Low HR Training

Treadmill test to determine MAF (KPH) (19 tests) (Read 2783 times)

RuiMei79


    A year later, I redid this test. I stopped next to my LTHR (supposedly it's around 177).

    This time the resulting graphic is more linear. I used a moving average to better identify the plateaus.

     

    143 is very close to my calculated MAF (180-35=145), and it's the same value I got in last year's test.

    Do the other numbers (128, 163) have any significance?

    What else can I infer from these results?

     

    Rootsandtrail


      HI!

       

      I´m 51 years old. 180-51=129. Max HR about 185-190. LT 172. My ”cruising” heart rate is 143-144, where I can on for hours. Not awfully fast, but most comfortable.

       

      The test:

      Did my first test on a treadmill, assisted by my son managing the Garmin, pushed the speed up 0.1 km/h every 10 sec and logged the pulse. I focused on just running.

       

      * I used my Garmin set to indoors. 

       

      * 30 min warmup walking/running at 6 km/h 120-123 BPM (had a hard time running at that speed)

       

      * after plateaud, the rise began at 130 bpm (stayed 1 minute att 130)

       

      * a plateau and steep rise after 137-138 bpm (stayed 1 minute at 137-138)

       

      * a quite long plateau at 157-158, before a steep rise upp to LT 172 bpm (I guess?)

       

      * I stopped at 178 bpm. 

       

      Question: 

      Is my MAF at 130 or 138? Or is 138 the "aerobic base HR” 50/50 fat/sugar. Any comments most welcome. If I use 138 MAF in training, what benefits are lost? BPM 138 also corresponds to 80% of LT, 137,6, a formula that I´m familiar with.

       

      John M

       

      file:///Users/jomo0001/Downloads/unspecified.png

      BeeRunB


        The purpose of this test to verify. Without seeing your chart, and based on the info you provided, I'd say your MAF of 129-130 is on the money. In many tests, including my own another plateau is reached aprox. 10 beats higher, and then at least another 1 or 2 plateaus as your intensity rises. I'm not sure exactly what these other ones mean, but we do have different muscle fibers that kick in at certain points as the intensity rises like when the the first anaerobic fibers kick in at MAF causing the steeper rise in sugar consumption and HR— perhaps it has something to do with that.   In any case, you saw a deflection around your calculated MAF, and that helps to verify.

         

        As for training at any HR, the key in The Maffetone Method is monitoring your aerobic speed. You could always experiment at higher HR's and if you're progressing and your body feels good, then fine. Return to base at least once a year, or when you hit lengthy plateaus during the anaerobic phase  or are regressing.

         

        HI!

         

        I´m 51 years old. 180-51=129. Max HR about 185-190. LT 172. My ”cruising” heart rate is 143-144, where I can on for hours. Not awfully fast, but most comfortable.

         

        The test:

        Did my first test on a treadmill, assisted by my son managing the Garmin, pushed the speed up 0.1 km/h every 10 sec and logged the pulse. I focused on just running.

         

        * I used my Garmin set to indoors. 

         

        * 30 min warmup walking/running at 6 km/h 120-123 BPM (had a hard time running at that speed)

         

        * after plateaud, the rise began at 130 bpm (stayed 1 minute att 130)

         

        * a plateau and steep rise after 137-138 bpm (stayed 1 minute at 137-138)

         

        * a quite long plateau at 157-158, before a steep rise upp to LT 172 bpm (I guess?)

         

        * I stopped at 178 bpm. 

         

        Question: 

        Is my MAF at 130 or 138? Or is 138 the "aerobic base HR” 50/50 fat/sugar. Any comments most welcome. If I use 138 MAF in training, what benefits are lost? BPM 138 also corresponds to 80% of LT, 137,6, a formula that I´m familiar with.

         

        John M

         

        https://www.dropbox.com/s/q1oaekf3vfb655d/Sk%C3%A4rmavbild%202015-06-12%20kl.%2010.41.12.png?dl=0

        BrentK


          duplicate deleted

          BrentK


            Hi,

             

            I'm new to this forum and decided to try the test described in this post. my results can be seen on the Garmin connect link below:

            https://connect.garmin.com/modern/activity/888349883

            I'm 44 yrs old so based on the 180 formula my MAF HR should be 136.

