Low HR Training

12

Newbie Question: Running at MAF - Interpreting "Want Speed? Slow Down!" (Read 34 times)

SD_BlackHills


    Hi guys,

     

    I have a few very basic, but critical, questions that hopefully someone can shed some light on.

     

    In Maffetone's white paper titled "Want Speed?  Slow Down!" he asks the question:  "What's the best heart rate for aerobic training?"  He then follows that up with "One effective way of finding an optimal heart rate for aerobic training - called the maximum aerobic heart rate" and then introduces the 180 formula.

     

    He then goes on to instruct the following (my interpretation now, not exact quotes):

    1.   For Training - Running between MAF - 10 and MAF, while staying as close to MAF as possible.
    2.   For Testing - Run at MAF exactly.

    Now here is a summary of what I believe that I know and understand the message is here, please correct me if I'm wrong:

     

    • I'm interpreting the "Maximum" in Maximum Aerobic Function to mean "best" or "optimal", not "highest".  In other words, this is the best heart rate to run at, not necessarily the highest.  Is this correct?  
    • The more we run at MAF, the more efficiently we build our aerobic engine.  In fact, if we could somehow run at MAF the entire time outside of warmup and cooldown periods, that would be the absolute ideal workout.  Therefore, the target heart rate is MAF.  Is this correct?
    • A range of MAF - 10 to MAF is defined as the training range, while staying as close to MAF as possible (again, the target must be MAF).  This would imply that MAF - 11 is too slow to be building our aerobic base as efficiently as we would like.  Is this also true?
    • Now, if the target is MAF and MAF - 11 is too slow, then what is too high???  I can't find anything in the white paper that specifically defines a heart rate that is too high.  However, if you are training at a target of MAF and testing at a target of MAF, it seems that the assumption would be that MAF+1 is too high.  Is this correct?

    I have a few issues understanding why MAF+1 is too high.  If MAF is actually the best heart rate to be training at, then it's very hard for me to believe that MAF+1, +2 or even +3 suddenly is damaging the progress of the aerobic engine's development.  I also don't think it's possible to hit a target without slightly overshooting it multiple times over the course of a workout.  If the true target is MAF, then I would expect to naturally drift above and below it throughout the course of the workout.  Hitting the target would be impractical without going into the danger zone.  Following that procedure, would either be your best possible workout or somewhat damaging.  I'm trying to understand which it is.

     

    It would just seem natural to me that if the target is MAF (defined as the best heart rate for aerobic training), that a few beats above or below it would be a great, if not ideal workout.

    Hilltopper72


    Hilltopper

      Hmmmm.  Well, in my brief experience I think that it really has to do with how you feel.  I know that when I "nudge" I struggle and get tired.  I don't mean as in I'm breathing hard, I mean more that I am not comfortable.  My legs might get a bit tired, my calves might be uncomfortable, etc.  I think based upon a lifetime of over-training we might not know what it feels like.  I think anywhere in the MAF - 10 is a fantastic zone and you should be able to feel it.

      BeeRunB


        During the base building phase it's the highest or the ceiling. As for going below the 10 beat range, it's fine. You'll still be building the aerobic type 1 fibers and mitochondria. I've made great progress in the past using ranges as wide as MAF -25, and have increased aerobic running speed during periods of just walking. Working out at MAF engages some type 2 fibers the longer you go, the kind that can become more aerobic.

        SD_BlackHills


          Ok, thanks but I'm still confused.  I have no doubt that you can increase your aerobic base by simply running slow.  I thought the whole point of the Maffetone MAF Method was to find the optimal HR to run at to absolutely maximize the aerobic engine base building process.  He claims with conviction that the MAF HR is the best effort to run at, unless I'm grossly misinterpreting his paper.  If it's the optimal effort, it can't also be ceiling, can it?   It's hard for me to visualize the body being that binary in that regard.

           

          I was hoping that maybe someone would chime in who has tried it both ways with MAF Test results.  In other words, did MAF Test results improve dramatically faster by doing training runs at MAF vs. MAF-25?  Perhaps MAF-25 never gets you to the same heights that pure MAF running would?  Maybe, running at MAF is actually worse because you are blipping over it every day?

           

          Just a sidenote, but RunnersConnect preaches that you should do most of your running "easy" to build an aerobic base but also cautions against going TOO slow.  It has something to do with capillary, myoglobin and mitochondria development that each tend to maximize at a certain effort level.  Too hard of an effort and it falls off and too easy of an effort and it falls off.  Makes sense.  They urge very strongly to run to "pace" and give a calculator to get that easy running pace range (of about 40 seconds).  Inputs to the calculation are the time you ran in your last race, age, resting heart rate, etc.  What's interesting was, I plugged my data into the calculator and nearly every mile I run - probably more than 90% (not counting warmup/cooldown) is within the pace range that they recommend.  I've been running almost exclusively between MAF-20 and MAF-10.  I would suspect that if I were to run at MAF that it would be faster than the easy running range recommended by RunnersConnect.

