|
So this means running with a HRM and keep your HR at aerobic level. His formula is 180 minus age. And then he does some 5 point adjustments based. For most of us that means staying below 140 to 150 HR in all our training.
Sounds like....easy runs. Which sounds like...normal base training. The only thing (if I am understanding correctly) that would be different is during a MAF style base you include no tempo runs or the like, and probably have to be careful on uphills as it's easy to jump the HR up a bit on those even at what sorta seems like the same effort.
Doesn't sound bad too me, especially if you incorporate strides in fairly regularly (which should be completely doable without spiking your HR too high).
You'll run really slow but he claims you will improve your pace at this low HR.
Why would you run really slow? 140-150 is a pretty normal, comfortable HR. If I went with his 180-age I'd be running in the upper 150's which would actually be a stronger pace than I normally run on easy runs.
As many of you know there is a fat burning zone and after that comes the carbohydrate burning zone and with even higher heart rates you get more and more of the anaerobic system in the mix until you hit anaerobic threshold.
I'm not planning on going crazy into physiology here, but this is somewhat correct, if oversimplified. To say there are "zones" is a bit misleading. The body doesn't suddenly switch from using fats to using carbohydrate, it's just that as the intensity increases greater and greater percentages of energy come from carbohydrates and at extremely high (sprint) intensities energy is actually supplied primarily from creatine phosphate.
|
The book is written by a medical doctor with a long background in both coaching and researching endurance athletes. Yes, this is basic 'base building training' and he was one of the people lying the foundations for that in the 1980s. Almost all pro athletes use low heart rate training. But most amateurs aren't aware of this. Some don't have the time for it anyway, but that's a different issue.
His book is 500 pages and I haven't read it yet. Have you? You expect me not to oversimplify?
|
My heart rate is usually low 160's on most runs. Low 170's on more intense runs. And mid 180's when tackling hills hard etc. I ran once with a HR in the low 150's and that was when I went out with my GF - it felt like a fast walk. I'm assuming it'd due to running being fairly new for me still. That said I'm not sure I like the idea of monitering HR religiously (my word, not the authors) for a training plan. I think, for me, that would mean having to stop running walk up any hill I come across.
Maybe someone can elucidate the "easy run" thing a little more for me. My understanding is that I should be building up good base mileage as I'm a beginner. To do that, injury-free and effectively, the majority of my runs should be "easy runs". To me that means a run with an intensity low enough to allow me to run the following day (even if next day is a tempo run etc.), or even the following afternoon if it happened to be in the morning. If I can run my 100k a week with the majority of my "easy runs" being with a HR in the low 160's, do you see any reason for me to slow down even more? The question is not: should I do what I'm doing or slow down and run 160k instead. I'm happy with building my milage to 100k right now and don't run more due to time, rather than injury etc.
I guess my problem with the low HR routine is based on logic, rather than medical evidence as I'm no doctor. For example: I've heard things like "running slow burns more calories, so if you want to lose weight, run slow etc." which is just wrong. Running fast obviously burns more calories. Running slow will burn more if done over a longer period of time but I've seen twisted into making people think that running for 20min at 8km/hr will burn more than running 20 min at 12km/hr. I guess the "burn zones" somewhat falls under that as well but L_Master explained that.
FYI - My resting heart rate is <60 (58 last time I check I think).
PS - Realized I may have to wait for you to buy and read the book before I get any answers! So... read fast!
|
Well check out his site. Or google his name.
High heart rate burns more calories and may improve you faster. The thing about low heart rate burning fat has nothing to do with losing weight. You'll burn more calories with higher HR . This type of training wants to condition your body to utilize burning fat as efficiently as possible.
There seems to be some logic to low heart rate training first to build only the aerobic system. Maybe it is harder to build once your anaerobic system is really strong. This may be why he and others promote it. But he says many people lack the patience for this type of training.
So according to his formula you are using too much of the anaerobic system to strengthen your aerobic system properly. It's still great for VO2max and lactate resistance. So you need to do it anyway, but later according to Maffetone and others.
