maffetone method.
16 watchers
Nov 2014
5:43pm, 17 Nov 2014
7 posts
|
musicbuilder
I agree, however it seems to work very well for many people though, including myself. If you read Maffetone he established 180 minus age as a correlation he recognised whilst training people based on percentage of an established max heart rate, so it's best not to view it as literal interpretation of max heart rate, more a rule of thumb that works in a lot of cases. Thats why I pointed people to the podcast I mentioned, it is discussed in quite a bit of detail.
|
Nov 2014
6:38pm, 17 Nov 2014
1,147 posts
|
Canute
Having logged on again after a few hours I am intrigued to see that there has been debate about the motivation for this thread. Whatever the motivation, it seems to me that the issues raised by Maffetone are worth discussing. As noted above, the actual computation of Maff HR is merely a rule of thumb that works fairly well to give a HR level comfortably below threshold. This calculation works reasonably well without the challenge of getting a good estimate of max HR. Perhaps percent of max HR might be a little more tightly correlated with some aspects of stress on the body, but it is only a crude estimate of how hard the heart is working. Cardiac output is a product of stroke volume and heart rate. For an unfit person with small stroke volume, it is often quite easy to get HR near to HRmax. Training increases blood volume which in turn increases stroke volume. A trained person usually has to make much more effort to get HR near to maximum. I suspect that is part of the reason why Hadd recommended only starting his training program after you have reached 50 mpw. I personally rely on respiratory effort to estimate training intensity. It provides only an approximate estimate, but I find it is less influenced by extraneous factors than HR. But the bottom line is that if you are seeking a way of ensuring that you are training at a level comfortably below threshold, precision probably matters less than how stressed you feel. In my view, Maffetone’s important contribution is to emphasise that a great deal of benefit can be derived from training at a comfortable pace – though as mentioned in my earlier post, I think that at least a small proportion of high intensity work is also required if you want to reach your peak. |
Nov 2014
6:42pm, 17 Nov 2014
3,296 posts
|
FenlandRunner
Fabulous comment, Canute.... I would only be so bold to add that periodisation is important and at some times during the cycle you can jettison any fast running.
|
Nov 2014
6:48pm, 17 Nov 2014
7 posts
|
superfan
Thanks Canute,great post. I fully intend to go back to speed work eventually but I really can't see too much harm in cutting it out for 3 months,I've no intentions of doing any racing during that time anyway. Tomorrow night is my first night,hopefully 134-144 is not too slow for me.:) |
|
Nov 2014
6:54pm, 17 Nov 2014
3,300 posts
|
FenlandRunner
Nothing wrong with keeping bpm below 135.... although for Gobi that would be sub-7 minute/mile pace 
|
Nov 2014
7:49pm, 17 Nov 2014
6,657 posts
|
Chrisull
Yeah I think Spleen jumped the gun a bit, aren't we meant to give new fetchies the benefit of the doubt? And welcome superfan and welcome musicbuilder to fetch. I was reading this ultra-runner's experience with Maffetone, which was interesting although I'd have to say so far despite him being happy with it, doesn't actually look like it's benefited him in races: nolimitsever.blogspot.co.uk |
|
Nov 2014
8:24am, 18 Nov 2014
1,149 posts
|
Canute
Superfan, I look forward to hearing how your three months of Maffetone training works out. In particular it would be interesting o hear if your pace at Maff HR changes. My own experience of several months training at Maff HR or below was a deterioration in aerobic fitness (assessed using a standardised test on the elliptical cross trainer) so at least for me, the evidence indicates that complete omission of any higher intensity training leads to decreased fitness. It is probable that the outcome depends on how fit you are at the beginning. I would expect someone who is very unfit at the beginning to improve during Maffetone training. Also it is likely that an athlete who has over-trained is likely to benefit from omitting all high intensity training for a few months. The same might apply to athletes who have exhausted themselves in extreme endurance events such as Ironman, but I would regard such a period of low intensity training as recovery rather than base-building. |
|
Nov 2014
7:17pm, 18 Nov 2014
12 posts
|
superfan
Did 6 miles this evening,splits ranged from 7:14 to 7:29 which I was pretty surprised with,I thought I'd be going a lot slower than that.I'd be happy enough to go along at that pace for most/all of my runs for the next while.
|
|
Nov 2014
1:15am, 19 Nov 2014
1,150 posts
|
Canute
That sounds like a good start to you program Do you measure HR?
|
|
Nov 2014
9:25am, 19 Nov 2014
13 posts
|
superfan
Yeah I was staying between 134 and 144 BPM,I was trying to stay as close to 144 as possible.
|
Related Threads
-
Maffetone
Jan 2017
-
Furman Institute of Running and Scientific Training (F.I.R.S.T.) acolytes!
Sep 2023
-
Hillscore...what is it?
Aug 2023
-
Daniels Running Formula. The Definitive Wire.
Jul 2023
-
Hadd's Approach To Distance Running
Apr 2023
-
'Easy Interval Method'
Feb 2023
-
Hanson’s Marathon method
Feb 2021
-
POSE running
Oct 2020
-
Numpty Question about Plans
Feb 2020
-
Mcmillan training pace calculator
Oct 2019
