123

What comes first?? (Read 1229 times)

    I even put it on sometimes.
    Whoever is keeping track of classic RA quotes, add that to the list, please. That's a funny.
    E-mail: JakeKnight2002@aol.com
    -----------------------------

      "*snerk*"

      Michelle

        II have one. I even put it on sometimes. So, yes, there are times where it can be useful. But I see a lot of talk about how great an HRM is, and little discussion of alternatives. That's what I'm offering up. Some people, it's a money thing (can't afford it), others just don't like them. I've never said they aren't useful. They most certainly can be. But I think that they need to be coupled with other tools as well. Regarding the formula method: http://www.d3multisport.com/articles/heartrate.htm I have a friend, his normal HR is higher, but he's older than me (he's about 35). His MAF should be around 145, and I know from running with him that it's actually higher than that (he ran a marathon, and average low 170s to high 160s). So in this case, the formula would have him training at too low a HR, and he won't see the same gains. Elite runners aren't running for health. They run to win. It's how they make a living. If you want to run for health, then you have no need to ever once worry about intervals, tempos, or anything beyond consistency. That is a completely different discussion, and a much easier one. If you are looking for race improvement, then that's a separate discussion. Running for health, you won't need to worry about a whole lot, you can eliminate much of the debate. Heck, if you're just running for health, then your volume shouldn't ever need to go above MAYBE 30 miles per week, and should probably be less. But this is not how you maximize your racing. That's trickier. I have never once stated that running easy isn't useful. In fact, easier running should be the primary component of any runner's schedule. This concept is not Maffetone's alone; Lydiard, Pfitzinger, Daniels.... They all state this. But Maffetone also talks about higher intensity runs, and periodization. This is not a topic that I see discussed much about Maffetone. Why not? It's an important key to maximizing your racing. However you determine what's easy is ultimately your business. Like I said, my biggest issue with Maffetone is the formula. That's pretty much it. That, and he doesn't discuss alternatives to using a HRM that I've ever seen. If he talked about RPE or pacing, I think it would be much more available to other runners.
        Okay. I don't think we are different pages at all. Of course the 180 formula will need modification for different people in different states of health and fitness and age. Maffetone acknowledges that. Formationfllier (Jesse) is one who has a higher MAF than the formula. He's done the RQ test the formula is based on, and due to so much running below 180-age, his actual MAF is now higher--he uses a higher percentage of fat in his fuel mix, and has great endurance. He remains healthy in spite of running some incredible feats of endurance. I'm not talking about running for health, but staying healthy while getting fit. Getting to the race healthy. How do you raise your volume to 100 miles per week , for example, and stay healthy? Different for everyone of course, but it's always about managing stress. 100 miles per week done at 80% MHR might be too much for one and just right for another--all depends. Someone might be going along just fine, then they add intervals, and that overstresses them and they get injured or sick. They would need to adjust their training. It always comes down to honest self-assessment. You make your decisions based on that. Elite runners are running to win, but it's the healthy ones that probably ending up winning on race day, or make it to the race. Not that an injured person has never won a race. I am also running to win, but probably never will. yet, I want to maximize my potential. My only injury happened when I didn't follow good recovery principles. Running too hard too soon. I just finished Paula Radcliffe's book, and she sees the value in staying healthy and will do what it takes to stay so. Health is a priority. (Though I did find it kind of interesting how accident prone she was. Most of her injuries came from mishaps like getting hit by a kid on a bike.Her book was a good read--check it out) That's all I'm saying. Priority number one for a beginner should be staying healthy as it is so easy to get injured when you are starting out. The 180-age formula at he very least would give their bodies time to develop and increase the probability of staying healthy while becoming a runner/racer. Even if it was "too low" a level of exertion as you put it. If you're looking for a discussion of alternatives in a HRM or Low HR thread , probably not the place as the discussion is about the topics. Though if you actually read Maffetone's books, or follow the discussions, you'll see that anaerobic training, hills, intervals, and tempos are all part of the training. It's just that certain zones and limits are being used. Maffetone's favorite is Fartlek. The common misconception is that you're supposed to run 180-age all the time--that's only for the base period. All this talk about running, I just remembered I have to go run! Keep going, Scout! --Jimmy

        log   prs      Crusted Salt comic #142

         

        Scout7


        CPT Curmudgeon

          If you're looking for a discussion of alternatives in a HRM or Low HR thread , probably not the place as the discussion is about the topics. Though if you actually read Maffetone's books, or follow the discussions, you'll see that anaerobic training, hills, intervals, and tempos are all part of the training. It's just that certain zones and limits are being used. Maffetone's favorite is Fartlek. The common misconception is that you're supposed to run 180-age all the time--that's only for the base period. All this talk about running, I just remembered I have to go run! Keep going, Scout! --Jimmy
          I actually stated that. But Maffetone also talks about higher intensity runs, and periodization. This is not a topic that I see discussed much about Maffetone. Why not? It's an important key to maximizing your racing. Ok, here's the thing: I see too many people blindly following this stuff, with no idea as to the WHY. WHY are they running slowly? WHY should I use these numbers? And that's really the greatest issue with ANY training concept. Understanding how does not impart the why. And that why is just as important, if not more so. If you understand why you should run easy, then you can apply that to your own training. If you understand why you use those numbers, you can then make adjustments to them as necessary. Which is why I think it's perfectly valid to include alternative training methods in these discussions. Because it can help bring forth a better understanding of all facets of the training. This (for lack of a better term) myopic view is the biggest issue I come across. I have stated before, I agree with the basic principles Maffetone sets forth. It's all very similar to many others. And we both agree that there is much more involved than just running easy. Ultimately, though, we are all an experiment of one, and that brings us back to the why. We need to understand why we should perform various aspects of training. What is the purpose? What types of systems am I training? Why would I want to incorporate this into my specific training based on my goals and experience? Ultimately, the question being asked waaaaaay back when was what was should be worked on first, speed or distance? I would posit that the question should be speed or volume. A higher running volume will be key to do speed work later on. Speed is like icing on a cake, but you need a cake first. How you add that volume will vary. There are lots of "rules of thumb" that exist in the running world that people take as gospel (the 10% rule is like that, and a totally separate discussion). Yes, they are a useful guideline. But that doesn't necessarily mean it holds true for everyone. Just like the formula. It's a useful guideline, but I strongly feel (and there are others, coaches and athletes, who feel the same way) that there are other more accurate ways to establish training zones using heart rate. Ultimately, regardless of HOW you establish those training zones, the end result is still the same.
          123