Low HR Training

Go On A Trip To RQ-land and other Allenish Places (Read 1557 times)

GMoney


    Yeah, I agree with that and think we're getting to essentially the same point from opposite ends. IF you already have a well developed aerobic base then your race times should (roughly) line up and guide you to the proper MAF, but, as I read HADD that relationship would need to hold up across nearly all distances from mile to marathon. Also, it would seem that if your race times are roughly in line then you've already developed a deep aerobic base. So, chances are, you've been doing quite a good bit of training at aerobic (i.e. sub-MAF) paces to begin with, and there would be no need to worry about establishing the proper MAF - just keep up what's been done already since that's clearly, demonstrably working. If anything, that runner would need anaerobic training to get faster. What I was getting at was the case where someone new to "the Method" says "Well, since my 5-K time is X, my MAF pace must be Y." and then proceeds to go out and train at Y regardless of heart rate. That's a case where an underlying aerobic deficency could be masked and continued training at Y might be bad. As I read "The Maffetone Method," though, it seems he believes that there exists "a relationship in competitive endurance runners between their MAF test results and their competitive times" (p. 73 in my edition). So I think Dr. Phil would go even further than HADD and say that the 5K pace and MAF pace in his table should roughly correspond. Obviously individual variation is possible, but he does seem to think that if there's a strong aerobic base that the relationship in the table will hold.
      GMoney, I think the approach of figuring out MAF heart rate using race time have some merits. First case, if a runner has good aerobic capability, she/he can figure out her/his MAF heart rate using the Maffetone MAF-test-race-time table based on his race times. This is useful not only for older runners, also for younger ones. Because the MAF heart rate might be higher the (180 - age) or lower for anybody. With a more accurate MAF heart rate, he can be better guided in maintaining that fitness and further improve it. According to Mark Allen, when the MAF test stops progressing, one can add some anaerobic training for a period of time and then get back to the MAF training to start a new training cycle. Which means even when a runner has good aerobic ability, there is always room for improvements. Second case, for a runner with poor aerobic capability, she/he can first figure out her/his current pseudo MAF heart rate at which she/he can run at the MAF pace corresponding to her/his 5K race time. Knowing that her/his aerobic ability is not well developed, she/he can then use either the (180 - age) number or something like (pseudo MAF heart rate - 10) (I made this one up). The idea is, knowing this approach, she/he can be better guided to get her/his race time and MAF test time to converge, while achieved the goal of improving her/his aerobic capability.


      Happy

        Gmoney and Denali, I don't mean to disrespect you by jumping in here with something entirely different - I have to admit I don't quite follow you guys in the above; but that's just me. The following is copied from one of the threads Jimmyb posted links to above - from coolrunning.com: leitnerj Cool Runner posted Mar-12-2007 10:04 PM -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Originally posted by hup: How long would you suggest I carry on with it? .... and one other question, I have been sticking with a straight 180 - age so far. Do you think it would it be better or worse to bump up to 180 - age + 5/10 bpm? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- If I were to go with the "what would Jesse do?" or better yet "what did Jesse do?", the answer would be - you'll know when you get there! Basically, you continue it until you get sick of it (which you may be now), when you get into a specific training period before a race, or when you completely plateau (or even start to get slower) from the purely low HR runs. I wouldn't change your MAF heart rate, but try doing some runs where you target a lower HR. You'll be surprised at how much you can improve things by developing the low end of your aerobic system. The answer part of the above is by Jesse. Am I the only one who is stunned by his response? Essentially he says not to adjust the MAF (up) but to do some runs targeting a lower HR. According to him, the person who has plateaued will be surprised at how much he can "improve things by developing the low end of his aerobic system". Wow! This is so interesting to me. I don't understand it but I think it is good to know that running at lower HR is not at all a waste of time - no junk miles. I trust that Jesse is right about this.
        5K, 4/28/07 24:16 PR 10K, 5/5/07 49:23 PR 1/2 M, 12/08/07 1:49:34 PR Marathon, 12/09/06 3:57:37 BQ 50K, 10/04/2009 7:27:00 PB 40M, 4/17/2010 11:20:00 PB
        BeeRunB


