Low HR Training

Using MAF tests as Race Pace Indicator or Predictor (Read 3105 times)

lowgear1


Max McMaffelow Esq.

    Just a quick clarification of my previous post. I probably should add that i'm currently at a 13ish maf -10 pace, (not sure of full maf pace), and aspire towards the 11:00 to 10:30 brackets. Didn't mean to imply that I was at that level presently. LG1 ...sigh
    ♪ ♫ Hey, hey, we're Maf Monkees And people say we monkey around. ♪ ♫ (The Monkees)
    Give me 12:59 in '09, please. I deserve it! (Maf of course)..No more teens! No more teens! (ME! ME! ME!)
    ♪ ♫ I Thank The Lord For The Night Time...And I Thank The Lord For You ♪ ♫ (Neil Diamond)
      Just a quick clarification of my previous post. I probably should add that i'm currently at a 13ish maf -10 pace, (not sure of full maf pace), and aspire towards the 11:00 to 10:30 brackets. Didn't mean to imply that I was at that level presently. LG1 ...sigh
      Hi Low, Good to see you haven't left your corporeal form and are still around. The chart is based on MAF tests, not everyday subMAF runs. --Jimmy

      log   prs      Crusted Salt comic #142

       


      Hawt and sexy

        I just looked back in my log. At the time my best test was 10:55. That was the last test before 8 weeks of Pfitz. I test on the treadmill at 75 degrees. Back then I even used a fan for MAF tests, not anymore. My marathon time turned out to be 3:48:22. I ran a 5k 2 weeks out that was a 24:47 so that is almost dead on to the 5k time. At the time, i just ran the household and ran. I did not do a true test the weeks before the marathon, but I did not get faster. I had gone outside and added hills though. My life never really flows. Bad shocks.... I hope to bring more data to the table in May. I will be running the same marathon again, and using the same basic training plan. Modified because my editing skillz suck...

        I'm touching your pants.

          I just looked back in my log. At the time my best test was 10:55. That was the last test before 8 weeks of Pfitz. I test on the treadmill at 75 degrees. Back then I even used a fan for MAF tests, not anymore. My marathon time turned out to be 3:48:22. I ran a 5k 2 weeks out that was a 24:47 so that is almost dead on to the 5k time. At the time, i just ran the household and ran. I did not do a true test the weeks before the marathon, but I did not get faster. I had gone outside and added hills though. My life never really flows. Bad shocks.... I hope to bring more data to the table in May. I will be running the same marathon again, and using the same basic training plan. Modified because my editing skillz suck...
          10:30..7:45..........24:04..........3:54:37.........8:58 10:00..7:30..........23:18..........3:47:09...........8:41 Thanks for the datahol, Will. McMillan Calculator Poo 3:48:22 = 23:26 5k 10:10 MAF TEST On the chart My take is this. A 10:55 in 75º 8 weeks out might equal near a 10:10 in 60-65º the week of the marathon with more fitness, rested legs from the taper. Your 5k was slower than the McMillan relative to your marathon, but there's a chance you could have run faster on less-tired legs. And I believe that 5k's are harder and much more uncomfoortable than marathons mentally, and many of us can't eak out those extra seconds like a pro can. THUS::::: It all fits! Oh my, it all fits!! The MAF theory of everything has been proven with Willamona's datahol!!!! Yes --jimmy

          log   prs      Crusted Salt comic #142

           

          lowgear1


          Max McMaffelow Esq.

