Low HR Training

1

New member, first impressions (Read 32 times)

    HMHi everybody,

    Im now in my sixth week running under MAF principles; I've reading this forum a couple of weeks and I would like to share my little experience/numbers.

     

    I've been running for three years, the firs two years I improved my race times and pace in a constant basis, but this last year I feel stucked and I see no more improvement. I have always suffered in long races, no matter how hard I train I always bonk in longer distances. This year I ran my first marathon and I bonked since km 16 despite my pace was no faster than any of my training long runs.  So I decide to change the things and I discovered MAF after reading one MarK Cucuzella's articles about aerobic trainng.

     

    I'm 40 years old, 6 feet tall and about 160 lbs (73kgs). Max hr 200

    My PRs are:

    5k :  21:00

    10k: 44:36

    HM : 01:42:36

    M :    04:09:11 Undecided

     

    Im using 140 as MAF hr, Iwas dobtful about adding +5 but I finally I decided to be conservative.

    Here is the result of my first two tests, first one is before starting MAF training

     

    <colgroup><col width="120" /><col width="85" /><col width="90" /><col width="56" /><col width="88" /><col width="85" /><col width="64" /></colgroup>
    DATE   19/10/2013     9/11/2013  
    TEMP(ºC)   16     15  
    MOIST.   94 %     55%  
    SHOES   VFF     VFF  
    AVERAGE HR   140     141  
      Time Pace( min/km) HR Time Pace HR
    MILE 1 12:08:00 7:35:00 140 11:11:00 6:58:00 140
    MILE 2 12:16:00 7:40:00 139 11:48:00 7:22:00 141
    MILE 3 12:25:00 7:46:00 140 12:08:00 7:34:00 141
    MILE 4 12:55:00 8:04:00 140 12:43:00 7:57:00 140
    MILE 5 13:16:00 8:18:00 140 12:52:00 8:01:00 140
    AVERAGE 12:36:00 7:52:36 140 12:08:24 7:34:24 142

     

     

    Comparing my mile times wit the 5k prediction charts looks like my aerobic systems  is totally unbalanced!!

    The best is that I feel very good with this training, well rested and I can train almost every day.

    Probably I wil try the treadmill test to chek my training heart rate. keep you posted.

     

    Thanks and apologies for my English

     

    Taranos

    runnerclay


    Consistently Slow

      Welcome

      What was your weekly mileage for marathon training? Did you do taper and to want degree? How was the weather on race day?

      Run until the trail runs out.

       SCHEDULE 2016--

       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

      unsolicited chatter

      http://bkclay.blogspot.com/

        Hi runnerclay,

         

        For the marathon I averaged 40 miles weekly with a peak week of 47 miles three weeks before the race. My  longest run was in the peak week with 20 miles at 09:00 min/mile; I tapered from there to 34, 25 and 10 miles the race week.

        The temperature was 50ºF during the race day, that's perfect for me. I started the race very conservative but anyway I felt that something was wrong from the very beginning, my hr climbed very fast and averaged 175 bpm for the race. My feeling is that I arrived overtrained to the race.

        runnerclay


        Consistently Slow

          Hi runnerclay,

           

          For the marathon I averaged 40 miles weekly with a peak week of 47 miles three weeks before the race. My  longest run was in the peak week with 20 miles at 09:00 min/mile; I tapered from there to 34, 25 and 10 miles the race week.

          The temperature was 50ºF during the race day, that's perfect for me. I started the race very conservative but anyway I felt that something was wrong from the very beginning, my hr climbed very fast and averaged 175 bpm for the race. My feeling is that I arrived overtrained to the race.

           

          Yes, sounds like overtaining. Lucky for me Nobby  recognized the symptoms.

          Run until the trail runs out.

