Dumb MAF question

[Bare Lee]

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.

You kind of lost me there Chris.

Just curious, why are you keeping track of this? You seem to know your way around your paces and distances, and that's all that really matters, right? All the numbers, formulas, monitors, and measures are just an aid to help us internalize a good feeling for our paces, so we know how far we can run. That is, at x pace, I can go y distance. Or I can go y distance at x pace. That's all running really is, it seems to me. Everything else derives from that. For example, why is good form important? So you can run the same distance faster, or the same pace farther, because you're more efficient. OK, it also helps prevent injuries, but why is that important? So that you can train consistently so that you can run x pace or y distance. You seem like you've already got this stuff down. For me, this is my goal for the coming year, beside improving my running fitness generally. I want to know what my 1 mile pace feels like, what my 5 k pace feels like, what my 10 k pace feels like, adjusting, of course, for temps and terrain. When I can say, OK, here's my 8mm or 9mm pace, or, in more subjective terms, here's my fast or medium pace, and I know I can run distance x at this pace, I will feel like a more accomplished runner. Just as right now I can tell you, OK, this is my max bench, or this is my max deadlift, or I can do x reps at y weight. Once you control these factors, you start to gain a certain mastery over what you're doing, which seems to improve the experience and may translate a bit into other areas of life. Previously when I ran I just did the same distance, gradually improving, but had no real concept of pace. Is it necessary for recreational running? No, but it seems to be enriching the experience for me, just as barefoot running has.

 

[DNEchris]

You kind of lost me there Chris.

Just curious, why are you keeping track of this?

My inner geek shining through is all.

I play, superficially, with Excel everyday. It's just a few different numbers to plug in to a different spreadsheet as the occasion arises. It's the same principle as you and research I guess.

 

[happysongbird]

I enjoyed reading, okay, sometimes skimming , this discussion. I'm guessing my 3x week swimming a bit over a mile and 2x week on the spinning bike, plus one definite longer, slower run (for 3 runs total a week) right now are "good" for my aerobic base. Can't see that it would be necessary to build that with running. Now, I'm off to the pool for my lunch break! (can always eat on the job at home here.)

 

[ThomDavid]

I'd like to observe a couple of things regarding this thread, if I may:

1) I've been more or less playing around with different training ideas, the latest being MAF, since I started running. Ideas come and go, some sticking around longer than others, but usually, what works for me sticks. I have no idea if MAF is going to ultimately help my running or not, but there's no harm in trying at this early point in my barefoot running life. It's really only ever a means to an end; I have no intention of adopting a new ideology that I want to beat "non-believers" over the head with. If MAF, or LSD (the running, not the drug), or HIIT, or whatever makes my running life more enjoyable, that's where I'm going. If, in my advanced years, I get the yen to actually compete (or, pretend to compete), I'll likely take a different attitude. But for now, it's sorta fun seeing where all these numbers will lead.

2) This is the most civil group of people when it comes to opposing opinions that I am just floored. I mean, while I'm not really big on forums in general, it continues to amaze me how folks here have sometimes vastly different opinions on a topic (such as MAF), yet the discussions never seem to devolve into acrimony and chaos. For whatever reason that is, I can tell you that this newbie really appreciates it. At first, I was a little reluctant to ask what I perceived to be "stupid" questions, in fear of being ridiculed or dismissed. But I see now how unfounded those concerns were. I really have to take my hat (and shoes) off to TJ and the other moderators here, and to everyone else who's posted. I've said it before, I know, but honestly, this is the most welcoming, informative, and friendly group of forum folks I've ever encountered. Ten toes up to you all!

 

[Bare Lee]

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...

Yah I grew up during the Vikings' Bud Grant-led heyday. I like the NFC West though, after our own North Division. It's interesting how quickly your division has become competitive again. I just wonder how Seattle's rookie quarterback is going to hold up. Otherwise you guys look solid. I don't know how you guys got talked into T-Jack and Sidney Rice though. I hate the NFC East of course, and am indifferent to the NFC South. In the AFC, I like the North Division best too.