           

          Personally, I just see too many problems to running in a pace range.  As I improve, I won't be speeding up.  Also there is no way to really account for over-effort in adverse conditions (hills, wind, humidity, snow, ice, puddles, mud, heat, etc).

           

          To summarize, in my quest to put 2 and 2 together from multiple sources, it seems like erring on the side of too slow isn't bad.  But it also is probably far from ideal.  Maffetone seems to imply in his paper to avoid going too slow just as RunnersConnect does.  He puts a lower limit of MAF-10 and says to stay as close to MAF as possible.  He must have done that for a reason.  I'm going to run this next week as close as possible to MAF exclusively and see how I feel and what happens.  Unfortunately I don't have any MAF Tests done yet.  They finally opened the local tracks in town but the wind has been howling every single day since.

          BeeRunB


            I've read everything by Maffetone, have all his books. Listened to many podcasts. Read stuff by Mark Allen, etc....one must remember how Maffetone came about this formula and how he got into being an overtraining doctor and a coach. He worked with broken down athletes. Almost all of them that came to him had been training too much at high intensities or overdoing the volume. They had succumbed to the more, more, more, faster, faster, harder, harder belief system. As he worked with these people, using observation of gait and gas exhalation tests (RQ), he found there was a certain intensity at which not only did their gait change, but the sugar-burning increased rapidly all of a sudden. This indicated that the sugar-burning anaerobic system was kicking in. He ended up calling this the MAF. It's a deflection point on a graph. Here is a gas test that I took and i shows my MAF:

             

            -1

            The MAF is 142 as you see a plateau in sugar-burning, then a steep rise. I'm burning the same amount of sugar and fat from 130-142 bpm. Then the anaerobic kicks in and the sugar-burning increases.

             

            Dr. Phil learned over time that his clients would start to heal up if they stayed at or below MAF. They would would also get faster at the same HR, only if they used MAF as a ceiling. A beat or two over as the heart rate fluctuates would be okay, but only for a short blips. If they didn't stay honest with themselves and allowed themselves to go over, they wouldn't heal, and eventually would regress in speed at MAF (aerobic speed). Arthur Lydiard also observed that if his runners ran too much of their volume anaerobically, their endurance wouldn't develop and would also tend to run into injury and OT problems. They both believe(d) that running anaerobically creates biological byproducts that will impede aerobic development over time, depending on the volume and duration. Dr. Phil says some can get away with hanging out a little over MAF, but for most who come to the method because they're tired of injury, overtraining, and not doing well in races, they can't. Not until they've built a sufficient aerobic base.

             

            MAF training is not just aerobic work, and Dr. Phil has had a chapter in all of his books about anaerobic work. In Maffetonian terms, anaerobic work is any intensity above your MAF. He found that there was no difference between someone working out at 90% MHR or 95%+MHR, in terms of the sharpening effects on speed. If you look at at my graph, you can see that once I hit my anaerobic threshold (AT), I hit 100% sugar (fully anaerobic) pretty quickly. In my own experiments, I found that I do fine during my anaerobic sharpening period if I stay around AT, and just do a brief tempo run once every week or two. But if I do too much over that, I run into problems like insomnia, OT, and aerobic regression at a certain point.

             

            Dr. Phil has written that some of his athletes got so fast at MAF (like Mark Allen and Mike Pigg), that training all the time at MAF became too stressful. They would then work out below MAF, and do what he called "aerobic intervals." The hard intensity interval would be at MAF, and the lower intensity would be 10 beats or more below.

             

            "Stressful" or "stress" is one of the keywords in this training. Managing the effects of chemical stress is what it's about. The total load of stress=training+life stress. He saw that when an athlete was going through abnormally high stress in her or his life, their aerobic speed would regress. They would have to cut the volume of training in order to get back on track. If they didn't, they would often enter a state of overtraining. Overtraining is the result of hormonal stress, exhausted adrenals. A hard and long workout produces the same stress hormones as mental stress. I can attest to this. I've been through 3-4  periods of major stress in the last eight years, and have had setbacks in aerobic speed each time. I managed to stay healthy by cutting back on running.

             

            So, this method is about managing the total stress. Those who "cheat" during the base phase and go over run the risk of returning to OT and injury. Those who are patient and give themselves whatever time it takes to build the base will ready themselves for a good racing season. Introducing anaerobic work to a solid base will improve aerobic speed as well. Adding it to a poor base will cause regression almost always at some point, and sooner rather than later.

