Low HR Training

Lydiard, Hadd, Maffetone (Read 2457 times)

BeeRunB


    The Lydiard mysteries. I've listened to many interviews with this and that runner

    and coach who are interested in the Lydiard approach, and have read many articles,

    and the questions most often asked is "what did he mean by 'best aerobic effort'?"

    and "what did he mean by '1/4/ 1/2 3/4...effort'?".  The answers always leave me

    unfulfilled.

     

    So, I let go of the fractions, as I think it could just as easily be in thirds or fifths. "Best

    aerobic effort" I also leave to the unsolved mystery pile. I'll just take what he was clear

    about and add that to my box of crayons:  aerobic base period, followed by anaerobic

    work, include hills, and get to the business of racing. He was the first that I came across

    in my journey to speak about these phases. I found that it worked much better than just

    having a mix of aerobic and anaerobic all the time. I believe this is Lydiard's biggest (and

    clearest) contribution to the art of training.

     

     

    --Jimmy

      The other thing to note is that Lydiard only has you running 3/4, once per week.  His break down is:

       

      1/4 - four times per week

      1/2 - two times per week

      3/4 - one time per week

       

      So, my feeling is it is better to be conservative on this 3/4 effort.  It is only once per week, so why take a chance by running it too hard.  The majority of the miles are still run at 1/4 effort.  I must admit that I am not currently following this breakdown because I do not run 7 days per week.  If I did, I would try to follow it.  But, I am running about 4 times per week, so I find myself doing the 1/2 effort more often.

       

      this is very interesting. especially your HR % stuff in terms of these lydiard zones.

       

      I checked and 88% is exactly my HR target (183bpm) for a just-below-LT run (target in the sense that it's the ceiling) and yes it is a bit harder in perceived effort :P it's this fine balance, beyond which the exertion will feel somewhat too taxing even though it can still be maintained for a full hour.

       

      82% is pretty easy though at 170bpm - I need to get better trained to have a higher perceived effort at 82%. but still interesting % because that would probably be my marathon HR. I did a half marathon as a training run (so not at half marathon race pace) recently at this HR and it was pretty nice.

       

      anyway, I always liked doing the 88% tempos and they have helped me a lot in terms of improving my aerobic fitness (no, not a typo here!! MAF HR pace got better etc.); I got the target HR just by feeling though. now after reading this information, it would be nice to experiment and see if 82% tempos can have the same good effect (that training HM did seem to!).

       

      also by "feeling" I mean I did not see improvements if I did the tempos beyond 88% of MHR. that seemed to have no effect. but then, that (over 90-91%) is really really hard for a beginner to do... so it makes sense why no effect!

       

      then, about 1/2 and 76% HR, that rings a bell too Smile

       

      so... it is very interesting to discuss this and see how all these HR zones and stuff fall in line Smile (almost)

       

      also, thanks for the explanation and links on strides!

        The Lydiard mysteries. I've listened to many interviews with this and that runner

        and coach who are interested in the Lydiard approach, and have read many articles,

        and the questions most often asked is "what did he mean by 'best aerobic effort'?"

        and "what did he mean by '1/4/ 1/2 3/4...effort'?".  The answers always leave me

        unfulfilled.

         

        So, I let go of the fractions, as I think it could just as easily be in thirds or fifths. "Best

        aerobic effort" I also leave to the unsolved mystery pile. I'll just take what he was clear

        about and add that to my box of crayons:  aerobic base period, followed by anaerobic

        work, include hills, and get to the business of racing. He was the first that I came across

        in my journey to speak about these phases. I found that it worked much better than just

        having a mix of aerobic and anaerobic all the time. I believe this is Lydiard's biggest (and

        clearest) contribution to the art of training.

