First, how do you know that this range is the top of your aerobic HR? And, you must know that this maximum aerobic HR is probably going to be different in each of the three disciplines...assuming you are doing triathlons. Then, I'd say, no, it doesn't matter that much if you are in the upper level of aerobic HR or significantly lower. I come from a sprinter background, and I almost always push the upper limits of the supposed aerobic levels, it seems to have worked out just fine for me.

---

Quid quid latine dictum sit altum videtur
(That which is said in Latin sounds profound)

I think that it mainly depends on the individual. Try spending some time running(cycling) at different HR's and record how you feel at those levels(breathing, etc.). This will help you decide where you should train. For long runs make sure that you are breathing easy and keeping your form intact.

Go here: http://www.cyclingpeakssoftware.com/levels.html

The three tables at the bottom show the various training levels, the physiological effects of training at each level, and the perceived exertion scale used in the first table, respectively. This is from a cycling perspective, but you can use the PE amd HR ranges for running, too.

The writer (Andrew Coggan) is an exercise physiologist researcher who has also done a 40K TT in something like 53:00. He knows his stuff (Frank Day may argue this, though :-)

Ken Lehner

---

----------------------------------
"Go yell at an M&M"

Do what Ken said.

The great misnomer in our sport is "aerobic zone". Anything you can do for more than a "few tens of minutes" (as Coggan puts it) is an aerobic workout, by definition. You can only be anaerobic for a couple of minutes, and the anaerobic system's contribution to your work effort ("pace") goes to near nil at efforts lasting more than about 20 minutes. Yes, lactate builds, but we're always generating lactate, even when watching TV.

I've heard people say silly things like, "I did a one hour anaerobic workout, and..." You did? I don't think so. In last month's Triathlete mag was a surprising statement by Joe Friel that "Races of one hour in length are primarily anaerobic." I have not read such nonsense in a long, long time (other than on message boards). Joe knows better, and I don't know why he would write that statement.

So, yes, there are many different levels of aerobic effort. Aerobic effort ranges from "easy" all the way up to "evil hard" (to borrow a Gordo term). You pick the effort level based on your total volume, your fitness level, what you did the day before, what you are doing in the next few days, etc. Generally, the more fit you are, the more rested you are, and the more time you have to recover the next few days -- the longer and harder you should train that day. The less fit you are (eg, base period), the more tired you are and the less recovery time you have planned, the shorter and/or easier you should go. Simple, really.

Anything you do that lasts longer than 20 minutes at a constantly paced effort is aerobic, so use it. It's all good, baby.

To be even more extreme, Andy says (with justification) that the 4000m track pursuit is primarily an aerobic event (and the WR is a bit over 4 minutes), although it won't elicit the same physiological effects as a longer aerobic workout.

Ken Lehner

---

----------------------------------
"Go yell at an M&M"

Excellent post Julian.

.....yeah, what Julian said!

If people would just realize that nothing we are doing in exercise is truely anaerobic, it might get easier to wrap our brains around the terminology. So-called "anaerobic" efforts might be more accurately called "delayed aerobic" efforts. We are eventually going to use oxygen to convert those so-called "anaerobic" byproducts on down the energy pathway, it's just that we required more oxygen than we provided at the sub-cellular level for a period of time, which generated these byproducts at a RATE faster than our bodies could process, and extracted energy from our potential fuel source in a much less efficient manner while doing so.

---

Quid quid latine dictum sit altum videtur
(That which is said in Latin sounds profound)

Well, Phil Maffatone and Mark Alan have specific ways of determining your "aerobic maximum HR". It's a little loose: age - x + x = Amax HR. They will say, anaerobic is buring up your glycogen, aerobic is not. So I would assume then, they would also say, you can burn your glycogen at different rates, hence an anerobic activity could last an 5 minutes, or 1 hour, depending on pace.

I went to a seminar Mark gave here in Austin a few years ago, he said once you've exceeded your aerobic max HR, it takes 6-9 hours to get back into "aerobic mode". Meaning, that if you exceed your aerobic max HR for a few minutes, your body will continue burning glycogen for hours after the fact, even if you return to an aerobic pace.

They base their training on this. They have you do a periodic MAF tests - Maximum Aerobic Fitness. You run 3-5 miles on a track 3 beats or so below your aerobic max HR. You repeat this test every three weeks or so. You can tell your aerobic fitness is imporving as your times drop. But you always do the test at the same HR and the same distance, and hopefully similar conditions.