             

            Now, this can all seem complicated, and it's easy to overthink, but it's very simple. The key is your MAF tests, or the state of your aerobic speed. Follow this:

             

            --periodize. Have an aerobic base period. Stay at or under MAF. It's okay to run wide zones of 10+ beats below MAF. You'll get to know yourself. You'll eventually know where your aerobic speed has to get to in order for you to start racing again.

             

            --Do regular MAF tests. If you're regressing, then adjustments have to be made (note: sometimes when someone first starts out in MAF, there will be regression for a few weeks, most likely due to the tired aerobic fibers that are suddenly getting a lot of attention).

             

            —when you've built a sufficient base try some anaerobic work, staying at or below 90% MHR.

             

            —after racing awhile, if your times start to slow and your MAF tests begin to regress, rest and return to aerobic base work.

             

            —always listen to your body. If you're developing minor injuries, feeling exhausted all the time, etc. --rest, cut volume, return to base work

             

            It's that simple. It's what Mark Allen did during his best years.

            SD_BlackHills


              Wow, good info.

               

              Interesting graph.  The hard slopes beyond the plateaus create some questions for me.  It looks like you have a 12 bpm sweet spot that Maffetone was likely interested in that zone since it was a pretty safe area to stay in heavy fat burning zone without rapidly increasing sugar burning.  It does beg the question, why didn't he just tell us to target the middle of the plateau?  That would prevent your natural HR drift from taking you up that steep cliff.  In your case, if you run at MAF = 142, you're bound to burn more sugar than you'd like and therefore not get the most benefit of running reasonably fast while still training your body to burn a lot of fat.

               

              I have a question for you.  Do find that during workouts, if your heart rate does drift into one of those zones on the graph with a steep slope, does your heartrate want to tend to accelerate quickly to the next plateau?  I'm curious because I have 2 weird effects that happen to me that maybe this graph can explain:

              1. I'll be plodding comfortably along and suddenly will have my HR spike by 10 or more bpm.  It's as if I switched gears without warning.  
              2. My heartrate will sometimes shift down during periods of extreme comfort about 5 bpm so I speed up.  I can go pretty fast for a long time but I have to be careful or that spike will then occur.  

              Appreciate any feedback.  Hopefully a few other lurkers here can learn from this too.  Fun conversation Smile

              BeeRunB


                Well, if he's recommending an MAF-10 zone, then it's pretty much the same thing. Anywhere in there will accomplish the same thing.

                 

                As for your spike. If it's not a HR monitor blip, then it's either you sped up, something added stress to the run like a small rise or wind, or you've exhausted your fibers and the type 2 are being recruited to help, or you've become dehydrated. If it's not any of those, then it's possibly an electrolyte or heart problem of some kind.

                 

                I'll see a marked increase in heart rate at the same pace on a treadmill at around 2 hours. Which coincides with studies out there that after two hours at an aerobic pace, the body will start to recruit anaerobic fibers to help maintain pace. This raises HR. Most elite marathoners don't run too much over two hours when they train. They can cover 20 miles easy in that time. Ultra runners are a different story of course.

                SD_BlackHills


                  "As for your spike. If it's not a HR monitor blip, then it's either you sped up, something added stress to the run like a small rise or wind, or you've exhausted your fibers and the type 2 are being recruited to help, or you've become dehydrated. If it's not any of those, then it's possibly an electrolyte or heart problem of some kind."

                   

                  Definitely not the HRM.  I say that because I can easily walk my HR down.  I just can't resume running without it going right back to 150-170.  Plus I can feel my breathing coming from my chest and not my stomach.  Even though I still feel good, something has physically changed.  Once my breathing returns to normal, I can run again.

                   

                  By looking back at the logs, I'm never speeding up dramatically enough for it matter.  There is always some change in elevation as I go though.  I think it's most likely accumulated fatigue.  Since I've started MAF'ing, I've been putting in WAY more time than ever before.  I have way more energy than ever before, therefore I want to run more.  I've been taking one day off a week which is different each week (I skip the worst weather day).  On Saturday's I run for 1:30+ and Sunday's I run 2:30+.  Maybe that's my real problem.  Perhaps these HR runaway events, when they occur,  are cues to take a few days off.

                   

                  Before MAF'ing I would run 3 to 5 days a week.  And because I was running much faster I would cover the ground in way less time.  I didn't know that elite marathoners don't go much over 2 hours.  That makes total sense.  I assume that time on your feet is probably a better metric for fatigue than speed (I'm guessing).

                  BeeRunB


                    Have you tried running the same duration of a run on a treadmill at the same exact pace? I find it strange that you're breathing changes as well as your HR rising so rapidly.

                     

                    How long is the run? After how long does it happen? Does it happen after the same amount of time every time?

