NickW
Guest
Stating this kind of stuff Lee, I'm waiting for you to be crucified....
I personally agree wholeheartedly with you on it, but I know there are a lot of others on here that do not at all.Dumb MAF question
- Thread starter Agnesd
- Start date
I personally agree wholeheartedly with you on it, but I know there are a lot of others on here that do not at all.
Well, research is supposedly my trade. But mostly it's my obsessive-compulsive disorder at work, along with the power and convenience of the internet. What used to take hours in a library to find can take just a few minutes at home/ in the office. When something doesn't make intuitive sense, or goes against my own experience, I need to investigate it until I'm somewhat satisfied. This can be very inefficient and distracting, but it's the only way I can operate--I'm not a very disciplined scholar. I only wished I would've investigated my top-of-the-foot-pain more thoroughly sooner. The answer was right in front of me, so to speak, on my shin, and in Jimmy Hart's excellent explanation, which I read in June or July of 2011, and then promptly ignored when the doc said it was a stress reaction.
Anyway, I'm glad you appreciate the links. I feel like I'm a bit of a bore with all this, but I'd like folks to read the counterarguments before committing to something. I'll try to shut up now. And, whatever the truth of the matter, I do firmly believe that we fitness/recreational runners should do what we enjoy, first and foremost, since consistency is the biggest factor in improving over time. Then look into the science of it as interest is piqued. I just happen to find this stuff interesting, but at the same time I'm trying my best to get back to the 'just run' approach, since my instincts and budding knowledge seem to be dovetailing at the moment.
I should add, JT, that you're one of the ones who have been emphasizing quality versus quantity all along, and this has been a very good influence on me!
I guess I'll head them off at the pass and simply state that the counterarguments are out there. Look into them and see what one thinks. Or better yet, find evidence that contradicts Coach Dean's summary. P.S., I'm not bringing this stuff up to be argumentative. I just think it's worth being aware of, no matter what one ends up deciding is appropriate for their running.Stating this kind of stuff Lee, I'm waiting for you to be crucified....
NickW
Guest
Lee, you're kind of freaking me out, we are way too similar. Another who obsessively compulsively researches crap... I have a bad habit of this (really irks my wife yet at the same time she loves it when she needs help finding some info) and have wondered how to turn this into a career.
NickW
Guest
Oh and as far as the career, my wife officially told me I am not allowed to become a taste tester at one of the local breweries...
Man, was a nice dream till I was told I can't have it anymore...
You could still become a distiller like 7ships. Hats off to him for finding the perfect job.Oh and as far as the career, my wife officially told me I am not allowed to become a taste tester at one of the local breweries...
Not worth the argument!
I do what I enjoy and works for me and you do the same - but they are different.
No problem - it's a very catholic church!
Thanks Chris, that's the wholly spirit in which the links were proffered; read around, find what works for you, but don't take the first thing one comes across as God's truth. I also don't mean to suggest that technical reading is necessary to good or enjoyable running--it's just something I enjoy. I just feel a little responsible to point out the counterarguments when someone is curious. I'm not interested in un-converting the faithful.
Wow, such a heated response to a single, admittedly badly worded, sentence. Specially for someone who seemingly has no interest in un-converting anyone. I'm not a convert of Maff, I'm using his style of training now because it suits me and I enjoy it. I'm never going to be a pro runner so see little point in attempting to emulate them. One thing I do agree with you on is that there are many different ways to skin a cat, so find what works and you enjoy and stick with it until you don't enjoy it anymore then move on.
I read the article you linked to after I posted last time and it was interesting. I'm no scientist so I'll take his word for it. All I have to say on it is, admonishing others for anecdotal evidence, as he does, and then turning around and saying "a runner once told me he could have run faster if he used my methods" seems a bit at odds. There was also a lot of "a study I read" or "another study says" without any citations. Admittedly he does say in the comments that he isn't trying to give the science verbatim and therefore doesn't quote it and does mention a couple of authors to read but a simple footnote referencing each study he has seen would lend more credibility to a coach who obviously has a barrow to push just like anyone else.
Apologies if my tone came off as aggressive. I was trying to be funny, but it's true I'm probably overly invested in this. Also, I write in a curt, choppy style when I'm writing hastily--either that or run-on sentences. When I have time to edit I add in qualifications and once in a while even smiley faces but we Minnesotans tend to favor dry humor and irony.