         

         

        --Jimmy

         

         

        I guess the problem with the definition of "best aerobic effort" is that it could be really a wide-ish HR range, well at least for me. those 82% and 88% may be the boundaries of this zone, well, of course that's just a brand new theory from me - though based on my subjective experiences, too. :P

         

        as for mixing aerobic (you mean MAF, right?) and anaerobic (anything above MAF, right?) training vs phases... so far I've had success only with mixing, but perhaps beginners are a bit different than more well trained athletes, so this may change for me in future!

        BeeRunB


           

           

          I guess the problem with the definition of "best aerobic effort" is that it could be really a wide-ish HR range, well at least for me. those 82% and 88% may be the boundaries of this zone, well, of course that's just a brand new theory from me - though based on my subjective experiences, too. :P

           

          as for mixing aerobic (you mean MAF, right?) and anaerobic (anything above MAF, right?) training vs phases... so far I've had success only with mixing, but perhaps beginners are a bit different than more well trained athletes, so this may change for me in future!

           

           

          Thus the mystery.

           

          You are purely aerobic below your MAF. The MAF is right about where you start to

          engage a teensy bit of the anaerobic system. Then you use less and less of the

          aerobic system, and more and more of the anaerobic, as you increase your

          effort toward max, or as you go higher in heart rate. There's a point you reach

          where you no longer are using any fat for fuel, and you are fully anaerobic. So, technically,

          someone could say they are aerobic all the way up to the threshold. But the stress and impact

          increases the higher you go. Working out too  much where you are e.g. at a 38%fat / 62% sugar 

          ratio (for me that would be about 10-15 beats below threshold) eventually will have a negative

          impact on the aerobic system. Even though technically, you could say you are still aerobic.

          The benefit of an aerobic base period below MAF is that you are working the aerobic system

          and lessening the chemical and hormonal stress that ultimately reduces aerobic capacity. Some

          like to stay below the 50%/50% mark to make sure they are at least burning more fat than sugar,

          or are more aerobic then anaerobic. One thing for sure is that the probability of injury, over-training,

          upper respiratory infections, and reduced aerobic capacity increases with the more time you spend

          running where you are more anaerobic then aerobic. Still aerobic? Yes. But there is a breaking point.

          An unclear motto of "best aerobic effort" could be troublesome.

           

          --Jimmy

          runnerclay


          Consistently Slow

             

             

            Thus the mystery.

             

            You are purely aerobic below your MAF. The MAF is right about where you start to

            engage a teensy bit of the anaerobic system. Then you use less and less of the

            aerobic system, and more and more of the anaerobic, as you increase your

            effort toward max, or as you go higher in heart rate. There's a point you reach

            where you no longer are using any fat for fuel, and you are fully anaerobic. So, technically,

            someone could say they are aerobic all the way up to the threshold. But the stress and impact

            increases the higher you go. Working out too  much where you are e.g. at a 38%fat / 62% sugar 

            ratio (for me that would be about 10-15 beats below threshold) eventually will have a negative

            impact on the aerobic system. Even though technically, you could say you are still aerobic.

            The benefit of an aerobic base period below MAF is that you are working the aerobic system

            and lessening the chemical and hormonal stress that ultimately reduces aerobic capacity. Some

            like to stay below the 50%/50% mark to make sure they are at least burning more fat than sugar,

            or are more aerobic then anaerobic. One thing for sure is that the probability of injury, over-training,

            upper respiratory infections, and reduced aerobic capacity increases with the more time you spend

            running where you are more anaerobic then aerobic. Still aerobic? Yes. But there is a breaking point.

            An unclear motto of "best aerobic effort" could be troublesome.

             

            --Jimmy

             FranceRe*** This is the reason for running maff-20. Maff 50%-50%. Maff -20. 70%-30%.

            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/

               

               

              Thus the mystery.

               

               

              You are purely aerobic below your MAF. The MAF is right about where you start to

              engage a teensy bit of the anaerobic system. Then you use less and less of the

              aerobic system, and more and more of the anaerobic, as you increase your

              effort toward max, or as you go higher in heart rate. There's a point you reach

              where you no longer are using any fat for fuel, and you are fully anaerobic. So, technically,

              someone could say they are aerobic all the way up to the threshold. But the stress and impact

              increases the higher you go. Working out too  much where you are e.g. at a 38%fat / 62% sugar 

              ratio (for me that would be about 10-15 beats below threshold) eventually will have a negative

              impact on the aerobic system. Even though technically, you could say you are still aerobic.

