If I train at HR below my MAF-10 to MAF range will I become a more efficient fat-burner faster than if I train in the 10BPM range?
Wasatch Speedgoat
Life is short, play hard!
Gino, Did you see an improvement in your pace at 117BPM while you were building your mileage? ...
You mention your fasting 12 hrs prior to your long runs and drinking water only during the 20 mile long runs - was this a new way for you to run? Had you previously not fasted before your runs? Did you fuel on carbs before you changed to 117BPM? ...
Furthermore, I am interested in more details about how you increased your mileage from 20MPW - how did your weekly schedule look, how many rest days, did you run the same mileage every day, did you use hard/easy in terms of time spent/mileage per day etc?
Max McMaffelow Esq.
and my mind is creating cooking recipes, remebering various food parties and stuff like taht meaning I am burning sugar and running low on it.
Happy
Flower my personal feel and experience is offering this answer to You questions : My number 180-53=127, but 127 did not feel easy enough during run and was very hard walking effort Intuitively I did trained at lower HR, getting used first to walks at 80-100 range lately founding that 115-117 is borderline recovery HR allowing for few hours effort or recovery from higher HR walking bellow that feels realy easy and feels like fat only. If I am realistic with the +- factors in the formula, and now nearly 1 year older : 180 - 54 - 10 = 116 That seems like spot on HR for testing purposes and could be the 50-50 sugar-fat spot
Gino, Did you see an improvement in your pace at 117BPM while you were building your mileage? ... Yes. For a week or two I had to run easy and then walk to bring the HR down to 117, and just repeat that. Once I was able to run easy continuously @ 117 I checked to see what that pace was. 3-4 weeks later my mileage had doubled and pace was 40 seconds/mile faster. 3 weeks after that my pace was another 20-25 seconds/mile faster, and I had a nice 3 hour run @ 117.
to sum it up, using formula 180-age-10 is my attitude since nobody is realy healhy and aerobicaly fit anymore than taking this maf HR further maf-10 gives the critical sugar-fat training point and going further 10 point lower gives close to fat only zone. so in my view calculate maf=180-age-10 than under maf - 20 to maf - 30 should be fat safe zone aand here lots of session needs to be done depleted in fasting mode, might take weeks to get body to switch. teh zone maf-10 to maf-20 will use some sugars so should not be used that often, maf Hr should only be used for tests (every 3 weeks ?) the nonimportant races is fun to do controled at MAF HR + 10, +20, +30 and keep database of those results and only occasionaly very important races going flat out
If you haven't yet read it, get and read Stu Mittleman's book, Slow Burn. He explains a lot in there what you all are asking. Basically 180-age-5 if you are just beginning. Stick to that and if you need to walk, then walk. I'm not sure that running any slower than that will help you get fitter....as a matter of fact in Slow Burn, Stu suggests how to adjust the zones to suit you...which I think we all need to do rather than blindly follow a formula. I am now running at 130, which I know is a lot slower than I need for aerobic development, but it's an experiment just to see if I can and do improve at this HR. I will say I feel better than i have in years, but don't feel like i'm preparing myself to run a good marathon Steve
It's interesting to see how the zones you describe link up to what Mittleman recommends as the baseline for his zone settings in "Slow Burn". Are you familiar with the different sensory cues he describes for each zone? Without the HRM do you allow your sensory experiences to guide you in your workouts?
... Furthermore, I am interested in more details about how you increased your mileage from 20MPW - how did your weekly schedule look, how many rest days, did you run the same mileage every day, did you use hard/easy in terms of time spent/mileage per day etc?