          Both Mark Allen and Maffetone have an adjustment of up to 10 beats for runners over 65. It would be easiest for someone that age to start with the +10 for aerobic running, and if the MAF tests move in a positive direction then that HR is just fine; if not, then an adjustment down may be needed. Using a 5k pace to find MAF has too many variables. --Jimmy
          Rudolf


            However, I think I have a good idea now of what the deflection point means in relation to the RQ versus HR. If the MAF is right below the deflection point (the point at which a person's RQ become 1.0 which means she/he is 100% sugar burning) this explains and emphasizes why it is of utmost importance to stay below MAF while training. Going just a few BPM above that would mean that one would find herself in a 100% sugar-burning state thus not reaping any aerobic benefit from the training.
            no, the deflection point is at 0.85, where fat/sugars ration is 50-50 and MAF is just a bit bellow that so where fat would be 51-55 % and sugars only 49-45 % as an example. This can be explained possibly this way : at 0.7 You burn fat only and running at the HR at which RQ=0.7 should therefore guarantee 100% fat aand zero sugars use. You can of course run even slower that this HR. as You gradualy increasing the pace and HR rises You reach the point when teh sugars start kickin in. further increase in pace produces liner correlation between RQ and HR and the running pace. This is true for teh whole range from RQ = 0.7 - 0.85 or in fat vs sugars in range from 100% fat to only 50% which can be writen as from zero sugars to 50% sugars. although You increasing the % of sugars You also increasing the overal energy usage or production so You increasing the fat in total energy units per second or per minute or per km or mile run. this is explained as effective training, running faster pushing it to the 0.85 point allowing for sugars upto 50% but increasing the total fat usage and increasing the HR and the running pace. The deflection point means, that after this point either teh graph is not linear any more, or is linear but the steepness of teh line is different, so You can approximate the chart by 2 different gradient lines, crossing at teh deflection point. so further increase in pace will produce further increase in HR and also increase in sugar %, but this is now at different correlation factor. Possibly, this can mean, that body could not increase teh fat component any more, so at 0.85 or at proper MAF HR the biggest rate of fat burn was achieved and all teh pace and HR increase above this is purely by increase of sugar component only, fat has reached the plateau. I personaly am interested exactly at that 0.7 point and slightly bellow - to train to run and walk faster at the 0.7 meaning at fat = 100% and sugars = zero %. overall training efficiency might not be as high as doing it at 0.85 or 0.80 and total burned fat per time unit, say 1H would be lower, but the body is training for fat only and is getting used to not to switch the sugar engine on at all. at 0.7 RQ I might need much more training time per week, meaning also running walking cycling etc much longer total time, ending with similar total kms - miles per week, like if it was done at 0.85 say running 100 miles per week, can take You at 0.85 maybe 16 hours, at 0.7 maybe 22 hours (do not take teh numbers seriously here) for teh same total aerobic training effect ? But somehow the result should be different in something, which I cant put into words at this stage.
            GMoney


              Again, I think we're getting at essentially the same point. Maffetone states that in "healthy and fit runners" (emphasis added) there is a relationship between race times and times in MAF tests (p. 73). If the relationship holds then it's a good sign that you've developed your aerobic base (p. 73), and anaerobic training might (but might not) be helpful (p. 55). If the relationship doesn't hold then there is an imbalance that should be addressed (p 74). If you're training properly, then the time in the MAF test is improving (p 66), and you'll be able to answer "yes" to all of the questions in the "Is your workout working?" sidebar (p. 105). He allows that older runners may need to add up to 10 bpm to the adjusted 180-age number to determine their correct top end HR (p. 62). Of course anyone can train however they see fit, and, if their fitness and health are both improving, then I'm not about to second guess their decisions. Clarence Bass was in tremendous health and fitness at 60 with two very intense weekly anaerobic workouts (weight lifting and high intensity intervals) and an hour or so of gentle walking on other days, and he doesn't typically wear a heart rate monitor.
              GMoney


