Dec 2016
1:10pm, 29 Dec 2016
23,283 posts
|
SPR
I don't know much about Maffetone for the record.
|
Dec 2016
1:24pm, 29 Dec 2016
10,978 posts
|
Fenland (Fenners) Runner
Ah, science, and sports science at that
|
Dec 2016
1:55pm, 29 Dec 2016
23,284 posts
|
SPR
Whereas Maffetone is based on?
There's reasons to say that the current scientific research doesn't give a complete picture for example short term studies probably at best show how to peak.
However that doesn't mean you can just make up anything and say that's the key to training well.
|
Dec 2016
2:02pm, 29 Dec 2016
10,980 posts
|
Fenland (Fenners) Runner
It's just in my short running career spanning the last decade, so called 'Science' seems to go and go just like the latest seasons fashion.
Somebody said somewhere that if you're clever enough you can make stats prove anything you want.
However certain running foundations appear (to me) have weathered the fashions and still ring true today as they did ten, twenty, thirty years ago?
|
Dec 2016
4:36pm, 29 Dec 2016
2,531 posts
|
Ninky Nonk
I've read Maffetone book several times and am quite a fan. Apart from using heart rate!
I actually think he says the same as Lydiard, hadd, and there are some similarities with polarized training.
Key message for me from Maffetone - build a Base with lots of strong aerobic running, avoid over training, eat well, sleep well, avoid stress. Once you've plateau ed naturally and reach a point where maff pace runs are too fast for day to day training - run the maff pace as cruise interval sets. He also advocates some faster interval training - but not flat out - longer reps at 10k pace ish - similar to the seiler paper. He also mentions use of downhill sprints for leg speed.
I tend to think maff pace is quite similar to canova fundamental pace too, and hadds sub lt pace, and Lydiard best aerobic effort, and Daniels e-pace. I think their all describing the same thing - zone 1!
|
Dec 2016
4:38pm, 29 Dec 2016
2,532 posts
|
Ninky Nonk
Sorry 'they're all describing'
|
Dec 2016
7:07pm, 29 Dec 2016
289 posts
|
Dillthedog57
I did Maff from August to November and have been feeding in some quicker work around a majority or Maff paced runs since then, which to me is pretty much polarised training. I do Maff because too much speed work leaves me crocked, running slower means that I can build consistency and then do a small amount of speedwork to get back to race fitness. As I approach 51 I am unlikely to be challenging for Olympic medals but can still chug along at a reasonable pace, so long as I avoid niggly injuries!
|
Dec 2016
7:09pm, 29 Dec 2016
290 posts
|
Dillthedog57
And to add to NNs list, my Maff pace is about MP + 20%, as specified in P&D for the first three quarters of long runs, and quicker than the pace that they recommend for general runs. It also ties in with Jack Daniels paces.
|
Dec 2016
7:13pm, 29 Dec 2016
10,982 posts
|
Fenland (Fenners) Runner
KISS - Keep it Simple Superstar
|
Dec 2016
7:43pm, 29 Dec 2016
1,786 posts
|
Canute
FR, There have been some ideas about training that have weathered well over the decades, but nonetheless, the best ideas have been given a good polish by science in the past decade.
On the one hand, Woldemar Gerschler’s introduction of interval training in the 1930’s was the foundation for the golden years of European middle distance running spanning from the 1950’s to the mid 1980’s. The science of the past decade, especially the science of HIIT has taught us a huge amount more about interval training, but as SPR implies, this science has not yet seriously addressed the question of how you build it into a long term running career.
On the other hand Arthur Lydiard’s approach to periodized training, with a substantial period of aerobic basing followed by a few months of more intense training and racing, provided the basis for the spectacular middle and long distance performances of New Zealanders in the 1960’s and 1970’s. Lydiard’s ideas has been re-worked, largely for recreational runners, by Hadd and Maffetone. However Lydiard’s recommendation to avoid speed work during base-building was almost certainly poor advice. When his greatest protégé, Peter Snell, was asked a few years ago whether or not he would have changed anything about the way he trained under Lydiard, his reply was: ‘some speed work all year round’ Subsequent science, especially the more recent science of polarised training has provided support for Snell’s opinion.
However despite the substantial advances in our understanding about how to train effectively, based on the ideas of great coaches supported by good science, we still lack some systematic science about how best to structure a running career spanning a period of several years, and also some good science about how to adjust a training program to bring out the best in each individual..
Science does not aim to provide the final answer to any question; it merely seeks to produce better answers.
And, as Einstein remarked, keep it as simple as possible but no simpler.
|