vgpedlr wrote:Yes, since 95%+ of the energy in a race is aerobic, why train any other way?
In 80/20 Running, Matt Fitzgerald says that medium to high intensity running improves the aerobic system. So, running at low intensity, 180 heart rate minus age (with modifiers that Maffetone allows) does not necessarily produce optimal improvements in aerobic capacity, at least in the opinion of Fitzgerald, and probably Daniels, Humphrey and McMillan.
Maffetone is the only one that seems to think the runners should train on low intensity
exclusively. The others seem to endorse the idea that most running should be run at low intensity for a number of reasons. But they all also place in their training plans significant doses of medium to high intensity running. About 2 to 3 times per week, though in modest amounts.
vgpedlr wrote:One will plateau eventually at MAF, which is the time to add anaerobic work, take a break, or just wait it out.
That's where I found Maffetone's book disappointing. Lack of details. Where is the training plan for someone who has reached a plateau? That's where I am at.
I've run lots and lots of miles. I know other runners who run fewer miles that I, but they have seen large improvements in their half marathon times because they do some medium to high intensity running along with their easy runs.
Also, just running at 180 minus age might not protect one from over-training. I think I was over-trained going into my half marathon on May 2nd. I did all my workouts in the 125 - 135 heart rate zone. Seven miles a day on most days. My pace became faster and faster at the same 125 - 135 heart rate zone. But on race day I felt awful.
Why? No training plan. Maffetone does not provide one. Without a training plan, how does one know how to taper for a big race? Should a runner move down to 120 beats per minute in the week leading up to a half marathon to give the body some rest in preparation for the race? Or should one reduce mileage (as I did) but not intensity?
Well, Maffetone doesn't tell you. He implies that as long as you run 180 minus age, you'll be fine. But shouldn't training in the two weeks leading up to half marathon be a little bit different from the previous 12 to 18 weeks? Maffetone doesn't say. The other running book authors, McMillan, Humphrey, Fitzgerald, Daniels do provide specifics.
vgpedlr wrote:My problem with Maffetone is his definition of aerobic and the 180 formula. Not everyone agrees with his low threshold, and the only way to know for sure is measure RQ in a lab. Also, might the 180 formula have the same issues as any other formula in not applying equally well to every athlete? I'd rather have a field test so I could individualize it, not just take his word for it.
My issue, in addition to the problem I mentioned related to my performance in my May 2nd half marathon, is that he does not provide a low end to the heart rate range.
For example, if I were to keep my heart rate at 90 beats per minute, that would be a brisk walk. Does Maffetone think that someone who has been running half marathons for several years can train for a personal record in half marathon by doing brisk walking? Or would running be better preparation?
You might think that I am being nit-picky. But Humphreys and one guy I have not mentioned until now, Pete Pftizinger (author of Advanced Marathoning) say that a runner gets more benefit, even during easy runs, by running closer to the faster end of the easy pace range that they provide.
This makes sense. Otherwise one hour walk would be just as effective at training for a half marathon as a one hour jog.
vgpedlr wrote:What I took away is that the 20% didn't matter very much as far as specific workouts. They're all good, so if you like the track, run there, if not do fartlek or hills. What I took away was polarized training. Make sure easy truly is EASY, and that the 20% truly is intensity, and that's where an HRM is valuable.
HRM is valuable. During hot weather, Heart rate will instruct me to run slower than I would run during cool weather. But heart rate all by itself, even on easy runs, is probably not enough to control against over-training. Again, I use my experience on my May 2nd half marathon as an example. Even if someone keeps their heart rate at or below 180 minus age, the body might still be training too hard. One should run even slower on easy runs than the 180 minus age would permit if the pace gets faster than what is provided by either Jack Daniels' VDOT tables or by Greg McMillan's running calculator. This is my opinion, which I have adopted since my May 2nd experience.
vgpedlr wrote:I have the marathon book, but have not read it. So I'm going off magazine and blogosphere discussion. It sounds like they favor more intensity, and spreading it around the week.
