Dumb MAF question

[Agnesd]

I thought I read something about this somewhere, but I can't find it now ...

I've been reading all the info on MAF that you all post, and I got the book and have started reading it. I get the idea, and have been trying to keep my heart rate in a certain range, but for the first time in a while I got more strict with it today. I am still finding it very difficult to keep it in range. By age (37) I should keep my heart rate about 143, so I've been aiming for 140-150. To do that, I am going REALLY slow, so slow I'm not going to admit to it. I have to do a LOT of run-walk-run, and when I download my Garmin my heart rate graph looks very much like a saw blade instead of any kind of wave form.

Is this normal? Do I just keep at it? I gave up a while back on trying to keep my heart rate that low because I didn't feel like I was actually doing enough running, so maybe that's my problem?

 

[NickW]

and this is what I hate about MAF. I tried for 3 months and did every run at the MAF hr. By the end of the 3 months I was actually about 5 min/mile slower, but I could run about 7-8 miles farther than I could at the start. I think it's up to the person and their perception of faster...

 

[NickW]

and I mean what is faster for you, not for anyone else.

 

[Last Place Jason]

Maf is just a convenient way to measure long, slow distances as a means of building an endurance base. The idea has been used for years as a staple of the long distance running crowd. It IS effective, but the early stages are maddening. Personally I question the "don't go anaerobic" thing. I do pretty much all Fartlek runs and do pretty well on Maf tests. The take-away: Don't worry about following the Maf heart rate all the time. I think too many people get caught up in the limitations of Maf and prematurely end the base-building. It's no different than a diet- if it's too strict you're not likely to stick with it.

 

[Sid]

Is this normal? Do I just keep at it? I gave up a while back on trying to keep my heart rate that low because I didn't feel like I was actually doing enough running

I'm no expert on MAF, nor on running, but I thought I'd give it a try since I wanted to run a bit more frequently to burn off a few pounds. I'd imagine it could be a bit frustrating for those who like speed. I run in the early morning, so it's dark, and quiet, and there's almost no one around. It's peaceful and meditative, so I dig it. I don't know if I'd like it as much, if it was during the busy, noisy, daytime, when I'm more awake, alert, and energetic.

Five runs in, I think it's helping. This morning, I was in thought, not paying much attention to running, just on autopilot. Knocked off a minute/mile from the 1st run. (I previously used a HRM years ago, but I did the first run this time with my old HRM, just to dial it in. The last four runs, I did by feel/exertion/breathing. So just a some nice easy jogs.)

Day to day things might change. A few times in the past, I've woken up early, felt good, and gone for a PR. So perhaps the pace should fit the venue, energy level, and mindset? As a recreational runner, that seems to fit me better.

 

[Bare Lee]

Personally I question the "don't go anaerobic" thing.

I think even Maffetone says it's alright to do some anaerobic weights, as long as you don't do them to failure. Others have questioned the science behind his reasoning. Still others have said that the heart rate calculation can vary by 25 beats a minute or more depending on the individual. Anytime you apply an exact number to human physiology or biomechanics, it should be taken as a guideline, not a rule, it seems to me. And then there are those who recommend the opposite of Maffetone, and say that all your workouts should be HIIT. For me, whenever I'm trying to make sense of conflicting training protocols, I ask: what do the pros do? They usually have something like a 80-20/70-30 ratio of long easy runs to some kind of speedwork (fartleks, tempo runs, intervals). In the end, run the way that keeps you wanting to run and you'll improve no matter what. If covering three miles in a hour is your idea of a good time, then the Maff method might be for you!

 

[shaunmac]

I don't do any kind of heartrate training, but reading these Maf posts piqued my interest. I just thought it was interesting my last few runs on a treadmil, I had the speed set the same, and at about the same point in each run I grabbed the HR sensors......one day it was 145 bpm, one day it was 138 bpm, and one day it was like 154 bpm. Same pace, different days.....just thought it was interesting.