                I personaly am interested exactly at that 0.7 point and slightly bellow - to train to run and walk faster at the 0.7 meaning at fat = 100% and sugars = zero %.
                This is where I get back to Noakes in his discussion around Figure 3.12. Based on what I read there, it's not clear that 100% fat burn is possible for many of us - even at rest. In the study Noakes describes ("Lore of Running 4th Ed." pp 121-3), only 2 out of 61 "equally performing recreational cyclists" had RQ's of 0.70 at rest, and none of them did when working out at even 25% of peak work rate. It seems as soon as they started working out all 61 cyclists started burning at least some carbohydrate. Perhaps with better training and nutrition the numbers could have been changed, but I'm not sure it's possible for all of us to attain a 100% fat burn while exercising.
                  Good points flower and all. I might have been a little stubborn in trying to find that magic heart rate Big grin. I agree that the simple way is, if you keep progressing under an heart rate, then stick with it until you see no progress, then adjust it and experiment to see what works for you.
                  GMoney


                    FWIW - a 23 minute 5K runner would have a Daniels VDOT of about 42, which yields an "easy" pace of 9:28 per mile under his system. McMillan would have that runner doing "easy" runs at 9:11 to 9:41. Maffetone would say 10:00. There's some variation there, but, regardless, Maffetone's still on the easier end of "easy."


