The "M-word" again
- Thread starter chuckcwall
- Start date
That was precisely my point. Since the science behind any protocol is debatable (although not, perhaps, as much as you describe), why subscribe to one that frustrates/challenges you so? Especially one for which the main claim to validity is the scientific reasoning behind it (which reduces all performance to one variable--VO2max, as indexed by heart rate), and not, for example, the practical fact that x amount of trainers/pro endurance runners subscribe to it? To an outside observer, it appears more a commitment based on faith rather than reason or practical experience.
On the other hand, if this protocol has worked for you and/or is something you enjoy doing, as is the case with DNEChris, then it makes perfect sense to subscribe to it. Or if you simply enjoy the challenge of seeing if you can make it work for you, I can dig it. I'm doing the same thing with my 'Kenyan' protocol, although I enjoy the process too; it simply feels good for me to vary my runs--whatever benefit I get from doing so is secondary.
That's all I'm trying to say, and that's perhaps the kind of feedback Chuck was looking for.
Thanks everyone! At this point, I am leaning towards mixing it up with more different kinds of workouts, really just for the sake of enjoyment. But I will read the Maffetone book when I get a chance.
I suppose I should speak up in defense of "science," since I currently make my living as a scientist (marine biologist). Mike, I do understand your frustration with some science (and some scientists). It is vulnerable to the influences of money and ideology, just like every human endeavor. But when done properly, science gives us a great chance to learn something real about the natural world. And...I am confident that the science of biomechanics will validate a large chunk of what we already practice in barefoot/minimalist running.
I suppose I should speak up in defense of "science," since I currently make my living as a scientist (marine biologist). Mike, I do understand your frustration with some science (and some scientists). It is vulnerable to the influences of money and ideology, just like every human endeavor. But when done properly, science gives us a great chance to learn something real about the natural world. And...I am confident that the science of biomechanics will validate a large chunk of what we already practice in barefoot/minimalist running.
Chuck,
i've been taking a lot of science classes the past few years and have a couple more to go. ya, it's frustrating to say the least. all these blurbs released by the media as gospel and then when you read the parameters, jeez. the experiments would've been better run by teenagers. that's why i said people need to learn to read scientific data to understand what they're trying to say.
Lee,
even maf says if you're not getting frustrated you're not doing it right. i want a challenge. you like everything easy? i know you don't. i enjoy it. i get more frustrated with me continuously blowing the base that i build. the pieces i've read on Kenyans is they train pretty similar to maf method, just no technology. train low, race high.
live long and prosper for the geeks.
may the force be with you for the cool guys.
i've been taking a lot of science classes the past few years and have a couple more to go. ya, it's frustrating to say the least. all these blurbs released by the media as gospel and then when you read the parameters, jeez. the experiments would've been better run by teenagers. that's why i said people need to learn to read scientific data to understand what they're trying to say.
Lee,
even maf says if you're not getting frustrated you're not doing it right. i want a challenge. you like everything easy? i know you don't. i enjoy it. i get more frustrated with me continuously blowing the base that i build. the pieces i've read on Kenyans is they train pretty similar to maf method, just no technology. train low, race high.
live long and prosper for the geeks.
may the force be with you for the cool guys.
Chuck, a good place to start looking into the science of running biomechanics and physiology is: http://www.scienceofrunning.com/p/archive.html.
Let me know if you're interested in a few more references and I'll PM them to you.
Mike, I suspected as much; you enjoy the challenge.
I don't know where you're getting your info on modern training protocols, Kenyan or otherwise, but no matter, I'm eternally grateful to you and Jen for cluing me in to the importance of trigger points and self-massage, sometime last summer. That, and rereading Jimmy Hart's insightful article on TOFP, showed me how to cure myself of my longstanding tendon soreness (referred by tight shin muscles).