           SCHEDULE 2016--

           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

          unsolicited chatter

          http://bkclay.blogspot.com/

            @Taranos

             

            hey there Smile

             

            Interesting you bonked in the marathon like that. I also did taper wrong, last LR 11 days before race was run a bit fast and not only that but I stopped and waited for the bus in cold weather and I got a cold coming out within the next few days.... race day, I was in bad shape Sad I felt shit at mile 10 hehehe. I did have good conditioning and didn't slow much though. I think LHR definitely helped me there Smile

             

            However you being 40 years old with a max HR of 200 and an AHR of 175 in the marathon, also the pace at 140bpm as compared to your PR's, it sounds like you are not training at the HR you should be training at in an exclusive fashion. Note I said "exclusive".

             

            Though who knows, maybe this will help you. Maybe the issue of you bonking in longer runs will be helped by doing a lot of LHR long runs! Smile I just think that 140bpm is too low for you if this is the only HR you're training at. If you do other runs too then 140 is great for easy runs.

             

            So, don't get me wrong, running some at 140 is useful, as you did clearly have a lack of shape for that HR zone. But the aerobic system is probably not as crazily unbalanced, it's just that the 180 formula is not something that works for every individual. IMO don't ever expect the pace at 140 vs 5K pace to match the predictions. at least with your data I find it very unlikely.

             

            Anyhow, let us know if you try out the treadmill test. I'm curious!

              Hi cmon2,

               

              Thanks for your feedback Smile

               

              Looks like I have a small heartSmile . At this moment Im only training at 140 hr, this is my sixth week, my plan was training around three monthis in this heart rate as long I could maintain progression in the MAF test, but I also think this hr is low for me and maybe needs some adjustment.

              I believe low hr it's what I really need, reading the MAF book I find many factors that match with my experience in running, e.g  I can get "sharp" in three weeks with just one day per week with tempo or interval runs but I feel when I follow this approach for more time I get burnt  and I arrive tired to races.

               

              This morning I tried the treadmill test, I found very difficult to start it at MAF-20 (hr 120). I had to walk to keep this hr and as soon as I started running my hr went up very fast Undecided and  jumped to 140 and more. Finally I repeated it twice Joking. I will post the data in the treadmill test post.

                Hi cmon2,

                 

                Thanks for your feedback Smile

                 

                Looks like I have a small heartSmile . At this moment Im only training at 140 hr, this is my sixth week, my plan was training around three monthis in this heart rate as long I could maintain progression in the MAF test, but I also think this hr is low for me and maybe needs some adjustment.

                I believe low hr it's what I really need, reading the MAF book I find many factors that match with my experience in running, e.g  I can get "sharp" in three weeks with just one day per week with tempo or interval runs but I feel when I follow this approach for more time I get burnt  and I arrive tired to races.

                 

                This morning I tried the treadmill test, I found very difficult to start it at MAF-20 (hr 120). I had to walk to keep this hr and as soon as I started running my hr went up very fast Undecided and  jumped to 140 and more. Finally I repeated it twice Joking. I will post the data in the treadmill test post.

                 

                lol I saw your treadmill test, I think mine would look just as crazy as that hehe Smile anyway I commented on it in that thread.

                 

                hmm are you saying that you burn out if you do just one tempo or interval per week? I don't think you get truly peaking from 3 fast workouts in 3 weeks, just a bit sharper but that's totally normal, just the first couple of faster runs will have you get there.

                 

                at what HR did you do the other (easy) runs when you felt like you were getting burnt out? I think that could be contributing more to burn out than just one single fast workout each week.

                  Hi cmon2,

                   

                  Well, I think I have a psychological hr ha ha ; once I hear the word "test" my hr automatically jumps Big grin.

                  Anyway in none of my runs I can run below 135 bpm.

                   

                  Regarding the burn out I agree it should be due to the week load and not  to a single quality run.

                  My usual hr trainings before start MAF were :

                  Easy runs : 150-155 hr  at 09:30-10:00 min/mile

                  Long runs : 160-170 hr at 08:45-09:15 min/mile

                  Tempo runs : 175-180 hr  at  07:40-07:55

                   

                  In fact I trained based in paces instead of hr.

                  Maximum of four running days per week plus an extra day cross training.

                    Hi cmon2,

                     

                    Well, I think I have a psychological hr ha ha ; once I hear the word "test" my hr automatically jumps Big grin.