                    Happy

                      no, the deflection point is at 0.85, where fat/sugars ration is 50-50 and MAF is just a bit bellow that so where fat would be 51-55 % and sugars only 49-45 % as an example. This can be explained possibly this way : at 0.7 You burn fat only and running at the HR at which RQ=0.7 should therefore guarantee 100% fat aand zero sugars use. You can of course run even slower that this HR. as You gradualy increasing the pace and HR rises You reach the point when teh sugars start kickin in. further increase in pace produces liner correlation between RQ and HR and the running pace. This is true for teh whole range from RQ = 0.7 - 0.85 or in fat vs sugars in range from 100% fat to only 50% which can be writen as from zero sugars to 50% sugars. although You increasing the % of sugars You also increasing the overal energy usage or production so You increasing the fat in total energy units per second or per minute or per km or mile run. this is explained as effective training, running faster pushing it to the 0.85 point allowing for sugars upto 50% but increasing the total fat usage and increasing the HR and the running pace. The deflection point means, that after this point either teh graph is not linear any more, or is linear but the steepness of teh line is different, so You can approximate the chart by 2 different gradient lines, crossing at teh deflection point. so further increase in pace will produce further increase in HR and also increase in sugar %, but this is now at different correlation factor. Possibly, this can mean, that body could not increase teh fat component any more, so at 0.85 or at proper MAF HR the biggest rate of fat burn was achieved and all teh pace and HR increase above this is purely by increase of sugar component only, fat has reached the plateau. I personaly am interested exactly at that 0.7 point and slightly bellow - to train to run and walk faster at the 0.7 meaning at fat = 100% and sugars = zero %. overall training efficiency might not be as high as doing it at 0.85 or 0.80 and total burned fat per time unit, say 1H would be lower, but the body is training for fat only and is getting used to not to switch the sugar engine on at all. at 0.7 RQ I might need much more training time per week, meaning also running walking cycling etc much longer total time, ending with similar total kms - miles per week, like if it was done at 0.85 say running 100 miles per week, can take You at 0.85 maybe 16 hours, at 0.7 maybe 22 hours (do not take teh numbers seriously here) for teh same total aerobic training effect ? But somehow the result should be different in something, which I cant put into words at this stage.
                      Thanks Rudolf for clarifying where the RQ deflection point is, namely at 0.85 or 50/50 - I had not understood this before you explained it. In my mind I envisioned an exponential graph after the deflection point but I am glad you pointed out the graph can be linear after that though at a steeper grade. This is clearly where sugar-burning takes off like wildfire for every BPM increase in HR - NOT where we want to go. The RQ (respiratiory quotient) has to do with breathing, the relationship between CO2/O2 - Carbondioxide being exhaled and O2 being inhaled. Are these being measured in ml oxygen/carbondioxide per minute? When the RQ changes (up or down between 0.7 and 1.0) does it reflect how much oxygen the body was able to utilize for energy production rather than how much oxygen was breathed in (but not necessaryly utilized)? As we become better fat-burners with proper aerobi training we supposedly develope more capillaries and mitochondria, also bigger mitochondria. This should enable us to utilize a larger percentage of O2 for energy production. Lets say this means O2 is a larger number in the fraction thus producing a lower RQ (provided CO2 stays the same or decreases). I wonder if CO2 decreases while O2 increases as we get further and further away from the deflection point or rather to the left of the deflection point on the graph? This would mean the the graph would not be linear to the left of the deflection point. Rudolf I am with you in aiming to get as close to being 100% fat-burning as possible during training runs. This is something I aim for while outside running. although You increasing the % of sugars You also increasing the overal energy usage or production so You increasing the fat in total energy units per second or per minute or per km or mile run. this is explained as effective training, running faster pushing it to the 0.85 point allowing for sugars upto 50% but increasing the total fat usage and increasing the HR and the running pace. I had been wondering what was meant by Stu Mittleman by naming the MAF-10 to MAF range as the most efficient pace. In which way would this be considered most efficient when actually the percentage of fat burn would be higher at a lower HR? That was my question and you just answered it. While the percentage of fat burn is higher at a lower HR the absolute fat burn in terms of calories spent can be higher at a higher HR. While one can burn more fat calories while running at a slightly higer HR (still staying below MAF) it doesn't necessarily mean that one becomes a more efficient fat-burner overall. There are 24 hours in a day - a very small part of the day is spent training in the most efficient range thus is becomes important to train the body to generally become efficient at burning fat not only while training but also the rest of the day. Training at HR below a level that gives RQ 0.7 would not make sense in terms of achieving better fat-burning ability would it? After all 100% fat burn is as much as we can get. What would some other potential benefits be of training at lower HR than that?
                      5K, 4/28/07 24:16 PR 10K, 5/5/07 49:23 PR 1/2 M, 12/08/07 1:49:34 PR Marathon, 12/09/06 3:57:37 BQ 50K, 10/04/2009 7:27:00 PB 40M, 4/17/2010 11:20:00 PB
                      Rudolf