              The benefit of an aerobic base period below MAF is that you are working the aerobic system

              and lessening the chemical and hormonal stress that ultimately reduces aerobic capacity. Some

              like to stay below the 50%/50% mark to make sure they are at least burning more fat than sugar,

              or are more aerobic then anaerobic. One thing for sure is that the probability of injury, over-training,

              upper respiratory infections, and reduced aerobic capacity increases with the more time you spend

              running where you are more anaerobic then aerobic. Still aerobic? Yes. But there is a breaking point.

              An unclear motto of "best aerobic effort" could be troublesome.

               

              --Jimmy

               

               

               

               

              you are very right about all this! my experience coincides with that...

              now my only question left about pure aerobic and anaerobic phases vs mixing is... how can one single MAF+x run (where x is a few beats) hurt when done very infrequently (e.g. once in 2 weeks or so) in the base phase? why does base phase have to be 100% pure? 99% not good enough?

              I think this is the one last thing I don't fully understand about LHR.

              BeeRunB


                 

                you are very right about all this! my experience coincides with that...

                now my only question left about pure aerobic and anaerobic phases vs mixing is... how can one single MAF+x run (where x is a few beats) hurt when done very infrequently (e.g. once in 2 weeks or so) in the base phase? why does base phase have to be 100% pure? 99% not good enough?

                I think this is the one last thing I don't fully understand about LHR.

                 

                 

                It might hurt, it might not. Depends where you are at.

                You have to figure it out for yourself. For me, it's

                always about my intention. I have no problem going 12-16 weeks

                for base work, with out having to do MAF +, because I have a reason

                and an intention. I'm looking to achieve a particular effect, in the least

                stressful way possible. Which is to build a good aerobic base. Dr. Phil

                suggests not do any anaerobic workouts during this period as they might

                impede your aerobic development. He lists the reasons in his books. Abnormal

                life stress can have the same effect on your system. The less stressful you make it

                during the base period, in workout and life, the bitter your aerobic system will

                build.  --Jimmy

                runnerclay


                Consistently Slow

                   

                  you are very right about all this! my experience coincides with that...

                  now my only question left about pure aerobic and anaerobic phases vs mixing is... how can one single MAF+x run (where x is a few beats) hurt when done very infrequently (e.g. once in 2 weeks or so) in the base phase? why does base phase have to be 100% pure? 99% not good enough?

                  I think this is the one last thing I don't fully understand about LHR.

                  Look at it this way. Which interest rate gives a better return? 5.0% or 5.001%. The difference is slight but there is is difference.What is your ultimate goal? Do you want to maximize LHR training? Running above Maff will probably get you to a (fast time) goal quicker but in what physical condition(injured). I know if I ran above Maff my 5k and 10k time goals would have already been accomplished. Also,I realize a would not have managed to run150 miles last month without an injure.

                  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/

                  gregw


                    I've been experimenting lately with running a little faster every 3rd or 4th day and seeing how I recover.  Eventually, I can see this evolving into something like Lydiard's schedule -- the 1/4, 1/2, and 3/4 being individualized.  Remember he starts with building up to about 10 hrs/week running as easy as you like.  I think the point is to figure out what intensity is sustainable given that volume.  My guess is that the intensity of this early period is probably about 1/2 effort or maybe a little slower.  You run faster one day (3/4) and then run easier the next few (1/4) before you get back to your regular 1/2 effort.