Then, the training flip flops between aerobic training and anaerobic training. Once your MAF test plateaus, then it's time to go into the other phase. They recommend you start in the aerobic phase. How many weeks you stay in each phase depends on your periodic MAF test results.

I've never trained this way, but it's an interesting concept.

- Mike

Mike wrote: I went to a seminar Mark gave here in Austin a few years ago, he said once you've exceeded your aerobic max HR, it takes 6-9 hours to get back into "aerobic mode". Meaning, that if you exceed your aerobic max HR for a few minutes, your body will continue burning glycogen for hours after the fact, even if you return to an aerobic pace.

I'd like to see the science behind that. Regardless, what does that mean? So what if I "burn" glycogen for 6-9 hours after exceeding an aerobic max HR? Is this bad? Is it, perhaps, even good?

I guarantee you can exceed the so-called aerobic rate of a muscle without ever hitting a calculated aerobic HR. All you have to do is jump up out of a chair. You can even do that several times. Your HR will start to climb a bit, but it won't get very high at all (assuming you are in decent shape). Or, get me on a steady-state ride where my HR is pegged at my calculated max aerobic level. Have a gomer throw something at me from a moving car. Even if I maintain my exact effort on the bike, I guarantee you my HR will zoom way above my max aerobic HR. Does this mean my muscles will now burn glycogen for 6-9 hours afterward? I mean, I just got MORE cardiac output cranked up, come of which could therefore be available to course down my muscle capillaries thus providing more oxygen, right? (Well, that's a bit of a trick statement, it is partly the local limitation of the capillary bed bloodflow rate that determines when one had exceeded an "aerobic" workrate.) Or, make it hotter on the ride...HR goes up so that blood flow to the muscles stays constant as some blood is diverted to the skin for cooling. See what I mean?

The HR thing is so variable. It's inaccurate at best, misleading at worse. There are just so many things that affect HR. Don't get me wrong, I use a HR monitor on lots of my training jaunts...mostly to make sure I'm not going harder than I mean to go that day. I just don't make myself a slave to a number, or even a narrow range of numbers.

---

Quid quid latine dictum sit altum videtur
(That which is said in Latin sounds profound)

"Well, Phil Maffatone and Mark Alan have specific ways of determining your "aerobic maximum HR". It's a little loose: age - x + x = Amax HR."

I tried this last week and had to go so slow it was almost painful. That formula put my aerobic max a good 15 beats below where I usually do my easy runs. I just don't see how a formula can apply to individuals.

I'm not a real fast runner (22+ 5K, 46+ 10K) but I can't see where training at a pace of 11+ as I had to do using the aerobic max based on this formula is of any benefit. It felt like I was barely going faster than brisk walking.

Don

I don't get it - what does "x" stand for?

---

_______________________________________________

I am not qualified to evaluate any type of training, I wanted to simply relate that I feel the EXACT same way. It gives me a HR of 150 ... which is great for 2 hours of riding the bike or an hour of swimming, but puts me at 12-13min/mile (I could look it up to be exact). I do my MAF test outside on the same stretch of road, and it's EMBARRASSING, I'm barely jogging and I have to slow down. For garsh sakes, there's cars driving by and people are seeing me "training". I can sustain runs of 165-168HR for an hour.

Anyway, I wanted to suggest/remind/inform ... whatever the case may be ... that the idea is that you improve to where that 11min/mile @ 150HR (or whatever yours is) will get down to an 8min/mile pace at the same HR showing increased fitness.

It also allows for a ceiling of training intensity which alolows "average" individuals to train 6 edays per week (for me, most days doing 2 of the 3 events). IMO, that's where the value is for me, otherwise every day would be a "Beat my yesterday's time come hell or high water" type of training day.

How long it takes, and all the other variables, I don't know.

If this post said what you already know, spare me the "No Duh, you idiot" post ... I am very fragile.

---

=======================
-- Every morning brings opportunity;
Each evening offers judgement. --

OK here is how it works:

The Maffetone formula is based on your Respiratory Quotient (RQ). Or in other words, the Aerobic Max as listed by the Maffetone Method is the point in which you switch from burning mostly fat to burning mostly carbohydrate. After looking at age, health, history of exercise, Maffetone developed the formula after getting a statistical basis of peoples’ RQ. The theory being, that if you can train the body to go faster while burning fat, you have access to a significantly larger energy source, without stressing the body, and while training aerobic muscle fibers, which are more resistant to injury. And there is that whole mitochondrial development thing.