                        In my mind I envisioned an exponential graph after the deflection point but I am glad you pointed out the graph can be linear after that though at a steeper grade. Rudolf I am with you in aiming to get as close to being 100% fat-burning as possible during training runs. This is something I aim for while outside running. Training at HR below a level that gives RQ 0.7 would not make sense in terms of achieving better fat-burning ability would it? After all 100% fat burn is as much as we can get. What would some other potential benefits be of training at lower HR than that?
                        I would offer my example, although, now, seeing how serious this can get I kinda am sorry, that I have not done proper testing, repeated teh same conditions etc... so I can only aproximate from teh data and various visual interpretations of the graphs : depending on the type of data ploted : is it in speed, like km/hour (miles per hopur) or time needed per distance, like min/km, min/mile. I get either linear function or curvy function (hyperbolic, parabolic exponential, whatever we waqnna call it, the precision and teh data range is not enough to get too specific. ploting km/h = speed, is giving me close to linear graph. plotting is in vs teh HR, I have never done any RQ ot lacatate stuff thingy. here is where it gets really intreresting - running gives me 2 sections - meaning line broken in 1 point - like a an elbow - so 2 different grades of steepness. This can be interpreted as the process of running in the range of 0.7-0.85 and different steepness for 0.85-1.0 there is potentialy teh 3rd segment, where I should push faster, with teh HR above teh point where it first gets to 1.0, however my legs still are not strong enopugh to push fast for long enough and any sprint attempt just agravates the old achilles injuries so I just do not go there. walking is more intersting than that - it has teh 2 segment linerar graph, but when I walk really slow, at HR very close to my resting HR, I get new segment of completely different steepness of line - much steeper. I think, that when I walk at very very low HR, it is close to 0.7, increasing the speed and increasing teh HR is done purely at around 0.7, so increasing teh amount of fat burned, but none of teh sugars kick in. This HR is somewhere between 70-80, depending on the overlapping charts fron different test days. so I do estimate that walking (relaxed casual style, not the racewalking or fitness walking) bellow teh HR = 70 (sometimes upto 80, I am in teh regime close to 0.7 and say increase in speed from walking at HR=61 to walking at HR=70, is all purely to increase in fat burned by minute, but still with zero sugars, with running I have not done that or better say running is very ineficient movement for low speeds so even slowest run is already getting above 0.7, sa I cant see the 3rd slow leg of the linear graph. Now how is this usefull. well if I can train body to walk faster at HR=70 - that would lift the whole graph, because the very base of very base - the speed at pure fat only burn woul get faster so will all other HR's, when this very base of very base sopeed is compounded by the 0.7-0.85 zone and later compounded by the 0.85-1.0 zone I think, that this all could be done perhaps better and more accurately at very precisely calibrated stationary cycle, to monitor the pedaling momentum, rpm etc vs HR, starting at HR bellow 60, which is easier while sitting down to the test. I have to say, that when I did multiday fasting and was running every day 2x per day, I had no sugar to burn available the feeling was hillarious, unfortunately I did not do any HR recording of data and no HR tests vs speed that time at all, will do this definitely, have to just fit it into racing-traing cycle somewhere and be lucky with very stable mild weather and daily access to athletic track. I sometimes wish I had my own tready at home in situation like this.


                        Happy

                          Rudolf wrote: I think, that when I walk at very very low HR, it is close to 0.7, increasing the speed and increasing teh HR is done purely at around 0.7, so increasing teh amount of fat burned, but none of teh sugars kick in. This HR is somewhere between 70-80, depending on the overlapping charts fron different test days. so I do estimate that walking (relaxed casual style, not the racewalking or fitness walking) bellow teh HR = 70 (sometimes upto 80, I am in teh regime close to 0.7 and say increase in speed from walking at HR=61 to walking at HR=70, is all purely to increase in fat burned by minute, but still with zero sugars, with running I have not done that or better say running is very ineficient movement for low speeds so even slowest run is already getting above 0.7, sa I cant see the 3rd slow leg of the linear graph. Now how is this usefull. well if I can train body to walk faster at HR=70 - that would lift the whole graph, because the very base of very base - the speed at pure fat only burn woul get faster so will all other HR's, when this very base of very base sopeed is compounded by the 0.7-0.85 zone and later compounded by the 0.85-1.0 zone Increasing the pace while still being able to stay infinitely close to 0.7 RQ is an ideal scenario that is probably worth while working on. I can follow your logic of how this would push all paces higher while keeping the HR same low or lower. However, I have a hard time visualizing your charts, I wish you had a link to one that I can view. Maybe I will have to become creative and start to make my own graphs - this would probably teach me something. You want to train the body to walk faster at HR=70 to see the whole graph lift so your pace at all HRs higher than 70 will also lift. Again, yes, this makes sense. However, I wonder if training at higher HRs and seeing the paces at the higher HRs increase due to increased aerobic fitness would also affect the speeds at lower HRs in the same way? In theory this should happen, right? Better aerobic fitness isn't limited to a certain HR range but to the entire specter of HRs from resting all the way to MAX HR. If this is true it isn't necessary to try so hard to train at ultra low HR in order to achieve the desired training effect. Jesse, in a post on the old cool-running site (please see one of my previous posts on the thread for a quote from Jesse) suggests slowing down in order to train the low aerobic end when one finds oneself at a plateau. He says, we would be surprised to see the effect of training the lower end. I don't think he means as low as you are playing with right now, Rudolf, but I think you may be onto something.
                          5K, 4/28/07 24:16 PR 10K, 5/5/07 49:23 PR 1/2 M, 12/08/07 1:49:34 PR Marathon, 12/09/06 3:57:37 BQ 50K, 10/04/2009 7:27:00 PB 40M, 4/17/2010 11:20:00 PB
                          Rudolf