His 180 formula ignores rest heart rate and only adjusts a little bit for fitness. Some people have way higher MHR than indicated by 220 formula. But his formula ignores that on purpose.
I can't tell you what is the best way to train. There's some conflicting info going around. Some cyclists swear by what they call TITS. time in the saddle. So 4 or 6 hour rides in a low enough HR. (of course has to be build up). Others swear by HIIT interval training, being able to improve VO2max which long duration low intensity can't. Others swear by doing two really hard runs a week and doing 3 or so very easy runs, and allowing for proper recovery.
So gonna read that book. Also ordered another one on the same subject. His idea of 12 weeks of low heart rate training is just a small segment of his training program and he also focuses on diet a lot, so I heard.
I think I am going to give it a try since I am quite out of shape with a 28 or so 5k time. When I did a lot of running I logged a 21 minute time for the only 5k race I ever ran. And I paced that one too slow.
So since my aerobic system is weak, it is worth to do this way of training. The stronger your aerobic system, the less results you can have. But maybe you run really slow at a low heart rate, indicating you run fast because of a strong anaerobic system. At least that's the way I understand all this.
|
Just did the 65-85% of the 220HR-age and I guess I'm still in the range, though upper range, so nothing to worry about. I fully expect that to come down in the coming weeks too.
Look forward to your thoughts after trying this.
|
On September 15 2012 06:09 caznitch wrote:
That said I'm not sure I like the idea of monitering HR religiously (my word, not the authors) for a training plan. I think, for me, that would mean having to stop running walk up any hill I come across.
I guess my problem with the low HR routine is based on logic, rather than medical evidence as I'm no doctor. For example: I've heard things like "running slow burns more calories, so if you want to lose weight, run slow etc." which is just wrong.
FYI - My resting heart rate is <60 (58 last time I check I think).
PS - Realized I may have to wait for you to buy and read the book before I get any answers! So... read fast!
My heart rate is usually low 160's on most runs. Low 170's on more intense runs. And mid 180's when tackling hills hard etc. I ran once with a HR in the low 150's and that was when I went out with my GF - it felt like a fast walk. I'm assuming it'd due to running being fairly new for me still.
160's is usually pretty high...but who knows what your max HR is. That varies quite dramatically between people.
Maybe someone can elucidate the "easy run" thing a little more for me. My understanding is that I should be building up good base mileage as I'm a beginner. To do that, injury-free and effectively, the majority of my runs should be "easy runs". To me that means a run with an intensity low enough to allow me to run the following day (even if next day is a tempo run etc.), or even the following afternoon if it happened to be in the morning. If I can run my 100k a week with the majority of my "easy runs" being with a HR in the low 160's, do you see any reason for me to slow down even more? The question is not: should I do what I'm doing or slow down and run 160k instead. I'm happy with building my milage to 100k right now and don't run more due to time, rather than injury etc.
Easy means exactly what is says. Easy. As a general rule it should be like whatever the heck your body feels like that day. For me sometimes that 8:30 pace and other days its 7:15 pace. No, it doesn't usually vary this much, but it CAN. You should really feel like you could relaxingly cruise for like 2+ hours at this pace. If it feels like running for an hour, or an hour and a half would be in any way challenging it's definitely NOT easy.
I might be nitpicking a bit, but I don't know if I entirely like your "be able to go out and run the next day thing". I could probably do a tempo run a day for quite a while and be plugging away. Or I could go out and run 6:45 pace on all my "easy" runs from now until the end of my "season" and probably be able to run the next day. Where I might eventually (key here is eventually) see it is in workouts and races my performance would start to taper off, but this can take several months not necessarily just a few days or even a few weeks.
Running fast obviously burns more calories. Running slow will burn more if done over a longer period of time but I've seen twisted into making people think that running for 20min at 8km/hr will burn more than running 20 min at 12km/hr. I guess the "burn zones" somewhat falls under that as well but L_Master explained that.