 

[NickW]

I'd like to observe a couple of things regarding this thread, if I may:

1) I've been more or less playing around with different training ideas, the latest being MAF, since I started running. Ideas come and go, some sticking around longer than others, but usually, what works for me sticks. I have no idea if MAF is going to ultimately help my running or not, but there's no harm in trying at this early point in my barefoot running life. It's really only ever a means to an end; I have no intention of adopting a new ideology that I want to beat "non-believers" over the head with. If MAF, or LSD (the running, not the drug), or HIIT, or whatever makes my running life more enjoyable, that's where I'm going. If, in my advanced years, I get the yen to actually compete (or, pretend to compete), I'll likely take a different attitude. But for now, it's sorta fun seeing where all these numbers will lead.

2) This is the most civil group of people when it comes to opposing opinions that I am just floored. I mean, while I'm not really big on forums in general, it continues to amaze me how folks here have sometimes vastly different opinions on a topic (such as MAF), yet the discussions never seem to devolve into acrimony and chaos. For whatever reason that is, I can tell you that this newbie really appreciates it. At first, I was a little reluctant to ask what I perceived to be "stupid" questions, in fear of being ridiculed or dismissed. But I see now how unfounded those concerns were. I really have to take my hat (and shoes) off to TJ and the other moderators here, and to everyone else who's posted. I've said it before, I know, but honestly, this is the most welcoming, informative, and friendly group of forum folks I've ever encountered. Ten toes up to you all!

I think we are just smarter and more open to new ideas, hence us even trying barefoot in the first place.

 

[NickW]

Yah I grew up during the Vikings' Bud Grant-led heyday. I like the NFC West though, after our own North Division. It's interesting how quickly your division has become competitive again. I just wonder how Seattle's rookie quarterback is going to hold up. Otherwise you guys look solid. I don't know how you guys got talked into T-Jack and Sidney Rice though. I hate the NFC East of course, and am indifferent to the NFC South. In the AFC, I like the North Division best too.

Russell Wilson will be fine. There are a lot of people (fans and media alike) freaking out because he makes a few mistakes here and there. He's a rookie, there's going to be mistakes. The thing is though, he keeps doing things that veterans do too, which most rookies don't do. He is learning fast and I think in the next year or two will be really good. People also hate on him because he's short, please, give me a break. Pete had said he is intentionally limiting how much Wilson passes because we have the defense and running game to be able to slowly work his passing into the system. T-Jack, well, when you get outbid on your current aging and getting worse starter (they didn't want to pony up for as much nor as many years as Hasselbeck wanted) and lose him you have to get someone, unfortunately T-Jack knew Darrell Bevells system already so he was the lucky one we picked... Sidney is a stud if he can just stay healthy. We joke around that he is made of glass. Pete Carroll had said that Sidney doesn't land softly, which I found interesting. Said he really impacts the ground hard which contributes to his injuries.

 

[Bare Lee]

Russell Wilson will be fine. There are a lot of people (fans and media alike) freaking out because he makes a few mistakes here and there. He's a rookie, there's going to be mistakes. The thing is though, he keeps doing things that veterans do too, which most rookies don't do. He is learning fast and I think in the next year or two will be really good. People also hate on him because he's short, please, give me a break. Pete had said he is intentionally limiting how much Wilson passes because we have the defense and running game to be able to slowly work his passing into the system. T-Jack, well, when you get outbid on your current aging and getting worse starter (they didn't want to pony up for as much nor as many years as Hasselbeck wanted) and lose him you have to get someone, unfortunately T-Jack knew Darrell Bevells system already so he was the lucky one we picked... Sidney is a stud if he can just stay healthy. We joke around that he is made of glass. Pete Carroll had said that Sidney doesn't land softly, which I found interesting. Said he really impacts the ground hard which contributes to his injuries.

Yah, I was talking more about this year, comparing Wilson to Ponder, who seems like he might able to take his team a bit further, all things being equal. In the future, who knows? Rice, like you said, is glass. That's why the Vikes unloaded him. Awesome talent, but at this point it looks unlikely he's ever going to play a complete season.

 

[NickW]

Rice, like you said, is glass. That's why the Vikes unloaded him. Awesome talent, but at this point it looks unlikely he's ever going to play a complete season.