                            yes Flower not as low as 70, I was only illustrating the example and illustarting, why the true 0.7 was not realy measured during testing of runners how many can realy run at HR=70, with walking that is possible. I do train in the HR = 90-105 mostly and do have harder sessions 110-125 and some racing above that. I never actually train at HR=70 at all, teh slowest recovery walks are about HR=80 To imagine the graph : horizontal scale is HR in range 60-150 vertical scale is speed in km/h in range 3km/h - 15km/h, however walking only so far gets to around 11km/h the graph roughly looks like this - the lowest recorde point at HR=61 is bellow the 3km/h speed and teh graps rises in line very sharply, than around HR=70 it slows done - line is less steep, than again at HR=80 it slows down, line less steep, than again at somewhere 90-105 HR the line bends again gets less steep and finaly at HR around 115 it slows down again teh steepness. I realized that I am describing here more deflexion point - more elbows - bending points than it should be, but this is from mixing various data test together as well as mixing ordinary walk with racewalk technique at higher speed and having some kinda transitionary walking style - partialy racewalking like. so for all teh above reason I do not have the realy precise data and I did not start this with idea I would need them for some theoretical thesys, I was purely after seeing where I am etc and also was trtying to find the crossover point - the HR, where the run become more efficient, that teh walk, this point was around HR=105 many months ago when I did these test first time. I have feeling that most of those HR points actualy moved to higher HR with improve training and increased volume. Sunday during 6H track walk, I find out, that if I slow to HR = 115-118, this is very easy and complete recovery HR can walk at tyhis HR for long and getting rested and fresher and relese muscle tensions, keep eating, etc. when walking at 125 HR or close above it (my age MAF now 126), this is still comfortable, but borderline and likely significant % of sugars are used as well - I get teh feeling of hunger and teh urge to eat, which is not at around HR=115 Somehow I think, that all those months at HR = 90-105, pushed my recovery HR higher into 115 value and that also pushed my recovery pace into 7 km/h from 6 km/h pace. I do not want to make big conclusions or asumptions from bunch of haphazard data, simply saying : For the 0.7 state, running could be too demanding regardless how slow, but slow walk or slow bike should be achievable Training at HR below 100 should improve the recovery capacity and also increase the speed at which complete recovery happens and allow this also for higher HR. The whole graph will move higher and to the left (with km/h vs HR plotting system), so regardless at which HR the improvement is made and trained, the whole graph will move to improved zone, perhaps the efficient method is asking for training in the whole spectrum of HR's (except of anaerobic of course) The last statement is questionable however as we all know fast runners who simply could not run slow or at low HR so thier graph would fall of very quickly going left to lower HR's, when they go into long lowHR training peruiod they wil inpprove the lowHR zone of teh graph, which will allow for improvement at higher HR as well. Using same logic I am speculating, that training at or around MAF still can produce similar situation, when there is no efficiency at HR much lower than MAF HR, so teh graph would look too steep, which is demanding on trying to improve, so going much bellow the MAF HR will do the same tricjk, what going to MAF will do for anaerobic addicts, just on 1 level deeper. as I said I will do teh testing again and properly and would train first the walk technique as mixture of ordinary walk and racewalk as to allow for gradual increase in pace and keeping the same type of movement across the speed rangge to avoid so many bending points. I might do this test in about 2 weeks.