            If you zoom in on the HR graph, there appear to be a few deflection points - the first at 130bpm (probably more related to the transition from warmup to run/jogging), then the next at 144bpm. If you really look closely you can see a change at 136bpm as well. Would the experts here agree that this 136 corresponds with what I should be targeting? I really battle to get my hr down - ran a marathon pb last weekend with an average hr of 183bpm.

             

            Thanks,

             

            Brent

            BeeRunB


              Can't view the page, Brent. I would have to have a Garmin Connect account

               

              "It looks like you don't have access privileges to view this activity.

              You can try to sign in"

               

              Hi,

               

              I'm new to this forum and decided to try the test described in this post. my results can be seen on the Garmin connect link below:

              https://connect.garmin.com/modern/activity/888349883

              I'm 44 yrs old so based on the 180 formula my MAF HR should be 136.

              If you zoom in on the HR graph, there appear to be a few deflection points - the first at 130bpm (probably more related to the transition from warmup to run/jogging), then the next at 144bpm. If you really look closely you can see a change at 136bpm as well. Would the experts here agree that this 136 corresponds with what I should be targeting? I really battle to get my hr down - ran a marathon pb last weekend with an average hr of 183bpm.

               

              Thanks,

               

              Brent

              BrentK


                Sorry - I thought I had made that activity public. I've changed the access on it and you should now be able to view without requiring a garmin login.

                 

                Can't view the page, Brent. I would have to have a Garmin Connect account

                 

                "It looks like you don't have access privileges to view this activity.

                You can try to sign in"

                 

                BeeRunB


                  Hi Brent,

                   

                  Looks like a deflection at 132-133 then the rise and another ten beats higher, which is very common. I would say 136 is a fine MAF to use at this point, and can for many years.

                   

                   

                  Thanks for posting and adding to this experiment. In the majority of the tests HR is showing these plateaus in the neighborhood of the 180-age.

                   

                  Lastly, did you note any changes in the sensation of breathing during the test?

                   

                   

                   

                  Hi,

                   

                  I'm new to this forum and decided to try the test described in this post. my results can be seen on the Garmin connect link below:

                  https://connect.garmin.com/modern/activity/888349883

                  I'm 44 yrs old so based on the 180 formula my MAF HR should be 136.

                  If you zoom in on the HR graph, there appear to be a few deflection points - the first at 130bpm (probably more related to the transition from warmup to run/jogging), then the next at 144bpm. If you really look closely you can see a change at 136bpm as well. Would the experts here agree that this 136 corresponds with what I should be targeting? I really battle to get my hr down - ran a marathon pb last weekend with an average hr of 183bpm.

                   

                  Thanks,

                   

                  Brent

                  BrentK


                    Thanks for the info Jimmy.

                    I didn't notice a specific change in breathing on that test I did.

                    I did another test the following day where I kept my warmup more steady pace but hr closer to MAF (couldn't keep hr low enogh at steady pace on first one). There I noticed a change at about 141bpm.

                    Chart from 2nd test

                    Chart

                    BeeRunB


                      You're welcome.

                       

                      This below chart establishes that upper plateau I saw in your first test, but you started the test at 136 bpm (180-age)?

                      What were you trying to do by that? Just curious.

                       

                      It's highly possible that 141 is your MAF, and that 136+5 will work fine for you. This  method requires some experimenting to get your sweet spot. If you use 141 and your MAF tests improve and you feel good---there ya go!

                       

                      Check out the thread I posted today about sugar burning and these plateaus. It might be interesting.

                       

                       

                       

                      Thanks for the info Jimmy.

                      I didn't notice a specific change in breathing on that test I did.

                      I did another test the following day where I kept my warmup more steady pace but hr closer to MAF (couldn't keep hr low enogh at steady pace on first one). There I noticed a change at about 141bpm.

                      Chart from 2nd test

                      Chart

                      BrentK


                        I've been trying to use around 140 for my MAF, so will probably continue with this. Am planning on doing Comrades marathon again next year, so am planning on a 6-12 week MAF base building period.

                        The reason I started at 136, was that with the first test during the warmup I had to keep walking to keep my hr below 116. My hr is definitely very different for walking or running at the same pace as hr is activity specific. I thought part of the increase and plateau at the beginning of the first run could probably be due to the transition from warmup run/walk to running. I therefore decided to do the second test with my warmup being at a very slow jog - which unfortunately was close to my expected MAF, but still below. My logic was that I should still see the deflection - which I did.