 

[ThomDavid]

While I'm certainly no expert on MAF running, I do think it's important to remember that the intention is to train the body to burn fat (nearly unlimited as a source of energy for most of us) instead of glucose (a finite supply in all of us). Once the body can do that, my understanding is that speed can be achieved at a lower HR effort, thus increasing overall endurance and running efficiency. I get the underlying theory, and it makes sense when I think about it, but the only way I can prove or disprove it is to test it out myself. We're all an experiment of one, after all.

 

[Agnesd]

I get the underlying theory, and it makes sense when I think about it, but the only way I can prove or disprove it is to test it out myself. We're all an experiment of one, after all.

True, every person is different, and all we can do is experiment on ourselves until we figure it out. I am totally willing to do so. I understand the idea of MAF, but just want make sure I'm not completely screwing it up somewhere along the way.

 

[migangelo]

agnes, don't worry. you likely will screw it up. we all do. i do it because it's an easy way to measure what pace i should run to stay aerobic. no calculating, divining, or guessing. simple subtraction.

do a maf test right away to know where you're starting. keep BELOW your maf number of 143. it will be hard, at first. Maffetone says himself if it doesn't frustrate the hell out of you then you're doing it wrong.

you can lift weights or do body work but not to failure, at least not in the aerobic phase. do a test once to twice a month. when you start getting slower change phases. either to anaerobic or back to aerobic. the test is the best way to know what phase you should do.

only took me nearly a year to figure it all out. i still have more to know but i have enough info for me.

good luck.

 

[Agnesd]

agnes, don't worry. you likely will screw it up. we all do.

Well, if I know ahead of time that I'm gonna screw it up, that makes it much easier. I'm still reading the book, so I'll just learn as I go and muddle my way through. Thanks for the advice.

 

[Bare Lee]

While I'm certainly no expert on MAF running, I do think it's important to remember that the intention is to train the body to burn fat (nearly unlimited as a source of energy for most of us) instead of glucose (a finite supply in all of us). Once the body can do that, my understanding is that speed can be achieved at a lower HR effort, thus increasing overall endurance and running efficiency. I get the underlying theory, and it makes sense when I think about it, but the only way I can prove or disprove it is to test it out myself. We're all an experiment of one, after all.

I couldn't agree with you more Thom, and that's why I can't see how the Maff makes sense, for me. I have tested this out on myself. I've engaged in aerobic activity a lot in my life, including a two-year stint traveling by bicycle (carrying gear, replacement tires and parts (axles, cables, bearings), food, and water), in which I averaged eight hours a day in the saddle (my longest ride was close to 16 hours in the saddle). My ability to burn fat effectively always steadily improves, whether I'm doing high-altitude hiking, cycling, or running, with no heart monitor! All you have to do is let your body decide what a sustainable pace is. It'll let you know because if you exceed it, you will get fatigued. A very effective monitor indeed. When you're up around 16,000-20,000 feet altitude for example, all you can do is take baby half-steps; anything more and you'll stop in your tracks. But if you keep hiking at that altitude, even for just a few days, you'll find your body adapting and soon you can take slightly longer steps.

As for running, I'm not sure where I'm at right now, because I'm making rapid progress with speedwork, but my aerobic pace was around 10mm fairly recently. If I do that I can run forever, except my legs aren't yet conditioned enough to do that more than 90 minutes. The theory behind speedwork (one should entertain other theories before concluding one or the other makes the most sense), is that it trains your body to recruit more muscle fiber, which in turn will make your long and slow runs more energy-efficient. This is what the pros do.

So my conclusion is yes, you will get results with the Maff method, many people have. My question is whether or not you'd get the same results just as fast or quicker using another method: either long, slow runs determined by your own sustainable pace, or the one that pro endurance runners use most in their training. Since we're all samples of one, you will never be able to compare your progress with yourself doing something else. Hence my motto: follow the collective experience of the pros. But even more important than this is: follow your bliss. Chose the method that most suits the style of running you enjoy most, since there are so many conflicting theories out there.