Humprhey, in both books, the one on full marathons (Hansons Marathon Method) and the one on half marathons (Hansons Half Marathon Method), presents training plans that feature 2 medium to high intensity workouts each week.
For example, in the advanced training plan in the Hansons Half Marathon Method book, for the first 9 weeks, each Tuesday calls for some speed work, which is essentially 3 miles chopped up into quarter miles or half miles or full miles, at ones 5K race pace, with equivalent recovery distance in between the speed sessions.
So, a runner would warm up for a few miles at an easy pace, then run a quarter mile at ones 5K pace (this 5K pace would be based on a recent 5K race result). The next quarter mile would be an easy jog. Then another quarter mile at 5K pace. Repeat for about 6 total repetitions.
Daniels argues for faster speed work, more like mile pace, which is much more aggressive than 5K pace.
On Thursdays, Humphrey has in his training plan "tempo runs," which are essentially runs at half marathon or full marathon goal pace, after a few miles of easy warm up. They start off at 3 miles and then increase to 4 after 3 weeks and another mile is added each 3 weeks.
I think this is a bit too much intensity. But it's less intensity than Daniels and more intensity than Fitzgerald. So, for some people it might be okay.
vgpedlr wrote:I think as long as there is room for improvement in the aerobic system, you will get faster, and that applies to nearly everyone.
If this were the case, why the mention of the possibility of a plateau? I certainly have reached a plateau. And as my May 2nd experience showed, running at 180 minus age doesn't result in better results on race day.
There has to be more to it. I think the other authors provide more detail and those details are important.
I can see however, how if one is doing very long races, ones lasting 5 or more hours, low-intensity would be the way to go.
That's no the situation I am in, however. I run races that last less than 2 hours.
I credit Maffetone for encouraging runners to slow down and not do most of their workouts too fast. Also, I credit him for recommending the use of a heart rate monitor during training and using heart rate as a leash to prevent over-training.
It's what he does not say (or write) that I think is a problem. The other authors seem to be filling in the gaps. It remains to be seen whether someone like me, almost 50 years old, but still a reasonably new runner (I ran my first 5K in the fall of 2010) can still reach new personal records.
I got a personal record in the 5K distance in March. Now I'm trying to get a personal record at the half marathon. This will be challenging.
Okay. So, what will my new training regimen look like?I am going to use Matt Fitzgerald's level 3 half marathon training plan as a starting point. But that training plan features some days where the runner is supposed to run 2 times in a day. I will only be doing 1 of those two runs. If I need more recovery, I will substitute a recovery run for a foundation run.
On foundation runs I will use both the Jack Daniels' VDOT chart for a pace range [In my case that is 9:21 minutes per mile to 10:28 minutes per mile] and the Maffetone Heart Rate guideline of 180 minus age to prevent over-training.
In addition, even if I could run 9:21 minute per mile pace while keeping my heart rate within the Maffetone HR guideline (and this is unlikely during the hot summer), I will not perform 9:21 minute per mile runs on consecutive days. Instead, after one run at 9:21 minute per mile pace, I will run the next day at 10:00 minutes per mile or slower.
Where Fitzgerald calls for speed work or tempo runs or hills, I will probably water it down a little bit. I might do some 5K paced speed work, borrowing from Humphrey and Daniels, but I will keep the repetitions low enough and the recoveries generous enough that I don't feel completely wiped out by them.
Where Fitzgerald calls for tempo runs or cruise intervals, I will use Daniels' threshold pace of 8:02 minutes per mile or my goal half marathon pace of 8:13 minutes per mile. Or, I might run at 180 minus age heart rate and ignore the 9:21 minutes per mile limit, but count it as a medium intensity run instead of an easy run.
I also hope to keep my total miles reasonably high. If the hot weather bothers me, I'll head to the YMCA and get on their treadmill in an air conditioned environment.
We'll see how it goes.