Heart Rate Math Question (Read 2728 times)

Yes, it takes an extreme amount of math in order to jog slowly and train consistently. Do not make any errors!

And you've been so good. 

Since I tend to run wild on downhills and sometimes on uphills, I am pretty much guaranteed to be destroying my aerobic development (by going over that HR limit), at least according to Maffetone.  That and I am insecure enough that I cannot let old women walk past me while I am running.  I have no doubt it's a valid training approach, but maybe it's not for everyone. 

Thanks. My question was really a baited question to see if  the person that suggested LHRT could actually explain the benefits rather than just pointing to the long FAQ's.

 

I'm curious, though, what is your HR at MAF and your 75% HRmax (or even 70%)?

 

Most (not all) people that I've seen post with success are usually people whose MAF and normal HR training zones would overlap a lot or at least not be completely separate. OR they've trained hard in the past - too hard - and need some level of recovery. OR they live in flat areas without snow.

 

When I tried it a number of years ago (maybe 2003 or 2004, using one of his books), the HR where Maffetone would have had the cap was about 10-15 bpm below the HR where I could jog very slowly. I was either going to have to walk or slog very slowly. I do that all summer in the field. For recreation in the winter, I liked to run a bit - up hills. Ski, snowshoe running, whatever. The HR caps almost required a change in life style - giving up many activities.  Worse, when I abandoned it, I had to rebuild the little bit of base that I had prior to that, so lost a good bit of training time that year.

 

What's interesting is when I started do harder hill work, the HR at which I could run dropped substantially. That happened in two different increments a couple years apart. My recovery runs now are generally about 70-75% HRmax and hit the top edge of the MAF number. For *me*, I seem to work better (or at least reduce HR at which I can run) with workouts that deal with neuromuscular benefits. And just using 1-hr race effort as cap during base (and I very rarely go above this) has worked very well.

 

If one believes the HR tables of Martin and Coe and the various benefits of various intensities (mitochondria, stroke volume, etc), regular training seems to have more cardio benefits as well as neuromuscular benefits.

 

For senior citizens, I'm thinking it's important not to neglect muscle strength - even during the base. I do recognize that Maffetone has other stuff beyond base, but when I was working, I seldom got beyond base because of field work in summer. Winter was running on snow.

 

(The Lydiard pgm I'm using now might be a bit too aggressive, but it's providing some different workouts than I normally do - definitely not LHR.)

The main goals and benefits of MAF training are to be a healthier athlete, and to balance the aerobic and anaerobic energy systems, with the accent on "healthier athlete."  Dr. Maffetone maintains that there is a difference between fitness and health. An athlete can be fit enough to run a sub 3:00 marathon PR, but if he or she is constantly injured, getting colds and flues, feeling exhausted,  and even breaking down mentally from training obsession and OT, then that is not health. Such an athlete isn't looking at a long, healthy career, whether it be amateur or pro. That's the heart of it.

He writes extensively about how stress from life and training can add up and bring an athlete into over-training. For example, you might be able to handle 70 mpw for a few years and see great benefits, but there comes a season when you lose a job or a family member gets sick, and the mental stress levels go through the roof, and that 70 mpw is now breaking your body down. Often the MAF test pace will tank when stress levels get too high, and if the mental stress can't be changed, then a cut in volume might be necessary to keep the body from breaking down and entering OT. An athlete who doesn't understand the effects of mental stress on the body might interpret slower training paces at the same HR as "I'm not doing enough", and go out and do 90 mpw, when 50 mpw might have been the solution, and they break down even more. That's the heart of the Maffetone training. He developed it by working mostly with broken down athletes. He also writes about how obsession with training, and not being able to rest when you need it, is also a main stress for athletes. Personally, it took an experience with over-training during a period of high mental stress for me to really understand what he was getting at, and to also understand what the MAF test is really about and how useful it can be. The over-training was showing up in my MAF tests early on.

The part of his method that causes the most argument and discussion is the 180-age formula (with adjustments) used to calculate the MAF (maximum aerobic function) that is used for aerobic base building periods. It is usually focused upon as being the whole program, excluding the fact that there is anaerobic training, racing, dietary considerations, and the main part which I mentioned above. Commonly, when someone first tries using the MAF for aerobic base building, they are running slower than they ever have, and even having to walk to keep under the HR. If you are not progressing during this period, usually an adjustment needs to be made in MAF, and/or volume of time/miles. 