 

[ThomDavid]

So my conclusion is yes, you will get results with the Maff method, many people have. My question is whether or not you'd get the same results just as fast or quicker using another method: either long, slow runs determined by your own sustainable pace, or the one that pro endurance runners use most in their training. Since we're all samples of one, you will never be able to compare your progress with yourself doing something else. Hence my motto: follow the collective experience of the pros. But even more important that this is: follow your bliss. Chose the method that most suits the style of running you enjoy most, since there are so many conflicting theories out there.

One of the precepts that I've always followed when it comes to "what works," whether it be running, exercise in general, diet, whatever, is to try to have something measurable against which I can judge my progress. I didn't start out using a heart rate monitor, for instance; I judged my progress strictly by how far or how long I could run, and figured that as my mileage or time increased, I was getting better. And there was a certain amount of truth to that.

I put on my first HRM about 17 years ago, and I have to tell you I was shocked by what I found. Forget the ultra-slow MAF pace; just using the old 180-age calculation, or other, more accurate ways of calculating heart-rate max, I found that I was just working too hard, too often. So, I decided that I would follow a program of slower paced runs, the pace determined by staying within a given hr aerobic range. Well, I improved my endurance and speed within weeks. Of course, I was running shod then, so I also got injured more frequently. Go figure.

My feeling is that the majority of runners (or people just working out to get fit) have little to no idea if what they are doing is actually going to help them achieve whatever goals they've set. I see folks at the gym all the time, working out on the stationary or recumbent bikes or the treadmill, and I know that what they're doing is either way too hard (and hence, way too short in duration), or more often, way too slow, and so, unlikely to show substantial improvements, increasing the likelihood that they'll give up before the magic happens. That's really sad, because I know from experience that if they were to use a gauge like a hr monitor, they might realize that they don't have to work quite as hard, or, maybe just a little bit harder, but they'd see positive effects from their efforts and thus be more inclined to stick with it. And I agree that perceived-rate-of-exertion is likely just as good a determinant as heart rate monitoring, but again, I try to look at things from the perspective of someone just getting started with an exercise program and ask myself: what is the simplest way to give them good biofeedback so that they'll see improvements more quickly, thereby increasing the likelihood that exercise will become a lifelong habit. I have a real passion for this, because, on a societal level, we just can't sustain the trajectory of lifestyle-born illness, and think it's important to get people into the door and keep them in the room, where they are then free to debate the merits of this method or that, because all the while THEY'RE STILL MOVING!

MAF training intrigues me as a measuring method, and to see if even more extreme slowing would actually achieve the results claimed, so I'm willing to give it a few months of my running life, particularly here at the beginning barefoot stages. My opinion of the entire Maffetone method isn't quite as charitable, as I happen to think that his dietary advice isn't very good, so I leave that part alone. Since I'm not 20 with visions of blistering speed in my head, I can be a little more sanguine about that aspect of my running.

Sorry for such a long-winded response, but it's great to be able to discuss these sorts of things with people who are as passionate and committed to this way of life. I train on my own, so don't really get to have these sorts of discussions except in my own head. Thanks for giving me a spark to carry me through the day, Lee!

 

[NickW]

One of the precepts that I've always followed when it comes to "what works," whether it be running, exercise in general, diet, whatever, is to try to have something measurable against which I can judge my progress. I didn't start out using a heart rate monitor, for instance; I judged my progress strictly by how far or how long I could run, and figured that as my mileage or time increased, I was getting better. And there was a certain amount of truth to that.

I put on my first HRM about 17 years ago, and I have to tell you I was shocked by what I found. Forget the ultra-slow MAF pace; just using the old 180-age calculation, or other, more accurate ways of calculating heart-rate max, I found that I was just working too hard, too often. So, I decided that I would follow a program of slower paced runs, the pace determined by staying within a given hr aerobic range. Well, I improved my endurance and speed within weeks. Of course, I was running shod then, so I also got injured more frequently. Go figure.

