|
Jun 2020
2:17pm, 30 Jun 2020
16,299 posts
|
Chrisull
Lol - I think Maff appeals because of its simplicity, but I think there's no escaping proper focused training programs (they don't have to be complicated, just purposeful) and for anything with HR, measuring of zones needs a degree of rigour. We've talked about modified Karvonen before on here, which I think is a good indicator and has studies which back it up.
My view on Maff has hardened over time, because I keep on coming across athletes trying it, and then failing (sometimes blaming themselves).
Yeah the modern day courses are all a bit weird, I know someone in our club who is now doing - something like "Event group- speed and endurance" or something like that. I feel like I need to go beyond CIRF in some way, but it's hard to know exactly which route.
|
|
Jun 2020
2:25pm, 30 Jun 2020
2,817 posts
|
J2R
One thing I am still never sure about...I accept there's loads of evidence in favour of doing the majority of your runs easy. It's what I do myself. But I've never found any persuasive evidence that any particular range of easy running is more beneficial than any other, notwithstanding what Maffetone would have us believe. I take easy running to mean running at a pace below my first ventilatory threshold (something I picked up from Stephen Seiler, of polarized training fame), which for me means a heart rate somewhere around 137-142 bpm (it varies). That probably equates to a pace (on the flat, in cool weather, on a firm surface) of 7:20-7:30 mins/mile and slower for me.
I do some easy running at that kind of pace, some (most) around 8 mins/mile, but also a fair bit as slow as 11:30 mins/mile when I'm running with my partner, and I am unconvinced that the 7:30 pace stuff is actually of more aerobic benefit for me than the 11:30 pace stuff. The main advantage of doing 7:30 pace, of course, is that you get more miles in that way, and more miles generally equates to better running. There is also a sweet spot where you run most efficiently, where your running gait is best. I'm much better at slower paces than I used to be but I think I'm probably most efficient towards the faster end of my range.
|
|
Jun 2020
2:26pm, 30 Jun 2020
35,434 posts
|
DocM
Thanks. I'm finding the z1/2 running pleasantly easy on the legs but have to concentrate to not go too fast. Nice to have time to think about my stride and stuff while running slower. The faster stuff is good too. No room for slacking off
|
|
Jun 2020
2:29pm, 30 Jun 2020
70,538 posts
|
Gobi
I had just started my level 3 when things were changing and realised that I didn't need the label to justify what standard coach I am.
L2 was useful once (ie speed) but when I did the endurance element I felt like I was losing a period of my life.
I have learned more outside the system than I did in it. That said I would like to return to club coaching at some point so am happy that I will bring formal UKA courses and extended knowledge back in with me.
My MAFF view was nasty to start with, got worse when I played with it and now I chill out a little and let people do what they need to do.
I am the big Karvonnen advocate.
My main gripe with ALL Heart Rate training is people guessing their max HR, even forgetting Karvonnen and the logic of resting and max being used. Given how flawed 220 - age is how can anyone hope to use Heart rate effectively without having real data to start from?
|
|
Jun 2020
2:44pm, 30 Jun 2020
2,818 posts
|
J2R
Gobi, yes! And one of my gripes is people not being clear, or maybe not understanding, whether they are talking about 70% or whatever of working heart rate (Karvonen), or absolute heart rate. The difference is generally so big that chances are if you don't know which, you're probably training at a completely inappropriate heart rate.
|
|
Jun 2020
2:49pm, 30 Jun 2020
11,380 posts
|
larkim
LOL, I should know not to post in haste! Z2 for me if my max is 180 is 127-140, shifts to 130-143 if I use 184. I'm guestimating max though based on some out of date data ref my max - 184 came from what I was reaching a few years ago, and I've switched HRMs recently and the max I've seen was 178 without trying to max it out specifically).
My point really was, though, that if someone can run max effort 5k at around 170-175, but MAF's calculation would say the MAF target HR is 160-165, doesn't that pretty much make a nonsense of MAF? Karvonnen is the approach I've used to define zones too, and it really surprised me when my 20yo son seemed to have a similar max to his 48yo dad, especially when my max is closer to the oft-quoted 220-age (which I know is a highly debatable concept anyway). Son must be at a quite extreme end of that bell curve though for max HR.
(I only posted that 7min/mile run for an example of low-ish HR in relation to his max - he ran at 8m10 per mile last night because he knows properly easy means properly easy, he just doesn't wear the HRM much; 7m50 avg pace for his last 50 miles or so)
|
|
Jun 2020
2:57pm, 30 Jun 2020
70,539 posts
|
Gobi
Larks - preaching to the choir about MAF but the main flaw is the incorrect calculation assumptions before you even start training.
My point in regards your sons run is it wasn't a low HR run in relation to his max if you said his max is LOW - I run 8mm at 115 - 130 depending on terrain, If I run 11mm my HR is in the 90s - If I am running 140 - 150 this is not a low HR and I am still tanking along at 6.xx.
|
|
Jun 2020
2:59pm, 30 Jun 2020
11,381 posts
|
larkim
Yep, my misdescription of his run being easy. I think that was just one of those lockdown runs where he wanted to get out of the house and run, not train.
What's the incorrect calc assumptions? You mean my max HR?
|
|
Jun 2020
3:01pm, 30 Jun 2020
16,300 posts
|
Chrisull
Gobi - I agree on max HR measurements.
I also think it's hard even within the confines of a self test to get max HR. Warming up for a mile and then doing 2-3 quick hill reps didn't yield me my highest rates (I can't get motivated in the same way that I might when chasing somebody). My highest genuine readings came from:
1) the bleep test
2) the tail end of a strava segment where it went from downhill to flat
Other high readings came from races.
How close are people likely to be going back over their data and looking at their HR cheststrap history (throwing out static positives) for your average competitive runner who races and regularly "attacks" strava segments? 2-3 beats perhaps? For some strava segments I have to stop immediately on completion, which would indicate a pretty high degree of effort.
|
|
Jun 2020
3:03pm, 30 Jun 2020
70,540 posts
|
Gobi
Actually as I came back in here the thought I was having was that perception of easy is also an issue
Yes Larks - hold on while I stick my finger in the air - If I guessed my HR based on 220 - age my Z1 is 102 Z2 would be 119 - fine I'd still get to run 8mm but probably missing out on a whole load of actual development as being a polarised trainer I would probably do nothing between 120 and 155.
|
Daniels Running Formula. The Definitive Wire.
Jul 2023