Last year for several months I did the BarryP run plan (six days a week) all at MAF heart rate. On the three short distance days I added a Sufferfest ride. Managed to increase my pace at MAF HR and increase FTP at the same time. After each four week cycle I'd pretty much take a fifth week off, FTP test, then do it all over again.

Any outside circumstances that might invalidate that increase? Like weight loss? Or did you happen to notice if your FTP increase was greater, lesser or equal to past increases? Again, understanding that there are other circumstances that would lead to a variance.

Gains all seemed legit. I think run gains were as much due to run volume as anything. I really like the BarryP + MAF formula as you get volume at an easy pace thus lessening chances of injury.

On the bike my go-to 4 week plan is the Sufferfest Build on TR. It has you riding 6x weekly. I knew riding + running 6x weekly was a recipe for disaster so I simply dropped the three recovery rides from the plan. I noticed my FTP did not go up as much over 4 weeks as it did in the previous year, which again I attribute purely to decreased volume.

No, it's all "aerobic" work. Varying intensity doesn't change that. True aenerobic efforts, if something can be called that, are at such a high intensity you can only maintain for the briefest period of time. MAF is simply a effort/pacing protocol which allows you to do the single best thing you can do for run training: build volume without getting hurt by limiting pace. Volume is the key, not the MAF HR.

---

-Of course it's 'effing hard, it's IRONMAN!
Team ZOOT
ZOOT, QR, Garmin, HED Wheels, Zealios, FormSwim, Precision Hydration, Rudy Project

Yes, thank you. Few people understand this simple concept. Well said.

---

Simplify, Train, Live

And the bike affords you the perfect opportunity to use intensity as it's hard to hurt yourself pushing on the bike. Also bike fitness is best improved via a combination of volume and intensity much more so then the run where frequency and volume trump pace.

---

-Of course it's 'effing hard, it's IRONMAN!
Team ZOOT
ZOOT, QR, Garmin, HED Wheels, Zealios, FormSwim, Precision Hydration, Rudy Project

But if you pass the peak of your MAF, you start burning glucose as opposed to fat, which in MAF theory is a less effective fuel source. So if I do a TR ride and spike my HR at 175 a bunch of times, that workout is now training my body to use glucose as opposed to staying in a more efficient state.

Now - if it's not hurting MAF improvement progress, just not as helpful as working at a slower HR, then that's great. I just wanted to clarify that its not detrimental or counteractive.

I think you are overthinking it. Keep it simple leads to better result mentally and physically long-term

I've dedicated myself to following a certain run plan. I just want to make sure the training adaptations it's meant to improve are not imposed upon by the bike plan I follow. I think that's smart, not overthinking. In addition, Maffetone running is so painfully slow for someone like me, it often leads to walking, which is a mental mind F. So if the improvements were going to be diminished by the big program, then I would scrap it and just go back to running hard, because at least that feels better.

More good news then, the concept that being fat adapated is a benefit or actually even occurs is a canard. Your body doesn't care what fuel system it utilizes and for intensity carbohydrate is your friend. The Fat Adapted concept isn't the same as MAF. It's also a fools errand, so one less thing. :)

---

-Of course it's 'effing hard, it's IRONMAN!
Team ZOOT
ZOOT, QR, Garmin, HED Wheels, Zealios, FormSwim, Precision Hydration, Rudy Project

MAF is not a short for Maffetone. It's Maximum Aerobic Function, which is the point at which you burn the maximum amount of fat as a fuel source. What's the difference between this and being fat adapted? Not being smart, genuinely confused now.

Best not to ascribe too much precision to any given training methodology. Most of these "methods" are packaged in such a way as to present some sort of semblance of coherent ideology. But training doesn't actually work that way. All of these "inflection points" are largely subjective and really exist on a continuum.

If you are stressing your body and providing it with adequate recovery, you will adapt. In that sense, they are not at all working "independently" of each other. They are all just stressors. Training is really pretty simple. The only self sabotage that will occur is if you over-think this.

---

"Non est ad astra mollis e terris via." - Seneca | rappstar.com | FB - Rappstar Racing | IG - @jordanrapp

Sorry, right we are conflating two things. Your Maffeaton method is a pacing plan that coincidentally seems to blend into MAF. That's correct. What I am saying is the concept Fat adaptation isn't really all it cracked up to be. Your body doesn't care what substrate energy source you use. Even doing an Ironman is at an intensity where using carbohydrate, which is handed out for free in the course, will result in your best performance. And there is no magic HR where we switch over from fat to carbohydrate, iwe are always using both it's just a question of percentages of which one depending on intensity. What I am saying is keep on with Maffeaton for your run and intensity on the bike and toss out MAF.