Just being the common runners we all are. I think programs like MAF or following how the Kenyans train can be fun to follow in one's regime, but I would say they work more for the elite runners. I was once in a Kenyan stage as well, trying to read everything about them, training, etc. then reality hit me and I was like what I am doing? I'm not saying "we" will not see results from programs like this, but since running is not our full-time job, it's hard putting 100% into a program without getting side tracked from work, family, etc. Well for me at least, running is a hobby not a job.
Ryan Hall just left to train for the Kenyans, how cool is that!
Ryan Hall just left to train for the Kenyans, how cool is that!
Yah, I intended the Kenyan case more as a counterexample to the MAF protocol. I read somewhere (Coach Dean's blog?) that they train 35-40 percent of the time at threshold. And Ryan Hall has also recently lowered his mileage, from 120 mpw to 100 mpw, to incorporate more 'quality' runs (I think he said twice a week), trading easy-paced volume for faster-paced effort. It's the trend. Even Lydiard runners trained a lot at threshold, it was never 'just like' the MAF method. OK, my reading in this stuff has been superficial at best, but I looked and looked, and you just don't see anyone mention MAF training on the pro-type running sites.
I think the value of looking at what the pros do is not so much to emulate exactly what they do, but to help guide us through all the guru-type stuff on the web these days. For example, the Soc Doc gains an in with the Paleo and BFR crowd and tells them to stop stretching. OK, I ask, have the pros stopped? Do NFL linebackers do newfangled functional fitness or traditional weights or some combination of the two? There are millions of dollars and careers at stake at the pro level, so I assume they're generally staying on top of the latest research and constantly looking for new techniques or practices that will give them an edge over the competition. When people who need to be strong for a living stop doing deadlifts, I will too.
Still, when I say I've adopted a "Kenyan protocol" of course I don't mean to suggest I'm training at a pro level. My running abilities and goals are even humbler than yours. What I mean is that I'm working on pace first, then distance, which is apparently what the Kenyans do. The idea is to train your neuromuscular system to become more efficient before you build up your aerobic capacity. I stumbled on this method before reading about it when I realized last spring how much better my form felt at slightly faster paces. At 10 mm pace and slower, I feel plodding. Between 8-9 mm pace, my form starts to feel smooth. So I prefer to run fartleks or short tempo runs until my aerobic capacity catches up and allows me to sustain those paces for longer. When I run consistently, I can usually knock off about 20 seconds per mile per month, or better, using this method. Even if one concentrates on distance first, I think just maintaining a sustainable pace without any concern about heart rate will lead to gradual improvement in pace over time. That's how it worked for me with cycling anyway, when, 20 years ago, I rode 100 miles a day for two years (with breaks of course). The improvement came naturally, no need to think about it.
Hi Chuck,
I can't add anything on Maff, but I will say that almost all of my barefoot running has been at slow paces. If I can block "speed envy" out of my mind, it has been quite enjoyable. On the other hand, it gets to the point of not wanting to be out running all day or being last place in a race, so a balance needs to be found. Like others have mentioned, try something different if you are getting extremely frustrated, running should be fun.
Also, great post about science. It is hard not to get frustrated with these current barefoot studies out there, but in time, they should get better.
My son is currently interested in your field. He is in his first year at Utah State University and hopes to move to a coast school in the future.
Hey Chuck,
Tuck just posted this interview over on Barefoot Ted's forum. You might find it interesting.
Okay, now my thought on mixing it up. Why not try it and see (but Maffetone would suggest adding anaerobic work will set you back a bit) When I did my Now Resolution I also started following the beginners' routine on NeoCalistehnics.com. Now I am not going to claim causation. However, I have noticed my MAF speed has increased more than it did when I was following MAF exclusively. My wife and I are using a 1.6 mile run just outside our apartment door as a standard measurement. In the last three weeks I have dropped two minutes off my completion.
NickW
Guest
I do have a question Alejandro. Now, you'd been off running for awhile due to a new baby right? So is it possible that maybe you are just getting back in shape just from exercising in general? I'm just curious because I know a lot of things get attributed to one specific thing, when actually there was multiple things added, like exercise along with MAF along with NeoCalistehnics... Maybe I am just misremembering though and thinking about another new parent on here.