                     

                    I thinking saying 3/4 is marathon effort might be deceiving.  McMillan is basing that on what Arthur's boys did.  But these guys were pretty well trained already.  If you run marathon effort and aren't ready after a couple of days of jogging to run your regular 1/2 effort, then 3/4 isn't marathon effort for you right now.  I might be someday, but not now.  This might or might not be what Lydiard meant but this is how I think it might apply to me.  Over time, I think you can can make the hard days harder, but you do it very slowly over many seasons, eventually getting up to the marathon pace range.  The point is to look at the schedules holistically and monitor how you react, making sure you're building yourself up and not tearing yourself down.  I think it's more dangerous to become a slave to a schedule than it is to the HRM (as we MAFers are sometimes accused of!).

                    BeeRunB


                      Look at it this way. Which interest rate gives a better return? 5.0% or 5.001%. The difference is slight but there is is difference.What is your ultimate goal? Do you want to maximize LHR training? Running above Maff will probably get you to a (fast time) goal quicker but in what physical condition(injured). I know if I ran above Maff my 5k and 10k time goals would have already been accomplished. Also,I realize a would not have managed to run150 miles last month without an injure.

                       

                       

                      Thanks, Ron. That's what it's about!

                      --Jimmy

                       

                      BeeRunB


                        I've been experimenting lately with running a little faster every 3rd or 4th day and seeing how I recover.  Eventually, I can see this evolving into something like Lydiard's schedule -- the 1/4, 1/2, and 3/4 being individualized.  Remember he starts with building up to about 10 hrs/week running as easy as you like.  I think the point is to figure out what intensity is sustainable given that volume.  My guess is that the intensity of this early period is probably about 1/2 effort or maybe a little slower.  You run faster one day (3/4) and then run easier the next few (1/4) before you get back to your regular 1/2 effort.

                         

                        I thinking saying 3/4 is marathon effort might be deceiving.  McMillan is basing that on what Arthur's boys did.  But these guys were pretty well trained already.  If you run marathon effort and aren't ready after a couple of days of jogging to run your regular 1/2 effort, then 3/4 isn't marathon effort for you right now.  I might be someday, but not now.  This might or might not be what Lydiard meant but this is how I think it might apply to me.  Over time, I think you can can make the hard days harder, but you do it very slowly over many seasons, eventually getting up to the marathon pace range.  The point is to look at the schedules holistically and monitor how you react, making sure you're building yourself up and not tearing yourself down.  I think it's more dangerous to become a slave to a schedule than it is to the HRM (as we MAFers are sometimes accused of!).

                         

                        Why I don't glom onto the fractions is the question of what "effort" means is not clear. 1/4 (25%)  MHR means something. 3/4 (75%) of LT or AT means something. 4/5ths (80%) of 5k race pace means something. Does effort in the statement "1/2 effort" mean as hard as you could possibly run? Or does it mean 1/2 of 5k effort? Marathon effort? What does effort mean in the Lydiard fractional system?

                         

                        I get that you can make 1/4  slow and easy. 1/2 moderately fast. 3/4's really pushing it, and 4/4ths oxygen debt, but it is still so broad and unclear.

                         

                        I agree that we shouldn't be slaves to schedules, although I prefer to use the term "obsessive about." As I think it is obsessiveness. I have created many schedules over the years, and have never been able to accomplish one. Earlier on, when I was obsessive about the schedule, eventually I would get a little boo boo or just be plain exhausted or over-trained, and I would have to go off schedule. The past year and a half, it's all been MAF test and body driven.

                        I've made a few schedules, but it was fruitless to do so. Instead I've gone time and heart-time based, with the set-up being the same as the old days in terms of hard/easy and rest days. If I feel off or the MAF tests start to tank, I know now to add more rest or cut back.

                         

                        I think when runners write or say that someone else is a slave to their HRM, they are usually

                        coming from a belief that training without one is superior to training with one. That a HRM is

                        just not necessary. It's really just a choice. If not using one is working for you and you're

                        achieving what you want and staying healthy at the same time, then great. If using one

                        does the same thing for you, then great. Dave Scott didn't use a HRM, Mark Allen did.