Ya, so far he is staying relatively healthy this year, but we are only 5 games in so who knows... I'm surprised Ponder is doing ok this year. I didn't really care for him when he was drafted but he is proving me wrong. Can't tell what I spend a lot of time doing can ya? Lol! I am a football addict and my wife has banned me from joining any fantasy leagues. I had about 5-6 different friends and family try to get me into their leagues this year which really sucked because I kind of want to try doing a league but I do know how obsessive I can get about researching things so I understand her point of view (kind of mine too because I know that it would be very hard for me to control the amount of time I would put into it)...

 

[Bare Lee]

I'd like to observe a couple of things regarding this thread, if I may:

1) I've been more or less playing around with different training ideas, the latest being MAF, since I started running. Ideas come and go, some sticking around longer than others, but usually, what works for me sticks. I have no idea if MAF is going to ultimately help my running or not, but there's no harm in trying at this early point in my barefoot running life. It's really only ever a means to an end; I have no intention of adopting a new ideology that I want to beat "non-believers" over the head with. If MAF, or LSD (the running, not the drug), or HIIT, or whatever makes my running life more enjoyable, that's where I'm going. If, in my advanced years, I get the yen to actually compete (or, pretend to compete), I'll likely take a different attitude. But for now, it's sorta fun seeing where all these numbers will lead.

2) This is the most civil group of people when it comes to opposing opinions that I am just floored. I mean, while I'm not really big on forums in general, it continues to amaze me how folks here have sometimes vastly different opinions on a topic (such as MAF), yet the discussions never seem to devolve into acrimony and chaos. For whatever reason that is, I can tell you that this newbie really appreciates it. At first, I was a little reluctant to ask what I perceived to be "stupid" questions, in fear of being ridiculed or dismissed. But I see now how unfounded those concerns were. I really have to take my hat (and shoes) off to TJ and the other moderators here, and to everyone else who's posted. I've said it before, I know, but honestly, this is the most welcoming, informative, and friendly group of forum folks I've ever encountered. Ten toes up to you all!

1), right, all I was saying is that research and pro training indicate that Maf training isn't the most effective way to build up an aerobic base, or to get faster. Only you can determine what's the most enjoyable. I think it's perfectly reasonable for someone to enjoy a nice, slow steady pace over a faster one, why not? Just not my bag. It's really two different issues: what's most effective?; and what's most enjoyable? The first can be answered relatively objectively, the second can only be answered subjectively--no point in debating. And ultimately, if you don't enjoy a method and ended up quitting or undertraining, then it doesn't matter what the studies say, it's not an effective method for you.
2) glad to hear, I feel the same way.

 

[DNEchris]

Just curious, why are you keeping track of this?

It's probably in a search for increased efficiency!

Just how far can I go, at what pace, for how long?
I prefer high revving, small displacement, fuel-sipping economy over slow revving, large displacement, gas-guzzling.
How much leaner can I run the mixture and still perform to my satisfaction?
I know that 18 months ago my AHR for an 8 minute pace on a 7 mile run was about 140 - these days its around 123 on a good day.

I like seeing the continued improvement!

 

[dutchie53]

It's probably in a search for increased efficiency!

Just how far can I go, at what pace, for how long?
I prefer high revving, small displacement, fuel-sipping economy over slow revving, large displacement, gas-guzzling.
How much leaner can I run the mixture and still perform to my satisfaction?
I know that 18 months ago my AHR for an 8 minute pace on a 7 mile run was about 140 - these days its around 123 on a good day.

I like seeing the continued improvement!

Wow, that is a impressive gain.

 

[PKFFW]

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).

Go Vikes! Skol!

Ok, as you don't really want to go into it I'll drop it. Interesting discussion but it has been done before many a time anyways.

Permit me three small points, simply for clarification and not with any expectation of discussion.

1: By "anaerobic" I mean when one is using predominantly sugar rather than fat as fuel rather than the strictly traditional meaning of "no oxygen". Obviously no one could hold their breath during an entire marathon. Nothing we do in life uses no sugar as fuel, nor does anything use no oxygen as fuel. Rather, everything we do uses a combination of sugar and oxygen and depending on how we are exerting ourselves we can recruit fat as a fuel source. Therefore from a stict point of view we don't even have a strictly aerobic or anaerobic system but instead a single system that will move from one extreme to the other. So when I said running a marathon totally using the anaerobic system, I meant the body is predominantly sourcing it's energy from sugar burning rather than from any other source.