My feeling is that the majority of runners (or people just working out to get fit) have little to no idea if what they are doing is actually going to help them achieve whatever goals they've set. I see folks at the gym all the time, working out on the stationary or recumbent bikes or the treadmill, and I know that what they're doing is either way too hard (and hence, way too short in duration), or more often, way too slow, and so, unlikely to show substantial improvements, increasing the likelihood that they'll give up before the magic happens. That's really sad, because I know from experience that if they were to use a gauge like a hr monitor, they might realize that they don't have to work quite as hard, or, maybe just a little bit harder, but they'd see positive effects from their efforts and thus be more inclined to stick with it. And I agree that perceived-rate-of-exertion is likely just as good a determinant as heart rate monitoring, but again, I try to look at things from the perspective of someone just getting started with an exercise program and ask myself: what is the simplest way to give them good biofeedback so that they'll see improvements more quickly, thereby increasing the likelihood that exercise will become a lifelong habit. I have a real passion for this, because, on a societal level, we just can't sustain the trajectory of lifestyle-born illness, and think it's important to get people into the door and keep them in the room, where they are then free to debate the merits of this method or that, because all the while THEY'RE STILL MOVING!

MAF training intrigues me as a measuring method, and to see if even more extreme slowing would actually achieve the results claimed, so I'm willing to give it a few months of my running life, particularly here at the beginning barefoot stages. My opinion of the entire Maffetone method isn't quite as charitable, as I happen to think that his dietary advice isn't very good, so I leave that part alone. Since I'm not 20 with visions of blistering speed in my head, I can be a little more sanguine about that aspect of my running.

Sorry for such a long-winded response, but it's great to be able to discuss these sorts of things with people who are as passionate and committed to this way of life. I train on my own, so don't really get to have these sorts of discussions except in my own head. Thanks for giving me a spark to carry me through the day, Lee!

Such a great and well reasoned response ! I always like reading the different sides to types of training. I tried the Maf method for 3 months like I said above, and I started out at the Maf hr with a pace of 12:30/mile, by the end of the 3 months my pace with the same Maf hr was up to 17:20 I think. I did not get any faster and in fact got slower and slower and slower. My distances though nearly doubled in that time though. I do think there is some benefit to this method and I still like to incorporate slow Maf hr paced runs into my workouts, but for me I find it very dreary and boring and painful (literally painful) to run that slow all the time. Now a days I tend to make most of my runs more fartlek'ish and just run by feel. If I feel like speeding up for a little bit, I do. If I feel like slowing down, I do. If I need to stop and stretch or massage a muscle and work out a knot, I do. I have hills everywhere I turn so I always have some sort of hills to run and very little of flat ground which makes running with this style much better for me. It's kind of funny, but I am finally starting to feel much better again.

 

[Bare Lee]

One of the precepts ... Thanks for giving me a spark to carry me through the day, Lee!

First of all, I (and probably Nick) appreciate another long-winded contributor. Makes me feel less embarrassed. And I also appreciate a commitment to civility when different opinions are offered, and enjoy these debates quite a bit, in part because I don't have to adopt the same level of competence or evidence as I do in my own work. I can relax and write off the top of my head. It's a relief.

Second, I think you've hit the nail on the head. The Maff method is probably best for (1) overtrainers and (2) for people just starting out, when it can serve as an imposed limit to make sure one builds up slowly. But when you consider that the Mayo Clinic, which is well-respected world-wide, full of top-notch docs, has established a desirable heart rate a full 40 beats-per-minute higher than Maff (220-age versus 180-age), well, you do have to wonder just a bit. A friend gave me his old heart rate monitor last fall. I used it once for running and once for rowing. When I was running at my perceived aerobic threshold or a bit lower, I was within Mayo's suggested range, but above Maff's. Same with rowing. The heart rate monitor told me nothing I didn't already know, when using the Mayo Clinic's formula. I haven't used the monitor since. Of course, I've done a lot of different physical stuff in my life and I realize not everyone has this kind of background and so may not be able to perceive their level of exertion accurately, as you've pointed out. For them something like the Maff method may be best, but I still kind of doubt it. In any case, for me, it makes no sense. And then when I hear a guy like you who can run faster than me wants to run slower, I really don't get it . . .