                            Hawt and sexy

                              As a 23:00 5k runner, I believe I was in the 12mm MAF range. When it comes right down to it, I believe that the pace thing only works one way. You can get a good guess on another race by using a previous race, but only if you are aerobically fit. You cannot guess a race pace for a given MAF pace. There are too many factors involved. Each person is different and it could go as far as a bad/good day on any given day. Or it could be that a person is 'geared' to race in someway naturally, say a mental state, that others do not have the ability to do. One last thing, even when aerobically fit, charts are not perfect. I have typically beaten my predicted marathon time given a recent shorter race when I was seriously training. Maffetone was trying to do something that has way too many variables to predicted successfully. I also firmly believe that there will never be an accurate MAF to race chart due to all of the little quirks we have as humans. In all reality, there will never be a large enough sample size to construct such a chart due to the off-the-beaten-path type of training this thing we call MAF is. Seriously, the only reason we have working race charts is because we had elite runners training close to the same way for years. This is not likely to happen with a LHR type of training as we are viewed as the red-headed-step-children of runners and no one wants to do a study that they ultimately will not get paid for. Let's face it, Runner's World will not be printing a book entitled, "Run More, Run Slower," anytime soon. In order to get a working chart, someone needs to want it, and by someone, I mean a large part of the running community. With most of the population haveing the patience of a 5-year-old, this time will not be forthcoming. What truly needs to be done first is a basic breakdown of all variables. For instance, I am a chick, therefore few studies apply to me. As a woman, I would be predispositioned to burn more fat than average at any state due to the female body being geared more for endurance. Ok, there is one group. Now we need the men covered and then the teens and old fogies. Then come other things like body composition, fast-twitch/slow-twitch muscles and all that jazz. Maffetone is just one guy, he does not have a team of scientist. Even if he did, the money is not there, so they would probably study some new drug before they got back to this. Sad, but true. Wow. Sorry, tangent city. Pass the pixi stick please.

                              I'm touching your pants.

                              BeeRunB


                                As a 23:00 5k runner, I believe I was in the 12mm MAF range. When it comes right down to it, I believe that the pace thing only works one way. You can get a good guess on another race by using a previous race, but only if you are aerobically fit. You cannot guess a race pace for a given MAF pace....... Maffetone is just one guy,
                                Hey Willl! Which Maffetone are we talking about? Maffetone the health coach, Maffetone the singer-songwriter-guitar player, or Maffetone the author? I think he's more than one guy, really. :>) I think you have to gather your own data and go from there. Charts and calculators are helpful, and can be added into a personal process for determining race paces. I think the Maffetone chart (bottom of linked page) was based on the empirical data from the hundreds of people he coached. I don't think the chart is intended to be followed, but to be used to help determine fitness and as a guide. I have never used it, though I have compared past MAF times with past 5k's, and then to the chart. When I was at the peak of my aerobic fitness, they matched up. I can say for myself, with marathons at this point, that if my average for 5- mile MAF tests aren't near 9:00 pace, I have no shot at breaking 3:30. Although, that was when i used 180-age PLUS 5 beats for MAF. What it will be for my current MAF, I don't know yet. I guess I could always do a few MAF tests at +5 beats for the heck of it when it comes time to run a marathon again. With shorter races, I have always used previous PR with current race paces, along with the calculators. If I'm off, and go out too fast in a 5k, at least the death march is brief! Marathons, I use MRP heart rate tempo runs, MAF tests, and tune-up races to zero in. Of course, I could probably just get rid of all of that and run races by heart rate, but I prefer not to use HRM's in races (only to gather data). I think if anyone keeps track of their data, they will see that they need to be exceeding certain benchmarks in their training in order to run particular paces in races. Now, I have no pixi sticks, but I do have smoothies. How about a smoothie? --Jimmy