Currently, my MAF can be adjusted within the range of 121-136 bpm or about 61-69% of my most recent MHR readings (MHR can change). It can vary. I now make adjustments when my MAF tests go south, and currently am using a 126 bpm (about 64% MHR) with success. Aerobic speed is improving.

You asked about benefits. The main benefit for me was described in the first paragraph. I started using the method in late 2005, using the MAF HR for aerobic base periods of 12-16 weeks, then bringing in some workouts that were closer to and at LT, and marathon race pace, and began racing after that. I brought my marathon PR time down to 3:22 (age 45 at the time) and the half marathon to 1:34, and also made PR's in the 5k and other distances. That's generally what I do. Periodization. The endurance benefits showed in my race times.

As I mentioned above, i ran into trouble in the fall of 2008 when life stress levels went through the roof. I started to train for a marathon as I was accustomed to, but my MAF test pace was not moving and slightly regressing. Normally, the MAF test average pace would improve by at least a minute during marathon training, but it was just stuck and slightly backing up. I didn't give this much weight because I was feeling okay. When I started to bring in tempo runs, the paces were where they should be (thought the MAF tests weren't). But by about 4-5 weeks out, I started to feel tired and was developing some lower back soreness. The tests were still not improving. I ignored it all, tapered, and tanked at mile 16 in the marathon--mile 16. I was on fumes after that.

Maybe I would not have tanked if I ran 20 minutes slower than the pace I chose, but still,  20 minutes slower on the same training is a sign that there was something wrong in my body. It showed up early on in the MAF tests. Now, I never ignore the tests, and always make adjustments.

Since the beginning of 2009, I have had some periods of high mental and physical stress, and my MAF test have always plateaued or regressed during these periods. I adjusted my volume down or MAF hr each time, and the tests would begin to progress again. The past 2 years, I've been without a cold or flu or injury or back ache or chronic exhaustion (suddenly JimmyB dropped dead unexpectedly as he wrote his post for not knocking on wood), and have finally gotten my volume back up to levels I haven't seen since 2008, and my MAF tests are improving.

The way I see things now is that if I am going to be a runner until the day I die, then I must think long term. No race, no volume, no PR is that important where I can sacrifice my health and amateur running career, (and, God forbid, my most cherished relationships from being obsessed with running). Not being able to rest, miss a workout, or go off schedule when I need it is a sign of obsession, and I know that now. I now have some great tools and methods that give me a better chance of  being a healthier runner with longevity. It's a journey, and there will be periods where I have to cut way back, and periods where I exceed my dreams.

That's the benefits for me, AK. Take it or leave it of course. I fully recognize the fact that this might not be for everybody. Offered up because you asked, and I hope this answered your question well enough.

Keep going!

--Jimmy 

Yes, it takes an extreme amount of math in order to jog slowly and train consistently. Do not make any errors!

Yeah.  I was waiting.

a simple HR number can help them learn what consistant slow running really means.

Yep.

But does it matter whether that number is 183 X .75, or ((183-60) X .75)+60?  137 vs 152?

And if a geeky number helps one to discover the "secret", theres nothing wrong with it. I think we can all agree that someone new to running usually trains too hard (that was definately true in my case) and a simple HR number can help them learn what consistant slow running really means.

 

MTA: reply to Jeff's post. The Quote option was not working

Right. But:

1) It's not the secret.

and 

2) What Trent said.

I think most people would find a fairly significant difference between an HR of 137 and HR of 152.

On what do you base this assertion?

The difference between 137 and 152 is real, but reasonably insignificant from a physiologic standpoint.  This is especially true given beat to beat variability. And why is it 137.  Why not 138 or 139?  These are all splitting hairs.

Heart rate is a general indicator of effort, but it is a fairly coarse measure and is not consistent in its relationship to effort.  There are many other indicators as well, such as work of breathing, the sense of intensity, clarity of mind.  When judging one's effort, all of these things need to be considered.

And if you want to use your heart rate, fine.  But defining rigid zones based on the difference between one fast rate and another fast rate is not likely to help you train better. 

IMO, anyhow.