                    Anyway in none of my runs I can run below 135 bpm.

                     

                    Regarding the burn out I agree it should be due to the week load and not  to a single quality run.

                    My usual hr trainings before start MAF were :

                    Easy runs : 150-155 hr  at 09:30-10:00 min/mile

                    Long runs : 160-170 hr at 08:45-09:15 min/mile

                    Tempo runs : 175-180 hr  at  07:40-07:55

                     

                    In fact I trained based in paces instead of hr.

                    Maximum of four running days per week plus an extra day cross training.

                     

                    with marathon PR of 4:09 you're not in such terrible shape so if you can't run below 135bpm, it's because it's simply a too low HR. based on your tests at 140 HR, it sounds like below 135 would force you to run slower than 8min/km or 13min/mile, with a 4:09 marathon PR absolutely no need to do that sort of slow running regularly*.

                     

                    as for your training before MAF... well the pace of easy runs sounds just fine. maybe it could be a bit slower, it sounds only fine based on your HM PR. based on marathon PR it could be a tiny little bit slower. Smile however, the long runs, you may definitely try doing slower. that 170 HR sounds high for regularly doing LR's. that could be an issue with your marathon. as for tempos, well depends on how long you're going. but it sounds alright to me.

                     

                    am I right when assuming that you run half marathon races at 180-185 HR? I'm guessing from your 175bpm marathon HR.

                     

                    in that case, do note that your 140 MAF that the formula gave you is most likely not what Maffetone meant when talking about Maximal Aerobic Function. note the word "maximal".  that is the HR that will most efficiently allow you to improve aerobically (while still being aerobic). you can improve if staying well below it, just less efficiently. basically, you will need to run a lot more. and the other drawback of running exclusively at such very low HR is that it won't be very effective for improving the pace in higher HR zones. this latter drawback isn't necessarily a big issue if you only do the very low HR training for a period and then move on to faster running.

                     

                    either way of base building (either at true maximal aerobic HR or instead lots of running at very low HR) will allow you to enter faster running phase ready to improve so much more in the faster phase. this is my experience anyway Smile

                     

                    so what's the real MAF if not the 140 that the formula gave you? well that's a good question Smile Maffetone himself never really used the formula because it obviously wasn't as precise as his other checks for his patients to figure out the right HR to train it. but in the article where he talks about  this, he does not go into detail about what methods he used instead Sad

                     

                    all in all, the 180 formula is about as reliable as the 220 formula, the only improvement is the idea of adjustments. I am thinking that maybe one can just take their maxHR or better, anaerobic threshold HR and use a percentage of that and then apply the adjustments from 180 formula Smile I dunno how well that'd work, just a guess Big grin probably better though than 180 formula.....

                     

                     

                    *:

                    PS... note I am assuming you didn't lay off running before starting on MAF. if you had down time that would mean you're in a much worse shape now and then that modifies some of my conclusions about your HR/training paces. do let me know if you had any "off" weeks.

                      Hi cmon2,

                       

                      You re right, I usually run HM at 182-187 hr, better results with 182-183 lol.

                       

                      Regarding the formula, I agree with you  that sounds like kind of magic... I can not catch the logic in it.

                      What I remenber from the book is that Maffetone's long assesments in athletes matched the formula exactly or very close. Also the formula is not associated with lactate threshold, VO2 max  and don't factorize or take in account the max heart rate of the individual.

                      It's a kind of relationship between chronological and fitness age; does it means that e.g. all individuals with fitness age of 40 have a MAF of 140 irrespective of their MHR?? I don't know, maybe he is right and people like us with very high MHR have a more sensitive nervous system, or we are not well trained, just guessing Smile

                       

                      The fact is that we arrived to this system for some reason, we were unhealthy, overtrained, not progressing, or just we wanted to be like Mark Allen Smile .

                       

                      We can only give the system a try and see if it works for us, why not? all systems I know are also statistics, % of max hr, aerobic threshold 20% lower than anaerobic etc..