            Hi Low, Good to see you haven't left your corporeal form and are still around. The chart is based on MAF tests, not everyday subMAF runs. --Jimmy
            Jimmy, Yep, still waiting for a thaw, so I can get in a genuine maf test at the local h.s. track..don't have t.m. access so my running is limited to road/trail circuits, and i've only got erratic data at this juncture. Reasonably sure I haven't assumed room temp. In fact..ahem, my blood flow seems pretty robust, for a guy. I held a mirror under the nose this am and gained some assurance that the twitchers were still somewhat viable. LG1 sans halo
            ♪ ♫ Hey, hey, we're Maf Monkees And people say we monkey around. ♪ ♫ (The Monkees)
            Give me 12:59 in '09, please. I deserve it! (Maf of course)..No more teens! No more teens! (ME! ME! ME!)
            ♪ ♫ I Thank The Lord For The Night Time...And I Thank The Lord For You ♪ ♫ (Neil Diamond)
              It seems that MAF based race time predictions would vary greatly depending on age. A 46 year old MAFing (180-age=134) at 9:00/ mile should, in most cases, be able to run a faster marathon than a 26 year old MAFing(180-age=154) at the same pace. I don't know this for a fact, of course. It just seems logical...
                It seems that MAF based race time predictions would vary greatly depending on age. A 46 year old MAFing (180-age=134) at 9:00/ mile should, in most cases, be able to run a faster marathon than a 26 year old MAFing(180-age=154) at the same pace. I don't know this for a fact, of course. It just seems logical...
                As you age, there will be a certain point where you will start going slower, thus your MAF tests will get slower, thus a travel up the chart (or down the ladder) to a new level.It's built in. If a 26 year old does an MAF test and gets 9:00 pace, and a 46 year old gets a 9:00. They will run aproximately the same time. There's a 70-year old in my club that runs faster 5k's than me. I'm sure he's going at 93% of max just like I am. See it all fits!! Yes --Jimmy

                log   prs      Crusted Salt comic #142

                 

                labhiker


                  While doing some early planning for the weekend, I recalled reading this post about Race Pace predictions based on MAF results. There is great information in this post! Thank you Jim for the indepth correlation of MAF results vs Mpace. I just completed my last weekend long run (8m) and decided to stick with the plan as opposed to pushing the pace during the planned taper phase. Following a brief mile warm up at sub-MAF, I ran 5 miles at an average pace of 10:45 @ MAF-2. Recognizing this would be my last long run before the weekend, I decided to move to a higher HR to see how it might equate to a MP? Following the MAF miles, I ran two miles at 10:12 (MAF+11 ave) and 9:10 (MAF+18). Based on the template on the first page of this post, is it possible that I might be able to finish near 4hrs? In the back of my mind I was thinking a 4:15+ finish would be a big accomplishment. Something near 4hrs was never on my radar screen - wow. I would be thrilled to come close to this time as it would be a PR! I intend to push the pace and go for a PR, however I am some what concerned that this may be too agressive and could result in trouble after 20.

                  labhiker

                  RER


                    In Maffetone’s textbook, he says these data points were compiled on runners who were healthy, and hilly and cross country courses were excluded. I could see why he didn’t go above 10 minute pace – he was working with a lot of good athletes and the number of local runners in the 10 min MAF category was relatively small. Also, as a runners got healthy and more fit, they also got faster, dropping into to 9 min MAF or 8:30 category. So the total numbers in the 10:30, 11, etc. min MAF was relatively low. If this was compiled scientifically, the total numbers in those slower MAF categories were too low to be included.
                      While doing some early planning for the weekend, I recalled reading this post about Race Pace predictions based on MAF results. There is great information in this post! Thank you Jim for the indepth correlation of MAF results vs Mpace. I just completed my last weekend long run (8m) and decided to stick with the plan as opposed to pushing the pace during the planned taper phase. Following a brief mile warm up at sub-MAF, I ran 5 miles at an average pace of 10:45 @ MAF-2. Recognizing this would be my last long run before the weekend, I decided to move to a higher HR to see how it might equate to a MP? Following the MAF miles, I ran two miles at 10:12 (MAF+11 ave) and 9:10 (MAF+18). Based on the template on the first page of this post, is it possible that I might be able to finish near 4hrs? In the back of my mind I was thinking a 4:15+ finish would be a big accomplishment. Something near 4hrs was never on my radar screen - wow. I would be thrilled to come close to this time as it would be a PR! I intend to push the pace and go for a PR, however I am some what concerned that this may be too agressive and could result in trouble after 20.
                      The chart is just one possible indicator. One that might not come into play until you have a few marathons under your belt, along with correlating MAF test data. The test you did at MAF-2 puts you in the 4:00 range on the chart, but might not mean you can yet do 4 hours. The marathon times were taken from the MCMillan calculator after popping in Maffetone's 5k times. One thing to remember is that basing a possible marathon time on a 5k pace using the calculator gives you the best possible time under optimal conditions and needing to be an aerobic machine. Have you any other information? A race of any distance? Have you done a marathon before? If so, did you keep track of all your training times and HR's? For indicators, I use MAF tests, MRP runs, races (popped into McMillan) and comparisons with past training times under similar conditions. I found the Maffetone MAF chart to be fairly close (for cool weather). --Jimmy

                      log   prs      Crusted Salt comic #142

                       