Running faster obviously burns more calories PER UNIT TIME that running slower as your flat out working harder (consuming more oxygen). Overall calorie burn though as you said is almost entirely a function of distance/time covered rather than effort. The calorie difference between 10 miles is 60 minutes and 10 miles in 100 minutes is pretty small.
The burn zones just explain where your body is drawing most of it's energy from. When your walking for instance your body isn't demanding significant oxygen and a relatively large portion of the energy can come from the (significantly) slower fatty acid metabolism. At a stronger clip fatty acid metabolism is just too slow to supply the needed energy and carbohydrates must be used. As you start to get to the more intense race paces of half marathon on down the demand on energy is much greater, and starts becoming so great that even basic aerobic respiration cannot keep up and the glycolytic muscle fibers start being recruited more heavily. Start to surpass the demands that even the glycolytic fibers provide and the body starts tapping into what amount to "pre made" ATP in the form of creatine phosphate. The energy from ATP-CP can be supplied extremely rapidly, but there is only a very limited supply (significantly less than one minute).
The BIGGEST myth that gets thrown around is that one goes anaerobic in a race because they are out of oxygen and the body needs to change to glycolysis to provide ATP. In actuality glycolysis is used because aerobic respiration on it's own is simply not fast enough to meet the energy demands of the race.
|
Here is an article Mark Allen did on this training:
http://www.markallenonline.com/maoArticles.aspx?AID=2
He won the Hawaii Iron Man 5 times in a row, for what it is worth.
This is one version of the formula:
Here is the formula:
1. Take 180
2. Subtract your age
3. Take this number and correct it by the following:
-If you do not workout, subtract another 5 beats.
-If you workout only 1-2 days a week, only subtract 2 or 3 beats.
-If you workout 3-4 times a week keep the number where it is.
-If you workout 5-6 times a week keep the number where it is.
-If you workout 7 or more times a week and have done so for over a year, add 5 beats to the number.
-If you are over about 55 years old or younger than about 25 years old, add another 5 beats to whatever number you now have.
-If you are about 20 years old or younger, add an additional 5 beats to the corrected number you now have.
Maybe you are young enough for a 170 bpm. But this is not the same as the percentages of MHR. The 'sweet spot' theory there is another one where you practice as near as possible to your functional power for your sport.
If you take the Coggan power zones, that would be between zone 3 and 4. And those percentages are percentages of your HR at FTP, not MHR:
http://home.trainingpeaks.com/articles/cycling/power-training-levels,-by-andrew-coggan.aspx
Say that your heart rate you can maintain for an hour is 165. Then zone 2 for you is 113-137 and zone 3 is 138-155. So then this low heart rate high volume approach would be at zone 2.5 as a max, roughtly as high zone 3 uses more and more anaerobic system until you actually get to your lactate threshold zone with 155-173.
It may be that only for elite level athletes this period of high volume low intensity training is what is best.
|
There seems to be some logic to low heart rate training first to build only the aerobic system. Maybe it is harder to build once your anaerobic system is really strong. This may be why he and others promote it. But he says many people lack the patience for this type of training.
There really isn't any evidence of that. I think the main aim is periodization (as a vast majority of coaches/running systems/training plans) use, with the distinct difference that under the MAF system you don't allow the HR to exceed the allowed limits at ANY point during your base.
Having not done this sort of program I can't really comment on it's effectiveness. I guess what I don't like is that it leaves no wiggle room for anything faster in ones training for a full 3 months. Maybe you can get away with strides, but that's like the absolute limit...
Which is fine, and may very well get you in great shape aerobically (again, no experience so cannot comment there) but the problem then is finding speed. A big part of running is the mechanical side, and if all you have done is slow plodding for three months even a tempo pace will be something of a shock, let alone 5k pace or faster. Basically, I could see it working for someone who isn't bounded heavily to seasons (high school XC/track, college XC/track, etc.) as their is plenty of time to transition back into speedwork and faster running but for a HS/college runner I don't think you would want to come into fall XC having done nothing but slow runs for the past 3 months.