                       

                      In my case, I feel the MAF hr could match with me despite my MHR, I feel it's around 144-146 bpm for me according my last tm test.

                       

                      Others facts I see,

                      If 140 is so low effort for me, why I loose more than a minute per mile in five miles???  I reduced it to 40 secs in just six weeks.

                      My MAF test pace has improved from 12:36 to 11:46.  Is just aerobic improve or my body mechanics are more efficient at low paces?? Wink

                       

                      I think the MAF test could be the key, I will continue with the plan until I see no progression and then , I agree  with you, I will start to play with higher hr. As you said  is just a process of understanding your body and I think what makes this system good is that it's probably an excellent tool to obtain that understanding and asses your training .... will seeSmile

                       

                       

                       

                       

                       

                       

                       

                       

                       

                       

                       

                       

                       

                      with marathon PR of 4:09 you're not in such terrible shape so if you can't run below 135bpm, it's because it's simply a too low HR. based on your tests at 140 HR, it sounds like below 135 would force you to run slower than 8min/km or 13min/mile, with a 4:09 marathon PR absolutely no need to do that sort of slow running regularly*.

                       

                      as for your training before MAF... well the pace of easy runs sounds just fine. maybe it could be a bit slower, it sounds only fine based on your HM PR. based on marathon PR it could be a tiny little bit slower. Smile however, the long runs, you may definitely try doing slower. that 170 HR sounds high for regularly doing LR's. that could be an issue with your marathon. as for tempos, well depends on how long you're going. but it sounds alright to me.

                       

                      am I right when assuming that you run half marathon races at 180-185 HR? I'm guessing from your 175bpm marathon HR.

                       

                      in that case, do note that your 140 MAF that the formula gave you is most likely not what Maffetone meant when talking about Maximal Aerobic Function. note the word "maximal".  that is the HR that will most efficiently allow you to improve aerobically (while still being aerobic). you can improve if staying well below it, just less efficiently. basically, you will need to run a lot more. and the other drawback of running exclusively at such very low HR is that it won't be very effective for improving the pace in higher HR zones. this latter drawback isn't necessarily a big issue if you only do the very low HR training for a period and then move on to faster running.

                       

                      either way of base building (either at true maximal aerobic HR or instead lots of running at very low HR) will allow you to enter faster running phase ready to improve so much more in the faster phase. this is my experience anyway Smile

                       

                      so what's the real MAF if not the 140 that the formula gave you? well that's a good question Smile Maffetone himself never really used the formula because it obviously wasn't as precise as his other checks for his patients to figure out the right HR to train it. but in the article where he talks about  this, he does not go into detail about what methods he used instead Sad

                       

                      all in all, the 180 formula is about as reliable as the 220 formula, the only improvement is the idea of adjustments. I am thinking that maybe one can just take their maxHR or better, anaerobic threshold HR and use a percentage of that and then apply the adjustments from 180 formula Smile I dunno how well that'd work, just a guess Big grin probably better though than 180 formula.....

                       

                       

                      *:

                      PS... note I am assuming you didn't lay off running before starting on MAF. if you had down time that would mean you're in a much worse shape now and then that modifies some of my conclusions about your HR/training paces. do let me know if you had any "off" weeks.

                        @Taranos

                         

                        Ah hey nice I guessed your racing HR so well. Smile Here's a related question; what HR do you usually average for HM and for 5K, 10K?

                         

                         

                        That's correct, there is no logic to it, Maffetone says the 180 thing is just a number he extracted from data. (Data from gas exchange O2/CO2 measurements I guess. That measures RQ, relationship of consumed oxygen and produced carbon dioxide, the lower the resulting number is, the more aerobic the effort is)

                         

                        Another forum member got some RQ data of many people and tried to find a formula, he got a formula of "176 - age" that way. It's an average though. That was just the line that fit the data best, which doesn't mean it fit every individual case very well. Clearly it's got some standard deviation but that was not published in the Maffetone books. I don't know SD for the 176 one either :/

                        So, to answer your question, a statistical average does not mean that all individuals of e.g. age 40 have a MAF of 140 before adjustments.