But it's all good fun, and you obviously have a good basis for judging this experiment, so I'll shut up now and wish you all the best. I look forward to hearing how it goes and am quite happy that you and others have recently started contributing to the mileage forum more. I really like hearing about other people's runs, routes, and routines.

 

[Sid]

I just thought it was interesting my last few runs on a treadmil, I had the speed set the same, and at about the same point in each run I grabbed the HR sensors......one day it was 145 bpm, one day it was 138 bpm, and one day it was like 154 bpm. Same pace, different days.....just thought it was interesting.

I've used those built-in sensors before on machines. My impression is that they're not very reliable. I've had a HR chest strap on and compared them once, and the strap was more consistent. The machine also seemed to vary throughout the run.

 

[Bare Lee]

For what it's worth, here are two more counterarguments to strict low-heart-rate training:
http://coachdeanhebert.wordpress.co...iles-at-low-heart-rate-build-a-better-engine/
http://jp.physoc.org/content/575/3/901.short

 

[PKFFW]

Something to keep in mind about Maff training, and pretty much any low HR training, is that it is predominantly geared towards building an aerobic base. Speed is really a secondary concern and comes as a result of better efficiency in your aerobic conditioning. If you already have a decent aerobic base you may find that strictly low HR training of any kind is not going to be of much benefit to you and you will need to be doing some type of speed work mixed in on a regular basis, whether from races or tempo runs or fartleks etc etc.

There are many articles out there dealing with how to determine if you have a decent aerobic base. The basic idea is to compare your times and pace over various distances such as 5km, 10km and 1/2marathon. Obviously your pace will drop over the longer distances but it should do so in a regular and predictable way. As a general rule, if you can run a decently fast 5km and maybe even a good 10km but your pace totally bombs out on the 1/2marathon distance then you have a poor aerobic base. If your 10km pace is drastically slower than your 5km pace then your aerobic base is even worse.

Maff is just one method of training to improve your aerobic base. There are others as well and everyone should experiment until they find a method that suits themselves and they enjoy enough to continue with. And of course if you have no interest in running longer distances but only in running faster shorter distances then you are probably wasting your time with low HR altogether.

 

[Bare Lee]

And of course if you have no interest in running longer distances but only in running faster shorter distances then you are probably wasting your time with low HR altogether.

The Kenyans start fast and then add distance. They are world champs in endurance running. For those that base their training on anecdotal evidence, that should be enough. Further, there is no science supporting Maf training, and pure LSD, Lydiard-type training is out-moded among elites, or even HS athletes. It's mainly for recreational runners who want some justification for running at a very slow comfortable pace where none is needed. If you like it do it, I agree, but don't kid yourself that there's any scientific evidence supporting it as the best way or as one equally good way among others to build an aerobic base. If you look into it (i.e., read beyond Maffetone, read science, read about elite protocols) I think you will reach the same conclusion. It's essentially a quality versus quantity argument (summarized nicely in the first link posted in my last comment). Research also shows that mileage volume not pace is the main determiner of runners' injuries. There is simply no reason to run really slow unless you enjoy it or are not yet capable of running faster. When in doubt, listen to pros, not gurus! Gurus make their money by selling novel ideas. Pros make their money by adopting the best training protocols and winning.

 

[JosephTree]

For what it's worth, here are two more counterarguments to strict low-heart-rate training:
http://coachdeanhebert.wordpress.co...iles-at-low-heart-rate-build-a-better-engine/
http://jp.physoc.org/content/575/3/901.short

Lee, where do you find this stuff?! More to the point, how can you put your finger on it when it's needed? That's amazing!