Anyway, I agree it's unfortunate that Dean's summary didn't include any citations. I liked the link because it's about the only place where the info has been summarized so succinctly. The research he summarizes can be found all over the net on running and research sites. I should try to put together a list myself. He also addresses a lot of objections in the comments section.
But it's true, I do object to the smug tone of some Maf adherents, and I was reacting more to that than anything in your comment. They think you just don't get it, but I do get it. It's not that complicated. But you look at what serious endurance runners do, and you find that few if any follow the method any more. In fact, the trend now is to do speedwork even during the base-building off-season.
Anyway, I'll shut up now. Happy trails!
Anyway, I agree it's unfortunate that Dean's summary didn't include any citations. I liked the link because it's about the only place where the info has been summarized so succinctly. The research he summarizes can be found all over the net on running and research sites. I should try to put together a list myself. He also addresses a lot of objections in the comments section.
But it's true, I do object to the smug tone of some Maf adherents, and I was reacting more to that than anything in your comment. They think you just don't get it, but I do get it. It's not that complicated. But you look at what serious endurance runners do, and you find that few if any follow the method any more. In fact, the trend now is to do speedwork even during the base-building off-season.
Anyway, I'll shut up now. Happy trails!
Why thank you, sir!
There is always the tension between being in the moment of the run and permitting goal oriented future thinking to intrude. I believe that there can be a balance somewhere in there. I have 3 races in the next few weeks which are tilting me toward results driven running. I will resist. I have found that even in my best races I savor the running and tend to burble to whoever's running in my vicinity about what a fine thing it is to run so.
No worries. Tone and nuance of meaning can easily be lost on the internet.
And my wife goes for the Vikings so I guess you can't be all that bad if you hail from that way.
A list of recent research in the area would be great. Even better if some of that research can be easily understood and put into a training plan.Bare Lee said:
I admit in hindsight the sentence you quoted probably does seem like a Maff convert being smug but I didn't intend it to be that way.Bare Lee said:
I guess I'm just not convinced that running always in the anaerobic zone is going to train the aerobic zone all that well. Specificity of training is probably a foundation we can all agree on. One doesn't build big muscles by lifting the smallest weight they can 500 times. One doesn't learn to sprint the 100m as fast as they can by running marathons. etc etc etc. Maybe I'm way off base but it stands to reason that one would not train ones aerobic system by always running in their anaerobic zone. By always running in their anaerobic zone it would seem to me they are training their anaerobic zone to the max. It is my understanding that it is quite possible to run a marathon entirely within the anaerobic zone and I would guess this is what the fast professional marathoners are doing. They have trained their anaerobic zone to have the capacity to do this. I on the other hand will never train hard or long enough to achieve that level of proficiency in the anaerobic zone.
Also, you mention doing what the pros do and I don't know of any pro endurance athlete that does most of their training as fast as they can or even the majority of their training high into their anaerobic zone. Again, I'm not on the cutting edge of pro athletics but from what I know the vast majority of pro endurance athletes follow something along the 80/20 rule doing 80% of their training at the upper limit of their aerobic zone and 20% into their anaerobic zone. Oh, and not too many of them are doing any racing or much training barefoot.
Also, not that I expected you to know this already but just for the record, I have acknowledged in other threads that the idea of doing no anaerobic work at all during base building seems to be a uniquely Maffetone idea.
First of all, I really did not intend to open the proverbial can of worms with this. My intention was to post those links and then have people make of them what they will. I am not in a position to defend other people's research, although I do think I'm pretty good at sifting through what's out there, given the minimal time I've put into this.
Second, I think you have too strict of a conception of aerobic versus anaerobic running. Sprinting for 100 yards or less is close to purely anaerobic running, anything above that involves both. Ultras would be the opposite extreme, involving close to purely aerobic running. Try to hold your breath for 2 hours and 10 minutes and you'll see that it would be quite impossible to run a marathon purely anaerobically (OK, OK, I realize the brain would suffocate too, but you get my point).