---

-Of course it's 'effing hard, it's IRONMAN!
Team ZOOT
ZOOT, QR, Garmin, HED Wheels, Zealios, FormSwim, Precision Hydration, Rudy Project

Best not to ascribe too much precision to any given training methodology. Most of these "methods" are packaged in such a way as to present some sort of semblance of coherent ideology. But training doesn't actually work that way. All of these "inflection points" are largely subjective and really exist on a continuum.

If you are stressing your body and providing it with adequate recovery, you will adapt. In that sense, they are not at all working "independently" of each other. They are all just stressors. Training is really pretty simple. The only self sabotage that will occur is if you over-think this.

Well said.


If you followed the Mafftone methodology to it's exact details, you would think you were somehow adjusting the dials on a stereo, the same way you were controlling your bodies metabolism while training/racing. It does not work that way exactly.


It's at the same time more complicated, and way more simple than people realize. These days there seems to be a trend towards making the training very complicated, and detailed - worrying about the final 5% when the 95% of the training - just getting in the time/volume at a moderate workload, is really where most people need to focus and what get's you the really big gains.

---

---

Steve Fleck @stevefleck | Blog

Do MAF when needed. When doing MAF, do MAF. When not doing MAF, don't do MAF. (actually not kidding)

---

----------------------------------------------------------
Zen and the Art of Triathlon. Strava Workout Log
Interviews with Chris McCormack, Helle Frederikson, Angela Naeth, and many more.
http://www.zentriathlon.com

no I actually think there is benefit to only following MAF on the run and nothing else. Getting faster at "low heart rate" is a key performance predictor for long distance tri (like ironman). And MAF is a good starting point to determine what that "low HR" is. I also use "power at low HR" as a key benchmark on the bike, but I never train with heart rate at all. My low HR for running just happens to coincide with my MAF value, but on the bike it's different. But to answer your question, in general I find run training at MAF to be very beneficial for a high number of athletes, I don't find MAF training on the bike useful at all, and people who try to do swim training at MAF are just wasting every moment of training time, guaranteed.

---

____________________________________

Are you ready to do an Ultraman? | How I calculate Ironman race fueling | Strength Training for Athletes |

- you're burning both fat and CHO at almost all intensities. It's the % of CHO/fat that changes. You don't go from burning 100% fat to 100% CHO by increasing speed a few seconds per mile.

Basically to become fat adapted eat a diet higher in fat than you're currently eating. Then you'll burn a higher % of fat as a substrate at all intensities. PubMed is our friend on this if you want to read a ton of research

To burn more fat as a substrate (get to that maximal fat burning intensity) when training you've got 2 options. Slow down which shifts the RQ down to a higher % of fat & less CHO or become more fit. If you're more fit than for any given velocity your RQ should skew towards more fat as a substrate. For instance 8:00/mile in February might be 60% CHO/40fat but now in April it maybe be 40% CHO/60% fat.

But then you also need to ask yourself is 8:00 still an appropriate pace to insure that you're becoming faster.

TLDR: Think less. Run a lot & do it easy and occasionally run really fast.

---

Brian Stover USAT LII
Accelerate3 Coaching
Insta

I know exactly where your coming from and saying it's not smart as such, just no need to make it complex. It might be too smart in other words :-)

Im by no means an expert but have learned my lessons the hard way last 6 years. Qualified for kona with dedicating myself to a certain training program which I continuously tried to optimize through complexity and sophistication -- often time ignoring advice from my coach and my body/system. It turns out that I got fast but not as fast as I think I could have been if I had kept things simple. The mental drain was a big part of it. It's something that I didn't see coming until too late or even post Mortem

After a 2016 of just doing random workouts and not a lot my training is now quite simple
-- train as much as my schedule and life allows until my body, agenda or family says stop
-- run: run almost every day 30-60 mins with a weekly long run of 90-120 mins. Do some serious hard work once every roughly 10-12 days. Rest of the time is relaxed running. Pace varies based on where I run and how I feel that particular day
-- bike: pretty much like running but sessions are 60-120 minutes with weekly long ride of 3,5-5 hr. Hard work happens once per week
-- eat and rest well

I'm apparently faster than ever and training is more fun than ever

That's why I said you might be over-thinking it with all due respect

A