I had the off chance to get this tested in a lab environment in Boulder, and the formula was right on the money: Maffetone’s formula for my aerobic HR (or RQ) was identical to the lab results after getting my max VO2 tested.

So does it work? Well in 10 months time, I went from running 9:30 pace at my aerobic max to running 6:30 pace at the same heart rate. Oh, I also went from constant illness and injury (try nine stress fractures in three years of college running) to not being sick nor getting hurt in the five years I have been doing it. Bottom line: I don’t get hurt. I don’t get sick. I am faster than I have ever been. I put in 80 miles last week, and it was effortless. Running has never been so much fun. Five years ago I was being told by numerous PTs, sports med doctors, and podiatrists that I was not cut out for running and should consider giving it up. Thanks for nothing medical community.

Mr.’s Tri2HaveFun and TripleThreat, you guys need to buy some patience and you need to listen to the monitor. This stuff works. But yes, you feel like a chump for around six months. The only thing your tests prove is that you could be much faster if you gave it time. Check the ego, and get fast by doing it right.

You must realize that Mark and Dr. M are trying to really develop the aerobic strength aspect to put it in a better term. That is the key to a solid ironman race. You say you can run for an hour at that Hr- have you ever completed an LT test? What are your mile splits at that rate? Have you ever completed an ironman and if so what Hr did you hold? When Mark raced IM races- he never went over a Hr of 150 until the last 8 miles or so. He was always very controlled. When he was fresh he could do alittle over 5min miles at 150. The focus of training needs to be AeT(aerobic threshold). Complete a race pace 30minute effort and then take 60-65% of that(70-75%- if you are a top age grouper) and that is about your AeT(the ideal pace for an IM race). My last IM race- I held 145(give or take a few beats either way) for the entire bike and did a 5:08(also included being down for 15min due to a bad crash). The key is not to spike the Hr during the bike and the run. If you feel like you are barely moving when you use their Hr method- that may be a sign of required further aerobic strength development.



Steve Fluet
ESTSTri Coaching
Coaching Advisory Panel- Degree IM Project
Online Training- Ironmanlive
USTS Level 2 Coach

I am sticking to this training. It suits me. Sure it can be goofy-looking to be running a 13-min/mile pace during a MAF Test, but I will stay the course.

I use PC Coach and will likely grab a 410 pretty quickly. I understand the whole mentality behind it and adopted something similar for weight-lifting back in the days when that was my primary hobby. As a busy person, one quickly realizes you can't "go hard, all the time" and not fry yourself out.

I know the HR training will pay off as time goes on. One thing I learned from weight-lifting ... folks that change their way of training every 2-3 months usually (not always) spin their wheels. Those that pick something, (whatever it may be), stick with it, train consistently and progressively, have a huge amount of training success (i.e. progress). I pick PC Coach. We'll check my progress in May.

Hope I didn't sound like I was bashing Dr. M's ways ... I wasn't ... if anything I was bashing my current running fitness ... It's *ahem* not exactly where I want/need it to be.

---

=======================
-- Every morning brings opportunity;
Each evening offers judgement. --

Actually, Mark Allen reviews some of this in the recent Triathlete mag.

Formula is as follows, from the article:

1. 180-age

2. Take that amount and correct it by the amount next to the statemnet that best describes your level fitness.

a. Subtract 5 beats if recoverying from a major illness or injury that has kept you from training for six months or more

b. Leave the number where it isifyou have been working out about two to three days per week for at least a year.

c. Add five beats if you have been wroking out more than three days per week for at least a year.

d. Add 10 beats if you have been working out more than five days per week for at least five years without recurring colds, illnesses, injuries, or long periods of burnout.

(if your are trying to choose between the above two statements, pick the one that gives the lowest HR)

e. If you are older than 55 years or younger than 25 years old, add an additional five beates to whatever number you have right now

This gives Max Aerobic HR.

Thanks Mike.

---

_______________________________________________

"Mr.’s Tri2HaveFun and TripleThreat, you guys need to buy some patience and you need to listen to the monitor. This stuff works. But yes, you feel like a chump for around six months. The only thing your tests prove is that you could be much faster if you gave it time. Check the ego, and get fast by doing it right. "

I'm already a couple months into my marathon training program and I don't think it would be greatly beneficial to change at this point. After this season is over I may give this stuff another try in preparation for next year.