2: My mention of pros not doing any racing or training barefoot was meant purely as a tongue in cheek joke.

3: I go for the Chiefs, who are sucking balls arse.

 

[JosephTree]

This is clearly the home of thread civility, except for the thread-thieves who take perfectly good discussions off into topical cul de sacs and force us to read along.

We probably save all our snarkiness for our SOs.

 

[Bare Lee]

It's probably in a search for increased efficiency!

Just how far can I go, at what pace, for how long?
I prefer high revving, small displacement, fuel-sipping economy over slow revving, large displacement, gas-guzzling.
How much leaner can I run the mixture and still perform to my satisfaction?
I know that 18 months ago my AHR for an 8 minute pace on a 7 mile run was about 140 - these days its around 123 on a good day.

I like seeing the continued improvement!

Ha! I know you're joking but let me just clarify that I never claimed that research has shown Maf-style training to be ineffective, just not as effective as some other approaches. Anyone who runs as much as you should see significant improvement over time, no matter what you do.

 

[Bare Lee]

Ok, as you don't really want to go into it I'll drop it. Interesting discussion but it has been done before many a time anyways.

Permit me three small points, simply for clarification and not with any expectation of discussion.

1: By "anaerobic" I mean when one is using predominantly sugar rather than fat as fuel rather than the strictly traditional meaning of "no oxygen". Obviously no one could hold their breath during an entire marathon. Nothing we do in life uses no sugar as fuel, nor does anything use no oxygen as fuel. Rather, everything we do uses a combination of sugar and oxygen and depending on how we are exerting ourselves we can recruit fat as a fuel source. Therefore from a strict point of view we don't even have a strictly aerobic or anaerobic system but instead a single system that will move from one extreme to the other. So when I said running a marathon totally using the anaerobic system, I meant the body is predominantly sourcing it's energy from sugar burning rather than from any other source.

2: My mention of pros not doing any racing or training barefoot was meant purely as a tongue in cheek joke.

3: I go for the Chiefs, who are sucking balls arse.

Thanks for understanding, and sorry to weasel out of this, I mean no disrespect, but I've already spent way too much time on it as it is. Maybe we can come back to it in a few days after I've taken care of a few things? I do enjoy these discussions, obviously, but I really was a bad boy today and neglected stuff that needs to get done by the weekend.

Perhaps the best way to further the discussion would be for you to post links refuting some of the research findings I've posted. I first became interested in finding research that debunked the Maf method because it didn't jibe with my experience doing aerobic activities in the past. Plus I heard of people running six miles in two hours in misery and frustration and I felt instinctively that something just wasn't right about that. Then when I began turning to running sites, I noticed no one mentioned Maf training, even when discussing base-building. The closest they came was in adopting a high volume, Lydiard-type approach, in which runners piled on the miles, yes, but often at aerobic threshold, not well below it. But a good deal of people here at BRS subscribe to the Maf method and recommend it to folks just starting out. So I looked a little further, at the research articles themselves, and found all sorts of stuff indicating that this approach just isn't used among elite endurance runners. Even Lydiard's periodization of a base-building phase, followed by speed and strength work has been questioned and is being replaced. OK, I'm a long ways from being elite, but I would like to improve my endurance running, so I changed my approach too. Over the summer I had put the speedwork on the back burner and was concentrating on building up a 'base' distance, trying to get up to 10 miles, after which I had planned to work on pace again. But then I read that the Kenyans work first on speed, and then add distance (granted, their speed and distance are much greater than mine). This had been my idea last spring, based more on my intuitions than any sort of reading about the collective experience of elite runners. So I went back to that idea, and became a bit more disciplined about holding off on distance while working on pace. Right now I'm capping distance at seven to eight miles, trying to get my pace down for that distance, using the routine outlined above (LSD+Threshold+Intervals&Hills). Once I can do 8mm pace, I plan to start adding distance again, up to 10 miles. Once I can do 10 miles at 8mm pace, I'll see what happens next. Maybe I'll start thinking about racing, maybe I'll just settle in and stop thinking about this stuff and just let the improvements come over time on their own. I dunno.

