aerobic, unti you are fully anaerobic, and not aerobic at all. This is reflected in the fuel sources you are using, and Dr. Phil looks it at that way, not in terms of oxygen.  The harder you go, the more sugar you burn, and the less fat, until you are burning 100% sugar, and no fat.

                           

                          --Jimmy

                          Log    PRs

                          Shondek


                            Not even close. Is 134 bpm close to 176 bpm? The difference in speed is quite substantial. At the end of june last year my speed at MAF was 10:28, while my speed at AT was 7:41.

                             

                            You start engaging the anaerobic system at MAF, but that doesn't mean you are fully anaerobic. The faster you go after that point, the more anaerobic you become, and the less aerobic, unti you are fully anaerobic, and not aerobic at all. This is reflected in the fuel sources you are using, and Dr. Phil looks it at that way, not in terms of oxygen.  The harder you go, the more sugar you burn, and the less fat, until you are burning 100% sugar, and no fat.

                             

                            --Jimmy

                             Hmmm  not sure about that Jimmy so When Mark Allan's maf was 5-30 minute mile pace he was nowhere near his anaerobic threshold  pace,and marathon pace running is widely known as just under threshold so what do you think Mark Allans marathon pace would have been?

                            Lets look at my maf-5 in which I could run for 2 hours at the same effort and not slow down.

                            Increase effort to maf and it's positive splits all round ..at the moment that is..what is pasted below could for me be a description  of maf..again all speculation

                             


                            What is the currently accepted use of the term "anaerobic threshold"?
                            The most common use of the term "anaerobic threshold" is to describe a phenomenon that takes place in all athletes - namely the maximal speed or effort that an athlete can maintain and still have no increase in lactate. At this speed or effort, lactate levels in the blood remain constant. Any increase in effort or speed above this level will cause lactate and its associated high acid levels to increase steadily. This will eventually force the athlete to slow down or stop. The time to cessation or slowing down will depend upon how far the athlete is above the maximum steady state effort, the event the athlete is competing in, the type of athlete (strength or endurance) and conditioning. 

                             

                            I think we have to get the correct meaning of anaerobic thrshold before we can continue this topic..

                             

                            Hence the term "anaerobic threshold" was used. It was an unfortunate choice of terms since it probably has led a lot of sports scientists, researchers and coaches down the wrong path. The first person to identify this phenomenon was Wildor Hollmann but his name for it, Point of optimal ventilatory efficiency never gained acceptance.

                              Hi, wasnt sure what you meant by lower HR/pace == negative split at same effort - are you saying you are able to neg split keeping the same heartrate? Or are you running a higher HR on the way back, but the same percieved effort?

                               

                              Anyway, regarding AT, I think you are possibly mixing up AT with AeT (Aerobic Threshold) which is,  as far as I can tell,  much the same as MAF.

                              AT is definitely well above MAF.

                              http://www.runningforfitness.org/book/chapter-10-putting-it-together/threshold

                               

                              Your question on Allen's Marathon pace is interesting - given that he was close to 5:30 @Maf, it doesnt leave a lot of room to speed up - 

                              though I suspect that 5:30 is likely for his first mile  - if he ran a Marathon at MAF I'm sure his pace would slow down as he goes.

                              I reckon his best Marathon pace could have been about 5:10ish, not sure if he did run any/many Marathons standalone (comparing to an Ironman effort isn't really accurate given the huge effort already gone into the race).

                              jimmyb


                                 Hmmm  not sure about that Jimmy so When Mark Allan's maf was 5-30 minute mile pace he was nowhere near his anaerobic threshold  pace,and marathon pace running is widely known as just under threshold so what do you think Mark Allans marathon pace would have been?

                                Lets look at my maf-5 in which I could run for 2 hours at the same effort and not slow down.

                                Increase effort to maf and it's positive splits all round ..at the moment that is..what is pasted below could for me be a description  of maf..again all speculation

                                 


                                What is the currently accepted use of the term "anaerobic threshold"?
                                The most common use of the term "anaerobic threshold" is to describe a phenomenon that takes place in all athletes - namely the maximal speed or effort that an athlete can maintain and still have no increase in lactate. At this speed or effort, lactate levels in the blood remain constant. Any increase in effort or speed above this level will cause lactate and its associated high acid levels to increase steadily. This will eventually force the athlete to slow down or stop. The time to cessation or slowing down will depend upon how far the athlete is above the maximum steady state effort, the event the athlete is competing in, the type of athlete (strength or endurance) and conditioning. 

                                 

                                I think we have to get the correct meaning of anaerobic thrshold before we cad continue this topic..

                                 

                                Hence the term "anaerobic threshold" was used. It was an unfortunate choice of terms since it probably has led a lot of sports scientists, researchers and coaches down the wrong path. The first person to identify this phenomenon was Wildor Hollmann but his name for it, Point of optimal ventilatory efficiency never gained acceptance.

                                 

                                If Allen ran marathons, he probably would, or I should say COULD, have run them in the high 4:00's, low 5:00's. His marathon pace in the 1989 Ironman was 6:07 (2:40:04). I read somewhere what his heart rate was while racing, but cant find it. 6:07 is slower than his speed at  MAF, but it's a good chance his heart got above MAF at some point. Running a marathon in a triathlon is different than running a regular marathon. They have to take into account the other two legs and its effects. I do believe they try to stay far away from AT, and closer to MAF. Where a marathoner would stay just under LT on average. I averaged 173 in a marathon I measured where I went all out (my LT was probably  176 or so then). I have to research it more. Here's one quote from an article by Allen:

                                 

                                "The Ironman. There is never a point in the run where you should feel like you are really racing the run until you get to 10 miles to go to the finish.  You can run relatively fast and light, but never feel like you are in a race until that point. Those who get off the bike and with that sigh of relief that they can now run, take off fast in the first 5 miles will almost always pay a huge price at the end. In general, people are able to run the same pace in an Ironman that they do a long training run in when they stay aerobic (not a long run where you pick it up at the end). Whatever that pace is will be a general target in your race. If you see you are going 30 seconds/mile faster than that in the first 10, the final 10 will likely have a very different complexion!"

                                 

                                If I was to run my long run training pace at MAF in a marathon, most likely my HR would stay in the neighborhood of MAF, and never eget close to AT. Someone in the shape that ALlen was in probably kept his HR near MAF for most of that run until he hit that last 10-mile stretch he talks about. 

                                 

                                --Jimmy

                                Log    PRs

                                12