Low HR Training

1

Is RHR related to MAF values? (Read 302 times)

    For example, would MAF be influenced significantly by either a very high, or a very low (35) RHR? I determined my MAF by: 180-61+5=124. My runs so far have averaged 125-128 MAF & one at 120. (65-70% MHR 180 = 117-126.) Another determination of MAF (by Hadd, Part VI) suggests it would be 132. That seems like a significant difference to me. Confused I don't want to hurt any aerobic base training, so I'm thinking I should stick with the lowest recommended number to be "safe", right? BTW, Mark Allen's formula recommends 129 MAF - sort of a high average of these three methods. Which MAF# do you think is best for me to use? Thanks for any advice! Bill

    "I can do 440 in 220"    Half Fanatic #846    "90% of running is half mental"    If I collapse, please pause my Garmin

     


    run-easy-race-hard

      For example, would MAF be influenced significantly by either a very high, or a very low (35) RHR? I determined my MAF by: 180-61+5=124. My runs so far have averaged 125-128 MAF & one at 120. (65-70% MHR 180 = 117-126.) Another determination of MAF (by Hadd, Part VI) suggests it would be 132. That seems like a significant difference to me. Confused I don't want to hurt any aerobic base training, so I'm thinking I should stick with the lowest recommended number to be "safe", right? BTW, Mark Allen's formula recommends 129 MAF - sort of a high average of these three methods. Which MAF# do you think is best for me to use? Thanks for any advice! Bill
      Hi Bill! I think you'll get some good info from slowgino and long run nick here in particular, but first I would say that at 61 (what I ascertain from your equations above) you're above the scale to where you would want to be too strict on the Maffetone equations. I would say Mark Allen's and Hadd's should work just fine for you and being just 3 beats apart, that's close enough. (Use Allen's as a target, but splurge with Hadd occasionally!) Resting heart rate doesn't really factor in because it has little to do with your profile of burning fat vs heart rate. Of course you're safe with the lowest estimate because that will give you the highest level of fat burning, but you may not need to be so conservative.
        Thanks Jesse - That answered my question about my MAF. Sounds like I'm fine staying anywhere in the 120's really. BTW - A short progress report: since I started LHRT just 4 weeks ago, I was able to go from being kinda stuck on 10-11 mile long runs to a LR of almost 16 miles right away using LHR with no trouble at all and felt good afterward (knees were slightly sore, but probably just from getting used to this slower running). I noticed I had significant cardiac creep (?) the last 3-4 miles, but this should improve with more time. I'm now classifying all of my runs, no matter the length, as "easy runs" until I'm out of the aerobic phase. Also, my weekly mileage is increasing as is the number of days running - I guess I'm not wearing myself out like I was before!! I'm tracking my data, but there's still too much variation to detect any solid trends - maybe in another 4 weeks... Bill

        "I can do 440 in 220"    Half Fanatic #846    "90% of running is half mental"    If I collapse, please pause my Garmin

         


        run-easy-race-hard

          Sounds like a good approach - glad you've been able to get through the brick wall on distance that was there before!