Hopefully the book will have more to say when you get a chance to read it, but I really don't understand why their is no allowance for high end aerobic work (paces almost up to 20 min LT type tempo). Their is so much aerobic benefit to these runs over a base building phase and it seems odd to not allow such runs to be incorporated, either intentionally or spontaneously. Really curious to hear his rational.
I can't tell you what is the best way to train. There's some conflicting info going around. Some cyclists swear by what they call TITS. time in the saddle. So 4 or 6 hour rides in a low enough HR. (of course has to be build up). Others swear by HIIT interval training, being able to improve VO2max which long duration low intensity can't. Others swear by doing two really hard runs a week and doing 3 or so very easy runs, and allowing for proper recovery.
Anybody worth his salt does all three of those. Long easy and long steady runs are important to any distance athlete, without the endurance you cannot succeed. Speed without aerobic support cannot be sustained. But at the same time you can't run fast without...running fast. The 2 really hard runs/wk is basically the same thing as interval work. The classic "cookie cutter" XC/Track training plans generally involve one short interval session per week, one long interval session per week, and an easy-to-moderate long run.
So gonna read that book. Also ordered another one on the same subject. His idea of 12 weeks of low heart rate training is just a small segment of his training program and he also focuses on diet a lot, so I heard.
I'm quite interested to here what he has to say. Be sure to share it with us!
Say that your heart rate you can maintain for an hour is 165. Then zone 2 for you is 113-137 and zone 3 is 138-155. So then this low heart rate high volume approach would be at zone 2.5 as a max, roughtly as high zone 3 uses more and more anaerobic system until you actually get to your lactate threshold zone with 155-173.
The lactate threshold is really about the level where anaerobic metabolism starts coming into play significantly. It's the point at which hydrogen ions/lactate begin to readily accumulate in the body (you can see this if you plot lactate [], there is a point where the slope notably increases). Anything below LT has a very minimal anerobic/glycolytic involvement. Anaerobic involvement continues to increase as you move to paces faster than LT.
|
Got 46:37, well under the 50 minute goal.  Pretty satisfied for a first 10k ever (including casual/practice runs). I think I could have run under 46 if I had started at a proper place, but I got to the venue not as early as I should have and started in the very back with the walkers (There were about 2500 people). The first mile or so was a bit frustrating trying to zig zag around a bunch of people or just getting stuck running slowly behind them.
|
Goal Race: 5k Mid November
Next Race: 9/29 5k
Finally over being sick this week! Felt nice to run without feeling sluggish, stuffed up, and headachy.
Mon: AM - 2.75 slow (8:20) / PM - 4.5 slow (8:15)
Tues: PM - 4 easy (7:35) / PM - 8x200 w/ 1:30-3:00 recovery
Wed: AM - 3.5 easy (7:55) / PM - 3.4M HILLY tempo (6:23) + 2x800m @ 5k effort
Thurs: AM - 4 slow (8:20) / PM - 6 easy (7:20)
Fri: AM - 6.5 slow group run (8:10) / PM - 6.5 (7:25)
Sat: AM - 3.5 easy (7:40) / PM - 3 easy (7:40)
Sun: AM - 5k race + 3WU/CD / PM - 6 easy (7:55)
Total: 68
200s Really wanted to do like 12x400 at mile pace with long recovery, but there was a football game at the track so I had to settle for 200s (parent/fans lined other side). First 4 were 200s in 34-35 w/1:15-1:30 jog recovery, next 4 were faster (33, 32, 31.5, 31) with like 2:00 min walk rest. Decent for turnover but not really the workout I intended to do.
Tempo+ Tempo was great again. Cruisin at 6:20 ish average pace over a route with MAJOR hills. Was able to keep it smooth and under control the whole way, never working or straining at any point. Just fast, smooth effort. 2x800m was just to try to hone in a bit on that 5k intensity.