In any case, and third, the question at hand was how to build one's aerobic base. We both know the Maffetone prescription. I was pointing out that that is not, apparently, what pro endurance runners follow, at least not anymore. As we've both pointed out (see my comment above) they use something like a 80/20 or 70/30 or even, lately, a 60/40 ratio of LSD to speedwork (speedwork here defined as basically anything above a LSD pace, and may involve Bilat's 30-30 protocol, traditional intervals, tempo runs, race pace runs, etc.). And note that LSD runs can still be very aerobic at 25-40 beats per minute above the Maf guidelines, that is, at what most of us would perceive as an comfortable level of exertion (i.e., at a nose-breathing, conversational pace). Barefoot running has nothing to do with this (although having no extra weight at the end of the legs is more efficient, this may be counteracted by whatever advantage shoes confer in negotiating surface textures--I think the jury's still out on that one).
Fourth, the ability to run at one's lactate threshold is apparently the best physiological predictor of performance, not heart rate, as indexed by VO2max. So, not surprisingly, pros spend a fair amount of time training at lactate threshold, and don't worry too much about their heart rates. True, they're pros and have learned to read their bodies very well. For beginners, or for those who don't have much of a background in sports, a heart rate monitor might be useful in getting feedback on how much one is exerting oneself. For me, it's completely redundant. I have a pretty good idea of what a sustainable, aerobic pace is for me.
Finally, as for training plans, you might try something like what I've been doing recently: three times a week = one LSD run, one tempo run at about 60% LSD distance, and one intervals and/or hills run. Four times a week, add another LSD run. Five times a week, add a short recovery run after your longest LSD run. Also, I'm thinking of experimenting with paces ('the basics' of running), using a pace calculator. So, for example, if you can run 6 miles at 9 mm pace, you should be able to run one mile at less than 8mm pace. Ok, so try to run six one-mile repeats at 7:30mm pace, with walking breaks in between. Stuff like that. My approach is pretty loose, and this is all pretty new to me, so I'm experimenting, finding what works, but most importantly, finding what I enjoy. I happen to enjoy varied running. The fact that this is what pros do is secondary. A lot of people like running the same routes at the same pace and just zoning out. That's cool too, and that's the way I used to run when I lived in Chicago.
Anyway, if you're interested in this stuff I think a quick search of google or a running site will turn up good material. I didn't have to look too hard. I'll try to post some links but my recreational bookmarks are a mess and I don't think I've bookmarked too many of the things, particularly research articles, as opposed to running sites, that I've come across--it will be just as easy for you to find this stuff yourself. It's all pretty standard now, which is part of the reason I get a little flummoxed (or is it miffed?) when people keep bringing up the Maf stuff over and over again. Quality is winning out over quantity. It's the new religion . I'm not a racer, and have no immediate plans to race, but I've found it a great relief to learn that (1), you don't have to run long and slow all the time to improve your aerobic base, and (2), running faster does not increase your chance of injury--in fact, the opposite may be true. With this in mind, I thought it was important for others to hear the same news, in case they, like me, enjoy running a bit faster from time to time but thought it was some kind of no-no. That is all. I wasn't trying to tell anyone how to run.
Oh, I guess I should also mention that my initial motivation for increasing my pace was that I became convinced that I run with better form at faster paces, which is part of the reason it's also more enjoyable. I was at 10-10:30 mm pace for longer runs, but felt much smoother at 9mm pace and lower. I can report that one month after incorporating speedwork last spring, I knocked at least 30 secs off my pace (I wasn't using a Garmin at that point, so I'm not sure exactly how much was trimmed), and now again, in September, I knocked off another 30 seconds after returning to speedwork, without really even training that hard! I'm pretty sure I can get down to my goal of 8mm pace or below over an hour's run within another few months with my current regimen. Once I get there, I may back off a bit on the speedwork, who knows?
Go Vikes! Skol!
Second, I think you have too strict of a conception of aerobic versus anaerobic running. Sprinting for 100 yards or less is close to purely anaerobic running, anything above that involves both. Ultras would be the opposite extreme, involving close to purely aerobic running. Try to hold your breath for 2 hours and 10 minutes and you'll see that it would be quite impossible to run a marathon purely anaerobically (OK, OK, I realize the brain would suffocate too, but you get my point).