                         

                        Very high MHR isn't necessarily to do with sensitive nervous system, if your actual anaerobic threshold is high too then it's more likely to do with the heart's relative size or something. Smile Note I'm no cardiologist, I just saw that mentioned once but it sounds logical. And yes, there's a few people who have a very high MHR but their anaerobic threshold "lags behind", it is not as high. Those people maybe do have a special nervous system. So this is why I don't really care about MHR on its own, I prefer to see racing HR / anaerobic threshold data before I try to understand what a specific heart rate means for someone.

                         

                        It also cannot be as simple as being about not being well trained. A friend of mine has the same maxHR I do, he runs 10K at same HR I do, he averaged 194 in a 10K recently... in 32 minutes!!! Yeah, 32 minute 10k and 2:30-ish marathon, he isn't your average untrained guy Tongue What would suggest an issue of being untrained is the pace/HR relationships, not what your easy HR or racing HR is exactly, it doesn't matter if that's a high or a low number.

                         

                        Otoh Maffetone was correct when he said that MAF is not directly related to anaerobic threshold or maxHR. Everyone has their own individual lactate and RQ profile where you can't fully predict where each threshold will be, you'd better measure them instead. So the heart rate percentages you see on some sites are just averages too. Though I would say the ones that are percentages of anaerobic threshold are better estimates than the 180 formula because if you know your anaerobic threshold that's more closely related to your individual profile than your age. As a sum up, I would say, MAF is indirectly related to anaerobic threshold, in terms of there being some correlation. Not direct relation but it's something. And that correlation is better than the correlation with your age.

                         

                         

                        Now about that data you're asking about... I don't know why you have such HR drift at low HR, no idea. But I do know this is individual. I know several people whose heart rate doesn't drift even when they run at a high % of their maxHR or their anaerobic threshold whereas mine does. Some of these people aren't even well trained, they don't have fast PR's, some of them are slower than I am. It's just individual. Some of it is related to training but it seems most of the variation is individual genetics.

                         

                        As for my own HR drift, in summer I don't have HR drift below 145-150-ish, 70% of my maxHR, in winter I may have no drift up to a HR of 155 (73%). So part of it depends on the weather. The other part for me is genetics, training didn't change these limits, at least not so far. Of course it depends on fitness too a bit: when I return to training after e.g. catching a cold for a few days, my HR will drift very fast in the first or maybe second run, but then it returns to baseline.

                         

                         

                        Improvement at the HR you've been training at is great. Smile With MAF of 180-age formula, where I was disappointed is that this improvement didn't translate into any higher zones Sad Maybe it does for you though, I don't know Smile Btw most of the improvement I got in the first week or so... I chalk that up to my body getting used to a totally new HR zone, a zone that was unused until then.

                         

                        What I expect to happen at any new HR zone after a bit of training is for the pace to "line up" with other HR zones, zones you've already been training at. I don't call that kind of "lining up" of pace real improvement but it can pave the way to real improvement so don't get me wrong I'm not saying it's all wasted time. Btw what I call real improvement: improvement in race times.

                         

                        The only wasted time is staying with a zone too long before moving on. That actually reminds me of something Smile Maybe read up on Hadd, his stuff is low HR too but it's kind of an extension on Maffetone, it's sensible and it can work really good. Smile The idea is to work more than just one aerobic HR zone. There's more than one such zone obviously. And then you can move onto higher zones and train them too and achieve real improvement. Some friends of mine got really good results with it.

                         

                        As for the MAF test, it's a good idea but I believe more in tracking training, over time and in several intensity/HR zones, so instead of relying on one random test day's circumstances and on data from one single zone, I get a bigger picture. E.g. under certain circumstances, I could have lost fitness in higher zones while retaining it at lower HR's, meaning MAF test would show everything is alright while that's not the case.

                         

                         

                        Well... This is of course just my experience and my way of viewing things. Smile Good luck to your training! Smile Do report back here with your results! Smile