                        They were both great and both had long careers. To say to Scott that he would have done better

                        using one in training would be ridiculous. To tell Allen he could have achieved the same things

                        without one would be equally as so. Both athletes knew who they were and what worked for them.

                        To know that your personality needs a governor (HRM) on easy days, for example, and that without

                        it you always end up training too hard, and don't get the recovery you need, is not inferior to someone who

                        can just go run easy enough on feel. There is an argument to be made on whether or not using a HRM in

                        a race is an unfair advantage over someone who doesn't. In training, anything goes, but doping.

                         

                        Good post, Greg. Got my brain going this morning.

                        Had a very hard day yesterday

                        (long run and lifting many bags of cement in what is now called The Great Concrete Boondoggle of 2010--32 bags of cement lifted, brought home, re-lifted, only to realize I didn't know what I was doing, and that I'd better stop the project, then returning it all--with the only thing resulting being a cement rock in the shape of a plastic bucket--anyone need a rather large paperweight?),

                        and on this glorious rest day, it's good to give my brain a little work.

                         

                        --Jimmy

                         

                        runnerclay


                        Consistently Slow

                           


                           

                          I agree that we shouldn't be slaves to schedules, although I prefer to use the term "obsessive about." As I think it is obsessiveness. I have created many schedules over the years, and have never been able to accomplish one. Earlier on, when I was obsessive about the schedule, eventually I would get a little boo boo or just be plain exhausted or over-trained, and I would have to go off schedule. The past year and a half, it's all been MAF test and body driven.

                          I've made a few schedules, but it was fruitless to do so.

                           

                          --Jimmy

                           

                           The last schedule I made took about a week to do. Several more hours to re-work . I followed it for about 6 weeks of the 26 weeks.I am attempting to add 10% a month and cut back on the 4th week. Intervals,hills and maff + 10 once a week. Two of three in the same workout.

                           

                          What is your take on race pace workouts? Effectiveness?

                          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/

                          BeeRunB


                             

                             The last schedule I made took about a week to do. Several more hours to re-work . I followed it for about 6 weeks of the 26 weeks.I am attempting to add 10% a month and cut back on the 4th week. Intervals,hills and maff + 10 once a week. Two of three in the same workout.

                             

                            What is your take on race pace workouts? Effectiveness?

                             

                             

                            I'm a fan of marathon race pace workouts during the anaerobic phase, but not too often. I actually approach them different;y. I don't choose a pace. Instead I have a HR range in which I run that matches the marathon effort, and it helps me ascertain a pace to run in the goal marathon (along with other indicators). I get the mental benefit of running at that pace, I get an approximate pace, and get a bit of anaerobic stimulation. I'll do 2-3 of these.

                             

                            As far as your volume build along with all that anaerobic work, I suggest that you do regular MAF tests to make sure your aerobic system is building. Your body might be ready for that stressful load. If not, it will show in your tests as a plateau or regression.

                             

                            Good luck!

                            --Jimmy

                             

                            C-R


                               

                               

                               I have no problem going 12-16 weeks for base work, with out having to do MAF +, because I have a reason and an intention. I'm looking to achieve a particular effect, in the least

                              stressful way possible. Which is to build a good aerobic base.

                                This is one of the best "whys" I've seen posted. Limiting stress is the key to the training and improvement while building a solid base.


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

                              http://ncstake.blogspot.com/

                              C-R


                                Many of you may recall I am incorporating Lydiard training. In my takes of his published material, the fractional speeds are very unclear and I believe intentionally so. I believe he is attempting to train the runner to understand the feel of their body. Pace is dependent on many variables and a 9 mpm might seem easy today and hard tomorrow. Using a HRM to better understand your body is a good fit to move to Lydiard trianing. My time with MAF and HR has helped me determine what it "feels" like to be at my definition of these efforts (which may not be yours). I can then judge if I am there. The time and distance will verify my body feedback during the run. I still use the HRM but mostly to keep my easy days easy or to verify what I was feeling matched my expectations/results.

                                 


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

                                http://ncstake.blogspot.com/