In any case, and third, the question at hand was how to build one's aerobic base. We both know the Maffetone prescription. I was pointing out that that is not, apparently, what pro endurance runners follow, at least not anymore. As we've both pointed out (see my comment above) they use something like a 80/20 or 70/30 or even, lately, a 60/40 ratio of LSD to speedwork (speedwork here defined as basically anything above a LSD pace, and may involve Bilat's 30-30 protocol, traditional intervals, tempo runs, race pace runs, etc.). And note that LSD runs can still be very aerobic at 25-40 beats per minute above the Maf guidelines, that is, at what most of us would perceive as an comfortable level of exertion (i.e., at a nose-breathing, conversational pace). Barefoot running has nothing to do with this (although having no extra weight at the end of the legs is more efficient, this may be counteracted by whatever advantage shoes confer in negotiating surface textures--I think the jury's still out on that one).
Fourth, the ability to run at one's lactate threshold is apparently the best physiological predictor of performance, not heart rate, as indexed by VO2max. So, not surprisingly, pros spend a fair amount of time training at lactate threshold, and don't worry too much about their heart rates. True, they're pros and have learned to read their bodies very well. For beginners, or for those who don't have much of a background in sports, a heart rate monitor might be useful in getting feedback on how much one is exerting oneself. For me, it's completely redundant. I have a pretty good idea of what a sustainable, aerobic pace is for me.
Finally, as for training plans, you might try something like what I've been doing recently: three times a week = one LSD run, one tempo run at about 60% LSD distance, and one intervals and/or hills run. Four times a week, add another LSD run. Five times a week, add a short recovery run after your longest LSD run. Also, I'm thinking of experimenting with paces ('the basics' of running), using a pace calculator. So, for example, if you can run 6 miles at 9 mm pace, you should be able to run one mile at less than 8mm pace. Ok, so try to run six one-mile repeats at 7:30mm pace, with walking breaks in between. Stuff like that. My approach is pretty loose, and this is all pretty new to me, so I'm experimenting, finding what works, but most importantly, finding what I enjoy. I happen to enjoy varied running. The fact that this is what pros do is secondary. A lot of people like running the same routes at the same pace and just zoning out. That's cool too, and that's the way I used to run when I lived in Chicago.
Anyway, if you're interested in this stuff I think a quick search of google or a running site will turn up good material. I didn't have to look too hard. I'll try to post some links but my recreational bookmarks are a mess and I don't think I've bookmarked too many of the things, particularly research articles, as opposed to running sites, that I've come across--it will be just as easy for you to find this stuff yourself. It's all pretty standard now, which is part of the reason I get a little flummoxed (or is it miffed?) when people keep bringing up the Maf stuff over and over again. Quality is winning out over quantity. It's the new religion
. I'm not a racer, and have no immediate plans to race, but I've found it a great relief to learn that (1), you don't have to run long and slow all the time to improve your aerobic base, and (2), running faster does not increase your chance of injury--in fact, the opposite may be true. With this in mind, I thought it was important for others to hear the same news, in case they, like me, enjoy running a bit faster from time to time but thought it was some kind of no-no. That is all. I wasn't trying to tell anyone how to run.Oh, I guess I should also mention that my initial motivation for increasing my pace was that I became convinced that I run with better form at faster paces, which is part of the reason it's also more enjoyable. I was at 10-10:30 mm pace for longer runs, but felt much smoother at 9mm pace and lower. I can report that one month after incorporating speedwork last spring, I knocked at least 30 secs off my pace (I wasn't using a Garmin at that point, so I'm not sure exactly how much was trimmed), and now again, in September, I knocked off another 30 seconds after returning to speedwork, without really even training that hard! I'm pretty sure I can get down to my goal of 8mm pace or below over an hour's run within another few months with my current regimen. Once I get there, I may back off a bit on the speedwork, who knows?
Go Vikes! Skol!
I don't race, but I don't think it's an either or question, and you seem to have mastered both. That last sentence is precious. In my own recreational running, I find I get the nice meditative buzz from the longer runs, and get the nice clearing-out-the-carburetor/'workout' buzz from the faster runs. Having my cake and eating it too, er, or something like that. I think I know enough now never to run a certain way out of obligation. That is, I will never put in a lot of mileage unless it feels good to do so. Every run must be a quality run; it must be enjoyable. I don't know why anyone would do something frustrating for recreation.
I don't race either but I did spend a few months beating myself up if I didn't hit a goal time on my commuting runs - an utterly pointless pass-time! Now I run at whatever pace gives me joy/bliss/pleasure on any given run and get even more enjoyment out of each outing whether I'm running at 12 minute miles or half that pace.