No Nick, you are correct. I did take time off after her birth, but my improvement holds up when I look back on my notes from August through early October.
Lee,
all life is a challenge. i've read things here and there. as i understand it you skim. bit of a difference.
. i'm not miserable doing it and i don't follow it blindly. you and others asking me questions have given me a deeper understanding as to why i do it. too much stress in the modern world. training low helps to clear out the stress hormones so the body adapts better and can handle when i throw more at it.
i've seen good results. i just keep blowing it by racing too much and being over stressed. it doesn't help that i wasn't very active growing up so i am building an aerobic base from zero. i'm thinking i will skip all these popular races this spring and focus on building my base. something all methods, AFAIK, recommend.
i selected this method because it's the easiest to follow. after doing algebra, chemistry, and physics i don't want to go figure out my VO2 or lactate threshold. 80% of my max effort. what's my max? passing out? this is just subtract and go, sometimes. ha! you have to hold back a lot, at first.
ok. i hope i'm done this time. someone save this so i don't have to repeat it again next year for a newbie or when Lee starts getting sometimers.
ciao
all life is a challenge. i've read things here and there. as i understand it you skim. bit of a difference.
. i'm not miserable doing it and i don't follow it blindly. you and others asking me questions have given me a deeper understanding as to why i do it. too much stress in the modern world. training low helps to clear out the stress hormones so the body adapts better and can handle when i throw more at it.i've seen good results. i just keep blowing it by racing too much and being over stressed. it doesn't help that i wasn't very active growing up so i am building an aerobic base from zero. i'm thinking i will skip all these popular races this spring and focus on building my base. something all methods, AFAIK, recommend.
i selected this method because it's the easiest to follow. after doing algebra, chemistry, and physics i don't want to go figure out my VO2 or lactate threshold. 80% of my max effort. what's my max? passing out? this is just subtract and go, sometimes. ha! you have to hold back a lot, at first.
ok. i hope i'm done this time. someone save this so i don't have to repeat it again next year for a newbie or when Lee starts getting sometimers.
ciao
as i understand it you skim.
Skimming is selective. It's an active form of reading--actually takes more effort than slavishly reading every word. You have to be able to track the larger argument at all times. Most academics become good at it. Some stuff you read every sentence twice, swirl it around in your head like a fine wine, and take notes after every other sentence. Some stuff you just need the highlights. It depends on what you're looking for, and who you're reading. You're reading textbooks now, right? I would suggest you continue reading every word. Textbooks are summaries of other people's research. They're essentially pre-skimmed. The running stuff I read every word, because I have no background in it (although I was a pre-med biology student in the remote past). Anyway, if you think my cursory tour through, and conclusions about, running protocols are off, I invite you to present counter-evidence, although I know neither one of us really wants to get that involved.
i'm not miserable doing it and i don't follow it blindly. you and others asking me questions have given me a deeper understanding as to why i do it. too much stress in the modern world. training low helps to clear out the stress hormones so the body adapts better and can handle when i throw more at it. i've seen good results. i just keep blowing it by racing too much and being over stressed. it doesn't help that i wasn't very active growing up so i am building an aerobic base from zero. i'm thinking i will skip all these popular races this spring and focus on building my base. something all methods, AFAIK, recommend.
More power to you. I admire your commitment, I really do. Since the first time we interacted on this stuff, I've never directly addressed your particular maf practice. I'm only responding to others who are frustrated by it. I feel a certain responsibility to let them know there are alternatives for getting to the same place that they may find are more enjoyable. I've never tried to dissuade you, Chris, or Robbi, or anyone else from using a method you enjoy. I continue to think you're wrong about the definition of callus, but that's another story . . .
i selected this method because it's the easiest to follow. after doing algebra, chemistry, and physics i don't want to go figure out my VO2 or lactate threshold. 80% of my max effort. what's my max? passing out? this is just subtract and go, sometimes. ha! you have to hold back a lot, at first.