                    SD_BlackHills


                      I avoid the treadmill like the plague typically.  But I could try that for the sake of learning something.  What speed and time duration would you recommend?

                       

                      This HR runaway event has happened to me 3 times in the last 3 weeks, once per week.  I was just discussing this with a friend and he said it happened to him recently and he just took his watch off, put it back on and the problem was gone (same brand but different model).  So maybe I should try that next time too.

                       

                      In all 3 cases it was windy.  So that may have played a factor.  One was 73 minutes in.  One happened on a long slow incline of 1 to 2% grade at 36 minutes.  I was able to run at normal pace again at 82 minutes.  The other was the day after an extremely hilly run so my legs were sore.  This also happened 36 minutes in.  Odd coincidence?  They were on different trails.

                       

                      Thoughts?

                      BeeRunB


                        A treadmill experiment will remove all the variables of outdoor conditions that might be causing the spike in HR and breathing (which can even include power lines). You should run at the same intensity or pace as normal. If the same thing happens indoors in terms of your breathing, then it's your body. HR spikes can happen indoors, but they're much more rare.

                         

                        Do you have any splits from these runs? Something like the following from one of my runs on a TM run at the same pace showing how the HR drift progressed in 70ºF. I was in my best shape at the time:

                         

                        Time...HR

                        12:38 105

                        11:45 115

                        11:45 115

                        11:45 115

                        11:45 117

                        11:45 120

                        11:45 122

                        11:45 123

                        11:45 124

                        11:45 126

                        11:45 128

                        11:45 129

                         

                        I just want to see if you're experiencing a jump in HR at the same pace, and how much.

                        SD_BlackHills


                          A treadmill experiment will remove all the variables of outdoor conditions that might be causing the spike in HR and breathing (which can even include power lines). You should run at the same intensity or pace as normal. If the same thing happens indoors in terms of your breathing, then it's your body. HR spikes can happen indoors, but they're much more rare.

                           

                          Do you have any splits from these runs? Something like the following from one of my runs on a TM run at the same pace showing how the HR drift progressed in 70ºF. I was in my best shape at the time:

                           

                          Time...HR

                          12:38 105

                          11:45 115

                          11:45 115

                          11:45 115

                          11:45 117

                          11:45 120

                          11:45 122

                          11:45 123

                          11:45 124

                          11:45 126

                          11:45 128

                          11:45 129

                           

                          I just want to see if you're experiencing a jump in HR at the same pace, and how much.

                           

                          Yes, I have lots of data.  I'm not sure how to share it in a meaningful way.. I have lots of data points in which I can pick out instantaneous pace, grade, cadence, heart rate, etc.  In your example here is that HR the average over that mile split?  Or are the discrete data points?  Just by looking over a graph of a recent run that I selected at random, the HR drifts along with grade as well.  Unfortunately, my runs are far from pancake flat so maybe just a series of discrete data points that includes the grade?

                          BeeRunB


                            It's the average HR for the 11:45 split or mile.

                            SD_BlackHills


                              It's the average HR for the 11:45 split or mile.

                               

                              Ok, here is this morning's run, broken down in that fashion.  It happened again!  At 57:45 mark, my heart rate was suddenly reading close to 170.  This time, I walked, removed my layers of gloves (it was 8 deg wind chills), took the watch off, put it back on, and suddenly I was getting normal numbers again.  So I resumed jogging.  Anyway, here are the averages today.  Keep in mind it was cold, windy, slippery and no pancake flat areas with some fairly steep spots.  Despite all of that, I felt very, very good!  Nice and easy.

                               

                              Objective: 2 hour run @ range from MAF to MAF-10 (146 - 136)

                               

                                        Time      HR

                              Mile 1:  10:40     117

                              Mile 2:    8:32     138

                              Mile 3:    8:19     138

                              Mile 4:    8:15     139

                              Mile 5:    8:42     142

                              Mile 6:    8:40     140

                              Mile 7:    9:34     138  (This is the mile that I stopped to adjust the watch)

                              Mile 8:    8:29     139

                              Mile 9:    8:12     141

                              Mile 10:  8:51     142

                              Mile 11:  8:56     141

                              Mile 12:  9:16     141

                              Mile 13:  8:31     140

                              Mile 13.2:  11:25    130

                               

                              Thanks for all the help, Jimmy!!!

                              BeeRunB


                                SD, it really sounds to me like it's the watch. If your heart doesn't feel like it's racing faster and your breathing isn't labored, then it must be the watch blipping out as watches will do. Have you tried taking your pulse manually for 10 seconds when this happens (the multiply by six)? If your pulse is truly 170 when this happens, then it's not the watch.

                                 

                                You have surprisingly little HR drift, which indicates either good aerobic development or low body fat and good heat dissipation, or a combination.

                                12