- This statement intrigues me BL! If I'm running 40 beats over my raw Maffetone HR of 123 bpm I'm actually running at more than my supposed MHR
Couldn't agree more Chris, the minute speedwork becomes real work I'm dropping it. Right now it's fun, and as I approach a consistent 9-9:30 mm pace on my longer runs, running in general is funner. It would be nice to run 15-16 miles at 12 mm pace, but I just don't enjoy that pace, so I wouldn't even think about that kind of distance until I'm capable of doing it faster. Same with marathons. The idea is intriguing, but in my present state of development, it would involve too much misery. I would be running 'just to finish'--not my cup of tea.
As for the HR stuff, well, the Mayo Clinic recommends 40 heart beats per more above the Maf formula, and then I read somewhere that even so, individual heart rates can vary up to 25 beats per minute. So that's a 65-beat margin of error for the Maf folks! And we need to keep in mind that HR by itself is meaningless. It's used as an index of oxygen consumption. Thus, individuals can vary 25 beats per minute for the same level of oxygen consumption (VO2max), if I've understood all this correctly. That might be where your variation lies. Even so, it's important to remember that VO2max is but one indicator of performance/fitness, and many would argue it's far from the most significant (http://www.pponline.co.uk/encyc/end...s-vital-for-optimal-endurance-performance-271).
Basically, what all this means is to trust your own perception of exertion, or simply learn what a sustainable pace at a certain distance is for you. I trust with your massive weekly mileage and years of experience you already know this quite well. If you want to get faster, either keep doing what you're doing, improving over time, or run at paces that are faster than your LSD pace, at shorter distances, thus training your body to recruit more muscle fiber and to become more efficient metabolically. Also, biomechanically, faster paces tend to lead to better running economy, because your body is forced to find the most efficient movements in order to sustain the increased pace. Of course, you already run much faster than me, so please excuse the presumption that any of this might be a concern for you. I'm really just being a good little school boy and regurgitating the stuff I've read over the summer.
NickW
Guest
Ok, so in about 4 weeks I can see we will be giving each other grief on FB when the Seahawks wipe the floor with the Vikes.
My father in law and my cousins wife are big Vikes fans and we always go rounds when they play each other.
You know, I was going to mention that game to you. Both teams are 'surprises', although I had a feeling the Vikes would be better than everyone thought this year. We have a good owner, GM, coach, and quarterback in place now, so I'm feeling good about the team. I wasn't going to watch much until the playoffs, but now that we're winning I've started to watch over at my brother's home theater. He has Tivo so we can watch at night. That's why the NFL is the only sport I pay any attention to. You just never know who's going to win or have a good season, and there's about 10 times more strategy and tactics involved as in any other sport.Ok, so in about 4 weeks I can see we will be giving each other grief on FB when the Seahawks wipe the floor with the Vikes.
Anyway, we definitely need to place some kind of bet on the game. How about if the Vikes win you have to submit to a trigger point massage, doubled teamed by Mike and Jen, dressed in a costume of their choosing? You can determine my penalty if the Vikes lose. BTW, why are your father-in-law and cousins Vikes fans?
Even using 220 - age, which my Polar HRM is set to by default, that still leaves me with a MHR of 163. That is sufficiently anaerobic that I am panting after a few hundred yards of that level of exertion!
I've yet to find a way to adjust the MHR setting on the Polar to reflect my reality rather than some arcane formula!
I'm intrigued by the difference in recorded energy expenditure based what "MapMyRun" guesstimates and the reading off the Polar. The Polar will typically be between 50% and 70% of the MMR number for any given run with my LSD runs being the lower percentage.
I've yet to find a way to adjust the MHR setting on the Polar to reflect my reality rather than some arcane formula!
I'm intrigued by the difference in recorded energy expenditure based what "MapMyRun" guesstimates and the reading off the Polar. The Polar will typically be between 50% and 70% of the MMR number for any given run with my LSD runs being the lower percentage.
NickW
Guest
My cousins wife is actually from um...., Deluth I think. My father in law I think just grew up liking them. I even root for them when they are not playing against Seattle. The Seahawks are only a surprise because the media has always thought they are garbage so that's what they report. They were a much improved team last year despite having the same record as the year before. The year before that the team way overachieved and it was flukey to have the record they did. Teams did not like facing Seattles D last year because Seattle had one of the top D's in the league (right now they have the #1 D). Anyhow, probably enough hijacking of this Maf thread...