1.) Sorry if I misunderstood your point about energy systems. Just to add a bit: I think I read that at say, 5k pace, an experienced runner can expect to be approximately 85% aerobic versus 15% anaerobic, but I probably have the details wrong. Anyway, that's not really the point, as VO2max is not the best physiological predictor of performance, apparently. What counts most as a 'base' is one's ability to run at lactate threshold. And this is best developed by training a certain amount of time at or above lactate threshold. When Ryan Hall talks about wanting to get in two 'quality' runs per week, I think he's referring to something like this.
2.) Sorry to have missed your humor. I think I was over-caffeinated by that point.
3.) I feel your pain.

 

[Bare Lee]

Ya, so far he is staying relatively healthy this year, but we are only 5 games in so who knows... I'm surprised Ponder is doing ok this year. I didn't really care for him when he was drafted but he is proving me wrong. Can't tell what I spend a lot of time doing can ya? Lol! I am a football addict and my wife has banned me from joining any fantasy leagues. I had about 5-6 different friends and family try to get me into their leagues this year which really sucked because I kind of want to try doing a league but I do know how obsessive I can get about researching things so I understand her point of view (kind of mine too because I know that it would be very hard for me to control the amount of time I would put into it)...

Hey, do you know any sites where they actually analyze plays? I tune into ESPN and NFL.com, but it's mostly gossip, very little analysis of want offenses and defense are doing. I would like to understand the modern game a bit better.

Remember, remember, the fifth fourth of November.

 

[NickW]

Hey, do you know any sites where they actually analyze plays? I tune into ESPN and NFL.com, but it's mostly gossip, very little analysis of want offenses and defense are doing. I would like to understand the modern game a bit better.

Remember, remember, the fifth fourth of November.

Lee, I actually follow a Seahawks site that is very informative about plays. It can be a bit of an overload though as they changed editors a year or two ago and he pumps out 5 times more info than the old one did. This means there is a lot more junk to sort through than the old site. Apparently according to several things I have read on this one site, Seahawks fans are some of the most educated fans in all the league which makes other teams sportswriters nervous when they come during game week when the two teams are facing each other. Anyhow, that's neither here nor there, I don't really know if you would be interested in that particular site, but I know there is a main site SB Nation that every team is connected to. Not sure if there is more qualitative general analysis on plays on that site or not as I pretty much stick to the Seahawks site (they put out so much info it can be hard to keep up).

 

[Bare Lee]

Lee, I actually follow a Seahawks site that is very informative about plays. It can be a bit of an overload though as they changed editors a year or two ago and he pumps out 5 times more info than the old one did. This means there is a lot more junk to sort through than the old site. Apparently according to several things I have read on this one site, Seahawks fans are some of the most educated fans in all the league which makes other teams sportswriters nervous when they come during game week when the two teams are facing each other. Anyhow, that's neither here nor there, I don't really know if you would be interested in that particular site, but I know there is a main site SB Nation that every team is connected to. Not sure if there is more qualitative general analysis on plays on that site or not as I pretty much stick to the Seahawks site (they put out so much info it can be hard to keep up).

Thanks Nick, I guess I'll Google specifically Vikings sites and see what I turn up. I like to read one or two NFL articles with my first espresso, but I'm kind of tired of ESPN's constant coverage of pseudo-controversy and bad-boy behavior, although John Clayton seems to know what he's doing. Get ready to cry come Nov 4th.

 

[NickW]

Thanks Nick, I guess I'll Google specifically Vikings sites and see what I turn up. I like to read one or two NFL articles with my first espresso, but I'm kind of tired of ESPN's constant coverage of pseudo-controversy and bad-boy behavior, although John Clayton seems to know what he's doing. Get ready to cry come Nov 4th.

I don't read a lot of the national media because if your team isn't Green Bay, Dallas, New England, or the NY Giants they typically don't know anything and they spew info about the team as if it was the same team from ten years ago that sucked (not necessarily your team or even specifically ten years ago). Every game Seattle wins is not because they played better than the other team, but the other team played bad and let Seattle win. Irritates me a lot. Oh well, that's why I read local writers stuff and not the national pundits. Here's the link to SB Nations Vikings site. http://www.dailynorseman.com/ I'm not sure how good their info is, but it's a start at least for you.