Actually, if you re-read what I wrote above, you'll find the three run variations I practice are all done by feel--no need for numbers or gadgets whatsoever!
ok. i hope i'm done this time. someone save this so i don't have to repeat it again next year for a newbie or when Lee starts getting sometimers.
I agree. In my second comment, the first time I mentioned you, I described your maf practice in positive terms. I only engaged you when you questioned the validity of my comments. I think in the future, you could just let my comments stand, and I'll let yours stand, and whoever is posting questions can make up their mind by themselves. I'm not looking for converts, or an argument. I just want to share what I've learned in case it helps. I'm really digging my new varied approach, and would've appreciated hearing about it sooner. Likewise, if someone says they're feeling awkward adherring to 180 cadence at 11mm pace, I'll feel somewhat obligated to say that that's normal, because the original 180 and above figure was derived from observing elite runners running more than twice as fast. It should not be read as an attack on those who have found success running with a consciously high cadence.
Skimming is selective. It's an active form of reading--actually takes more effort than slavishly reading every word. You have to be able to track the larger argument at all times. Most academics become good at it. Some stuff you read every sentence twice, swirl it around in your head like a fine wine, and take notes after every other sentence. Some stuff you just need the highlights. It depends on what you're looking for, and who you're reading. You're reading textbooks now, right? I would suggest you continue reading every word. Textbooks are summaries of other people's research. They're essentially pre-skimmed. The running stuff I read every word, because I have no background in it (although I was a pre-med biology student in the remote past). Anyway, if you think my cursory tour through, and conclusions about, running protocols are off, I invite you to present counter-evidence, although I know neither one of us really wants to get that involved.
i'm not miserable doing it and i don't follow it blindly. you and others asking me questions have given me a deeper understanding as to why i do it. too much stress in the modern world. training low helps to clear out the stress hormones so the body adapts better and can handle when i throw more at it. i've seen good results. i just keep blowing it by racing too much and being over stressed. it doesn't help that i wasn't very active growing up so i am building an aerobic base from zero. i'm thinking i will skip all these popular races this spring and focus on building my base. something all methods, AFAIK, recommend.
More power to you. I admire your commitment, I really do. Since the first time we interacted on this stuff, I've never directly addressed your particular maf practice. I'm only responding to others who are frustrated by it. I feel a certain responsibility to let them know there are alternatives for getting to the same place that they may find are more enjoyable. I've never tried to dissuade you, Chris, or Robbi, or anyone else from using a method you enjoy. I continue to think you're wrong about the definition of callus, but that's another story . . .
i selected this method because it's the easiest to follow. after doing algebra, chemistry, and physics i don't want to go figure out my VO2 or lactate threshold. 80% of my max effort. what's my max? passing out? this is just subtract and go, sometimes. ha! you have to hold back a lot, at first.
Actually, if you re-read what I wrote above, you'll find the three run variations I practice are all done by feel--no need for numbers or gadgets whatsoever!
ok. i hope i'm done this time. someone save this so i don't have to repeat it again next year for a newbie or when Lee starts getting sometimers.
I agree. In my second comment, the first time I mentioned you, I described your maf practice in positive terms. I only engaged you when you questioned the validity of my comments. I think in the future, you could just let my comments stand, and I'll let yours stand, and whoever is posting questions can make up their mind by themselves. I'm not looking for converts, or an argument. I just want to share what I've learned in case it helps. I'm really digging my new varied approach, and would've appreciated hearing about it sooner. Likewise, if someone says they're feeling awkward adherring to 180 cadence at 11mm pace, I'll feel somewhat obligated to say that that's normal, because the original 180 and above figure was derived from observing elite runners running more than twice as fast. It should not be read as an attack on those who have found success running with a consciously high cadence.