                         

                        You're welcome.

                         

                        This below chart establishes that upper plateau I saw in your first test, but you started the test at 136 bpm (180-age)?

                        What were you trying to do by that? Just curious.

                         

                        It's highly possible that 141 is your MAF, and that 136+5 will work fine for you. This  method requires some experimenting to get your sweet spot. If you use 141 and your MAF tests improve and you feel good---there ya go!

                         

                        Check out the thread I posted today about sugar burning and these plateaus. It might be interesting.

                         

                         

                         

                        Ginsling


                        Slowpoke

                          Hello everyone!

                           

                          I ran Jimmy's test yesterday trying to figure out my MAF using his test rather than MAF - age (or other variations thereof) and PMed him about the results - he kindly answered.  Quite a few plateaux!

                           

                          My garmin is the entry level, so won't automate at 10 sec intervals to do the laps and create splits, instead it just measures every 1-4 secs my HR - it was beyond my capabilities to hit the speed knob on the TM every 10 seconds as well as lap and reset the watch (two separate buttons) simultaneously.  I started the test at 30 minutes and 8 seconds with 6km/hr and HR of 113 and finished when my HR hit 170 at 11.3 km/hr - my max is around 195 (resting is late 40s/early 50s).

                           

                          I ran barefoot, fasted, and with my mouth closed and breathing through my nose for the whole test (including the warmup).  In the last few increments, I had to draw longer deeper breaths more frequently (usually I breathe a deep breath every so often - couldn't tell you the frequency but will monitor next time).  My cadence increased rather than my stride length as the pace increased (which is also counter-intuitive for me).

                           

                          Here's the link:

                           

                          https://connect.garmin.com/modern/activity/1045348348

                           

                          Jimmy figured my MAF HR at 140 and didn't have the additional info listed here:

                          female

                          age 50

                          165cm tall

                          55kg

                          fitness history: ran my first 10km at 13, quit running at 15 to become a professional classical ballet dancer - it was either one or the other and since I'd been at the ballet from 5 years old, it won out, quit that mid twenties and did martial arts for a while, trained at triathlons while at uni, then enthusiast level training on and off ever since (mostly more off than on!).  In the snow in Germany this Christmas was the first time I couldn't keep up with my 11 year old daughter and younger husband cross-country skating, so I decided I needed to claw back some lost fitness.  And I wouldn't mind swapping some of the fat deposits for some muscle either Smile.

                           

                          I'll MAF HR at 140 for a month or so, but if no improvement and / or OT symptoms, then back to the MAF - age of 130 (either way, it's a struggle to train at these HRs and not just let it float up!).  Chapeau to all of you in this group who do this!

                          BeeRunB


                            Just to add. I thought the longest plateau recorded on Ginslings graph was around 140ish and the best defined deflection, but I also am not sure if there were enough data points, or if not changing the speed fast enough affected it. I'm not sure if this is MAF or that plateau we often see about 10 beats higher than the one that corresponds with the 180-age, there is a smaller plateau at 132 that might have been better defined. I wrote a thread about this phenomenon here.

                            Ginsling


                            Slowpoke

                              Just to add. I thought the longest plateau recorded on Ginslings graph was around 140ish and the best defined deflection, but I also am not sure if there were enough data points, or if not changing the speed fast enough affected it. I'm not sure if this is MAF or that plateau we often see about 10 beats higher than the one that corresponds with the 180-age, there is a smaller plateau at 132 that might have been better defined. I wrote a thread about this phenomenon here.

                              Jimmy,

                              I'm a bit confused (I'm easily confused Smile ) about "not changing the speed fast enough" - despite my lack of coordination Smile I did manage to increment every 10 secs by 0.1kph, just couldn't figure the lap thing properly (though I did manage that today)....will have another shot at this next month Wink

                               

                              I had read that thread and revisited it again because your comments there and on my MAF made me think a bit, so I devised a variation on your treadmill test.  I figured that if 132 and 142 are the two plateau ends, then holding pace steady, what would happen to HR around the median ie HR = 137?