Sunday 5k - VICTORIOUS! Even got to do a little winners interview which was cool. First mile was out relatively easy intensity (between 10k-tempo) since I didn't get a chance to warm up (went to the wrong park LOL). Someone was still on my tail but seemed to be working hard, so I cranked it up and went pretty solid the next mile and by the time I looked back he was behind several hundred meters. Kinda shut it down for the last mile and cruised home for the win.
Final result of 19:14, but nearest I can tell the course was about 3.25 miles, which converts to around 18:20s for 5k. A solid early season effort in which I was definitely far from maxed out. Legs DEFINITELY need more speed though. That middle mile felt like I was really running fast, which isn't exactly the feeling you want in a 5k.
|
going for a 6km interval run tomorrow, gotta squeeze a few more runs out before the snow comes >.<
|
So I ran a half marathon this weekend ^^
Ran a 2:00, which I think is pretty good considering the pacer I was following got us lost and added somewhere between 1.2 and 1.5 miles to our route. I was aiming for an eight minute mile through the whole think with a bit extra for whathaveyou, and I got ridiculously close. I'm pretty happy with my results.
At the end of the thing, my legs were shot, but I was barely winded. For training, I've been running 25-30mpw at that same pace. For next time, I want to do a 7.5 minute pace,and preferably not have legs that are toast by the end of it. What's the best way to do that? More miles at a 7.5 minute pace? Same miles faster? Add some sort of chasing dinosaur to my workout routine?
|
|
|
On September 17 2012 07:33 ghost_403 wrote:
So I ran a half marathon this weekend ^^
Ran a 2:00, which I think is pretty good considering the pacer I was following got us lost and added somewhere between 1.2 and 1.5 miles to our route. I was aiming for an eight minute mile through the whole think with a bit extra for whathaveyou, and I got ridiculously close. I'm pretty happy with my results.
At the end of the thing, my legs were shot, but I was barely winded. For training, I've been running 25-30mpw at that same pace. For next time, I want to do a 7.5 minute pace,and preferably not have legs that are toast by the end of it. What's the best way to do that? More miles at a 7.5 minute pace? Same miles faster? Add some sort of chasing dinosaur to my workout routine?
Just gradually build up your mileage. Increase about 10% every 2 weeks or so as long as it feels okay. Add in one long run per week of about 25% of your total weekly mileage. Run at a fairly easy pace for all your runs and just focus on comfortably building up your mileage. Do this for a while and you will get faster. Then if you want to you can start adding in some workouts.
And if you're going to use a dinosaur use a triceratops.
|
That's cool! I'm jealous of you living in Colorado though. It's one of THE places to be for distance running. A buddy I ran with just moved there. You two should hang out and run.
|
On September 17 2012 15:39 AirbladeOrange wrote:That's cool! I'm jealous of you living in Colorado though. It's one of THE places to be for distance running. A buddy I ran with just moved there. You two should hang out and run.
If he is in the Springs...sure, why not!
And yea, Colorado is pretty freakin great for running. Can be super competitive too, as their are tons of good to elite runners around here. Sometimes though the number of races almost gets so big people get spread thin. One week you line up in a field where maybe 2-3 guys could break 18, and then the next your toeing the line next to Robert Cheseret and Augustus Maiyo.
|
Starting a diet and c25k tomorrow morning wish me luck!
|
Nicely done! Love the your non-committal response to "are you happy with your time?"
"It's the first race of the season."
Spoken like a true champ!
I finally converted your weekly training into min/km and have realized that I'm still in denial when it comes to doing easy runs. I'll try to set my watch to warn me if I'm speeding in the future.
|
On September 17 2012 22:28 minimat wrote:Starting a diet and c25k tomorrow morning wish me luck!
what kind of diet, and how's your physical condition right now?
good luck!
|
Did a nice midnight run in the rain yesterday for 4 km, averaged around 4:37, which was pretty good for me
Did a mountain hike today for 2.5 hours, definitely getting my cardios these days: a nice and refreshing change
edit:
What I really like about running is that I can do it at any point of my day as it's a lot easier to schedule than going to the gym given my work hours, and it's something I can make myself do even if I am super tired or sleepy, so it's a lot easier to train.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