                        This topic got me curious to read more about Maffetone, and I found a couple of links that I thought would be on interest to people. This first link is a recent rewritten version of the "Want Speed, Slow Down" article that most are probably familiar with. http://www.running-world.net/want_speed_slow_down_1.php This next link is to an interview that Dr. Maffetone recently did. It was interesting to read more details about the people he used as samples when he came up with the MAF formula and method. http://runlonger.blogspot.com/2008/07/interview-with-endurance-expert-dr.html
                        RER


                          This topic got me curious to read more about Maffetone, and I found a couple of links that I thought would be on interest to people. This first link is a recent rewritten version of the "Want Speed, Slow Down" article that most are probably familiar with. http://www.running-world.net/want_speed_slow_down_1.php This next link is to an interview that Dr. Maffetone recently did. It was interesting to read more details about the people he used as samples when he came up with the MAF formula and method. http://runlonger.blogspot.com/2008/07/interview-with-endurance-expert-dr.html
                          Thanks for the links, I never read that interview. Maffetone has a bunch of interviews on his site (www.philmaffetone.com) but the big heart rate monitor chapter from his textbook answers a lot of questions I've seen here. Someone steer me to the best McMillan calculator info? Thanks. DavidD
                          C-R



                            "He conquers who endures" - Persius
                            "Every workout should have a purpose. Every purpose should link back to achieving a training objective." - Spaniel

                              Another reason this topic interested me is that when I first started MAF training last January, my best 5k time was 23:30. When I checked the chart, it said that my MAF pace should be about 10 min. Well, it was more like 12 minutes. So, there was no correlation. But, then I recently read that Dr. Maffetone used the "first mile" in the MAF test as his data point. In his book, the Maffetone Method, on page 73, is the following quote: "The chart below compares first-mile MAF test times with 5K average mile times..." and he is referring to this chart. Well, this does correlate for me. My first mile tended to be about 10 minutes, and then I had a severe dropoff in pace and my average tended to be closer to 12 minutes. So, based on this, I really think the MAF test has two components that are really useful. One component is the first mile time, and the other component is the slope of the drop off after the first mile. I think the first component was indicative of my potential 5k time, and the second component was indicative of my ability to carry that 5k time over to longer distances. 10 months later, my current MAF tests tend to show a somewhat improved first mile, but my biggest improvement is definitely the dropoff in pace is much less severe. My most recent 5k time is 23:06. So, I have improved a little bit on my 5k time, but I now know that I could probably do OK in a 10K race now. That was definitely out of the question 10 months ago. So, at least for me, this model fits. The ironic part for me, about this whole experience, is that my main goal was to run 5ks better. I am not really running them that much better, but I am in much much better aerobic shape. And when I do run 5ks now, they are not the torturous endeavers they once were. Smile When I first started doing MAF in January, and reading this forum, I said to myself, I am just not that kind of runner. I will never run those long distances. My main reason for doing MAF, is to work on my biggest running weakness, my endurance. That should help me run better 5ks. Now, I actually find myself thinking, Gee, maybe I can run a 10K. Smile Does anybody know why this seems to be the only place he ever refers to this data point as the "first-mile MAF test times", but he never refers to it that way anywhere else?
                              RER


                                I think the 'drop off' in time during miles 2, 3 etc. of the MAF test relate to endurance. To me, this refers to the ability to maintain fat-burning. As that improves (as you don't slow down as much with each mile) you'll race better, and farther. Sounds like you're on the verge of some better times. I've heard Maffetone lecture about this and he talks about the 'first mile' number being important, not just as it relates to race pace but that it should be your fastest mile in the MAF test. Some people will get faster in mile two or three, which is not normal. Maffetone says that's a warm up problem but I think it's a metabolic issue. ...just looked in another book (Comp. Sports Medicine) and he clearly refers to 'first mile' a couple of times. I think this is the chapter that's posted on his site. I suspect it was much easier for him to correlate all the numbers with just a single (first mile) time instead of several mile spits. I suspect he did the stats himself, and the more numbers you throw into the pot, the more complex it gets. It would be nice to see the same information with more miles in the equation.