                               

                              So I ran today for 9km just to see.  The scenario (fasted) was:

                               

                              -- hill walk with the dog for 11km (so the equatorial heat etc), followed by

                              -- treadmill (gym air con) 2km to bring heart rate up to 132 (which coincidentally was biometrically not strictly comfortable, but was doable as a running gait and not a walking gait)

                              -- treadmill 9km at steady pace not letting HR go above 137 (which it did - just as I was finishing a split, someone jumped on the treadmill next to me and ran a mad sprint for 90 secs - and my HR went straight up with the next-door runner's tempo increase and my HR recorded a max for the two splits!  The second time the person did it, I tried very hard to zone out and lower my breathing frequency - and it worked, also for the third time)

                              -- 1km warm down (probably a bit short) walk from gym to home.

                               

                              Here's what happened with the HR:

                               

                               

                              <colgroup><col style="width: 48pt;" span="3" width="64" /> </colgroup>
                              Split Avg HR Max HR
                              3 132 134
                              4 132 134
                              5 134 137
                              6 135 139
                              7 136 139
                              8 135 138
                              9 135 138
                              10 134 137
                              11 135 137

                               

                              During the run, the HR minimums per appoximate split were 126, 128, 129, 128, 128, 131, 132, 132, 129 (the watch doesn't record per split, but looking at the graph gives an idea).  Cadence was average 192, max cadence 224, min cadence 180.  Nose breathing, mouth closed.

                               

                              So referring back to your thread and the phenomenon of the HR going north after a certain period of time, I think had I kept running, it would have begun to creep up, since 8-10km is where I've had to slow down to stay under MAF HR on longer runs.  Wouldn't MAF HR be two dimensional (there's probably a thread about this somewhere too) in that it's not just going faster at MAF HR, but going further before the creep?  Quoting from your post in your other thread: "Studies on long runs show this recruitment, and it's the training of these adaptable type 2 that not only add to endurance but speed."  But what about if we are still just recruiting the Type 1 fibres (is that possible - just to recruit, by the very slow training, only one type?) - wouldn't that also have an effect?

                               

                              Please feel free to point out holes in the logic (and knowledge!).

                               

                              Thoughts?

                              BeeRunB


                                My apologies on misreading that sentence. I thought you had let go of the 10 second increments, but you had let go of the booping of your watch every ten seconds.

                                 

                                MAF is supposed to be the point just before or at where the anaerobic system gets engaged every so slightly, In Maffetonian terms that would mean the fibers that burn sugar. It's most likely the slightly adaptable type 2a  fibers that kick. You'll see a steep rise in sugar burning on a graph right after the MAF deflection point. The point of that thread was to ask the question "is MAF a heart rate range as opposed to a single HR", since I realized that the HR rose while the sugar burning remained steady for about ten beats, before kicking off skyward.

                                 

                                If in reality, it is a zone, then your experiment would be smack in the middle of it. If you see progress in your MAF tests and your body feels good, then why not use it? You can still use the calculated MAF for tests, if you wish. If you're not progressing, then maybe going back to Dr. Phil's suggestions might be in order. When I was at my peak back in 2005-2008, I used to do a lot of my volume well below the calculated MAF. A lot of it was structured like this (MAF was 140 at the time)--starting off 30 beats or more below MAF and working up to MAF-10, or to MAF at the end of a real long run. When I go to anaerobic phase, I'd still start low but let it go higher than MAF. Here's an example from my run up to my best times in races:

                                 

                                split---HR

                                12:05 106

                                12:15 113

                                12:10 114

                                13:39 115

                                12:07 117

                                12:29 119

                                12:18 119 

                                11:48 119

                                12:01 124

                                11:57 126

                                14:00 127

                                12:20 128

                                13:20 129

                                13:11 129

                                13:00 129

                                 

                                The point being that working out well below MAF didn't hurt me at all and led to my best half-marathon and marathon. I've done so much experimenting since I moved to the south, because I think I've been looking for quick ways back out periods where I got out of shape due to life getting so busy, or super mental stress. But nothing has really worked except for working below 130 bpm and much lower, and bringing just a  once a week LT tempo in after a lengthy MAF base work period.

                                 

                                This treadmill test was always designed just to see if there was HR deflection around the calculated MAF. But it's not as effective as getting an RQ test and seeing your actual sugar-burning graph. And in the end, the Maffetone Method is designed so that you can maximize your volume (find tour sweet spot for progress) and stay healthy at the same time. My success with it has always come by working out well below it. I'm going back to it, and enough with the experiments. This method takes patience. I've been lacking some the past few years.