As it is now I use HR zones that were developed for me by CTS based on the results of a field test. The easy runs are still pretty slow but not as slow as this formula would have me go. I definitely don't go out and run hard every day. As slow of a runner as I am I sure don't have an ego.

The questions I have about this formula is where does the number 180 come from? 180 minus age, plus or minus several variables equals aerobic max. Why 180?

Don

Congratulations on the improvement and ability to overcome injuries. A couple of questions for you.

You stated that you've taken 3 minutes off your pace at your max aerobic HR over 10 months. As far as what I've heard about Maffetone's method, you go through periodic tests, which determine where your training should focus, whether that be below or above your "max aerobic HR" as he defines it. So, in those 10 months have you just gone out and run, keeping below your aerobic max this whole time, or have you followed the Maffetone method strictly and tested. If you've tested, was this whole 10 months spent running below your aerobic max, or did you go to higher intensity work every once and awhile. I'm just looking for some more specifics on the types of training you did over those 10 months.

Another question is volume and frequency. That's one of the things that often gets left out of these discussions in HR training. Where should one's volume and frequency be to keep improving fitness. It seems to me that while frequency is probably less important, that volume should increase over this period, I could be wrong. So what types of volumes did you start at, and why did you start there?

Jack

---

---------------------------------------------------------

"What the mind can conceive and believe, the mind and body can achieve; and those who stay will be champions."

I use the following model:

This works. extremely well. At least for me. After about 12 weeks of aerobic base training, I am running 6:10 min miles at the same HR that I was running 7:20 min miles when I started my training.

All are based on 180 - age

(endurance work) -15 to +10 beats

(moderate aerobic work) -20 to +5 beats

(hard aerobic work) 0 to +10 beats

(speed work) above +10 beats

(recovery) below -20

OK, my schedule called for 5 miles today and since I have a 10 mile race tomorrow I figured I would try this aerobic max thing again and have a real easy day. My average pace for the 5 was 11:09. I kept my HR below the max the entire time. Maybe I'm not figuring my max properly but from the formula MA gave it would be 180 - 48 (my age). The only variable that fits me is 2b so that leaves me with a max of 132. I just can't imagine doing all my runs below 132 and having that make me faster. You guys that are doing 145-150 must be much younger.

Living in Colorado all my runs tend to be rather hilly and my pace was 15+ going uphill in order to stay in the zone. I'm wondering if it would be better to do these runs on a treadmill where the conditions are more controlled?

Don

Julian, bang on. By the way, nothing wrong training well below the top of your aerobic zone whether you define it the way Maffetone does or otherwise. A three out hike, or a bike ride at 110 bpm while slow is better than nothing. Walking is great for base building for runners, as it strengthens all the small muscles, ligaments and tendons for running.

I'd be interested to see if anyone has done a study on incidence of injury in runners who walk their dog for 30-60 min per day vs those that run only. Assuming similar running mileage, I bet you that the dog walking group has less injuries...but that is just a hunch.

Either way, nothing wrong with super easy trainining. It is better to be a many hours undertrained than one our overtrained !

First of all, I don't claim to be an expert on this training method, and as I've said I've never personally tried it - but I think I might.

I have read about it considerably and heard Mark Allen talk about it.

I read about it because it came with my PC Coach Mike Pigg triathlon software. Pigg followed the Maffatone methods like Marc Allen.

I'm not sure what they would say about the hills....either avoid them or slow down I guess. I know Mike Pigg mentions that if you are in the aerobic phase and are dying to do speed work, you can do slight downhill repeats where your leg turnover is high, but you don't go over you aerobic max.

Someone mentioned this - the training is based on the results of your periodic aerobic test results. Once your test times stop improving, then you go to the other phase - anaerobic. And vice versa.

I think Maffetone has a book on this. Don't know the name of it. It might be on Mark Allen's webpage, but I'm not sure.

Mike

_The Maffetone Method_

It's a great book, but I would caution you to read "180 - age" as "max aerobic heart rate" whenever you see it. No statistical model is going to be correct for everyone. It just won't.

So how do you fine max aerobi heart rate then? I think Gordo has it pretty much right on when he talks about finding AeT.

Note that this is one of many ways to train. With intensity generally low one tends to make a new stressor from frequency or duration. Those _are_ the only variables you have to work with after all. So this might not be the method for you.

matt

---

"When I cleaned up my diction, I had nothing left to say" -- Van Morrison