Login required to started new threads

Login required to post replies

Prev Next
physiology question re Maffetone
Quote | Reply
I was reading a little about this training philosophy and was curious if there was any evidence base to this whole notion that you need to do ALL of your training below heartrate X for a set period of months. It seems a little extreme to just categorically say don't do anything remotely hard for 3 months, but I have not read the guy's book.

I'm just curious I guess.
Quote Reply
Re: physiology question re Maffetone [jroden] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
No physiological basis whatsoever.
Quote Reply
Re: physiology question re Maffetone [Nick B] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
seemed too good to be true, guess I was grasping at straws hoping I could just jog around for months and get faster
Quote Reply
Re: physiology question re Maffetone [jroden] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
You actually probably do get faster to a certain extent, but there is no scientific evidence that you should ONLY train slow. Relatively good evidence for polarized training (like 80% slow, 20% really hard/fast or something like that), and there are several threads on here about that. That is how the Norwegian cross country skiers train for example.

Two wheels good. Four wheels bad.
Quote Reply
Re: physiology question re Maffetone [DrTriKat] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
DrTriKat wrote:
You actually probably do get faster to a certain extent, but there is no scientific evidence that you should ONLY train slow. Relatively good evidence for polarized training (like 80% slow, 20% really hard/fast or something like that), and there are several threads on here about that. That is how the Norwegian cross country skiers train for example.

Yes, I thought of what I read about the Norwegian skiers in the 80's doing huge volume of ski walking in the summer or jogging around in rubber boots at low HR
Quote Reply
Re: physiology question re Maffetone [jroden] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Also remember when Mark Allen went to this he had a huge huge base and already was wicked fast.
Quote Reply
Re: physiology question re Maffetone [jroden] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
if you have 25-30h of time on your hand, that training could do very well for you. you would reach a decent training load make progress. But it s don't think it s the best or advisable way to train.

Jonathan Caron / Professional Coach / ironman champions / age group world champions
Jonnyo Coaching
Instargram
Quote Reply
Re: physiology question re Maffetone [jonnyo] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
jonnyo wrote:
if you have 25-30h of time on your hand, that training could do very well for you. you would reach a decent training load make progress. But it s don't think it s the best or advisable way to train.

I was mostly curious about this notion that going a little harder during the long base period would somehow undo everything. Seems a little far fetched for a species that made it this far.
Quote Reply
Re: physiology question re Maffetone [jroden] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
jroden wrote:
DrTriKat wrote:
You actually probably do get faster to a certain extent, but there is no scientific evidence that you should ONLY train slow. Relatively good evidence for polarized training (like 80% slow, 20% really hard/fast or something like that), and there are several threads on here about that. That is how the Norwegian cross country skiers train for example.


Yes, I thought of what I read about the Norwegian skiers in the 80's doing huge volume of ski walking in the summer or jogging around in rubber boots at low HR

Is there an advantage to foot fungus/athlete's foot or have they switched to ankle weights? :-)

Two wheels good. Four wheels bad.
Quote Reply
Re: physiology question re Maffetone [DrTriKat] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
DrTriKat wrote:
jroden wrote:
DrTriKat wrote:
You actually probably do get faster to a certain extent, but there is no scientific evidence that you should ONLY train slow. Relatively good evidence for polarized training (like 80% slow, 20% really hard/fast or something like that), and there are several threads on here about that. That is how the Norwegian cross country skiers train for example.


Yes, I thought of what I read about the Norwegian skiers in the 80's doing huge volume of ski walking in the summer or jogging around in rubber boots at low HR


Is there an advantage to foot fungus/athlete's foot or have they switched to ankle weights? :-)

check this out:

A lot of things were better in the old days. But distance workouts in rubber boots?
“It felt mostly like running on cutting boards, but we didn’t think twice about it!”
These days, running shoes are so lightweight and comfortable that you barely feel them at all. That was not the case back in “the good old days,” or at least until the end of the 1970s. In Norway, people were using rubber boots for distance runs in wetlands as well as for interval workouts on gravel roads.
Lars Erik Eriksen, who was on the Norwegian national team from 1977 to 1985, is one of the rubber boots’ most dedicated fans.
“I used rubber boots in all kinds of terrain. I even ran in them on hot summer days. Back then, running shoes were not particularly good, so rubber boots was a natural and convenient choice for us,” Eriksen says. The merited skier has several international medals on his resume, including Olympic silver from the relay in Lake Placid 1980 and gold medal from the World Championships in Oslo 1982. He also snagged a silver medal and a bronze medal from that event.
Do you think the rubber boots contributed to your performance?
“When we were fit, we didn’t really think a lot about what we were running in, but I do remember we thought the weight of the footwear was an added bonus. It was basically extra training. It was really heavy if we were running in wetlands and stepped in to where the water level reached above the top of the boots and filled them with water,” says Eriksen.
Did you use a specific kind of rubber boots?
“We preferred the ones that were slightly shorter, the green ones with bigger, grippier outsoles. But you should have seen the chunky ones Myrmo (ed. legendary Norwegian cross-country skier) and his friends were using… That was back in the early 1970s. At that time, athletes were using those tall, heavy black ones. You can see them in photos in old training text books. There are pictures of athletes wearing that kind of stuff,” Eriksen says.
How did you feet handle running around in rubber boots?
“Well, it kind of felt like running around with wooden cutting boards under your feet. The shock absorption was non-existent. It was definitely not gentle on knees and hips. But we managed,” says Eriksen.
But then real running shoes came along. Eriksen recalls a blustery fall day when a young boy named Bjoern Daehlie came up to him and wanted to tag along for a run. Eriksen of course sported his usual rubber boots, while the future king of XC skiing ran in modern running shoes.
“I took Bjoern for a real overdistance workout. We did some real soggy wetlands, and it was sleeting as well. But with my rubber boots, my feet stayed dry, while Bjoern was so wet and cold that he even shed a few tears. But he completed the whole workout, I’ll give him credit for that,” Eriksen recalls.
From www.langrenn.com, July 15, 2010 By Ola Jordheim Halvorsen, translation by Inge Scheve
Quote Reply
Re: physiology question re Maffetone [jroden] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I can remember reading Mark Allen, Mike Pigg and Collen Cannon (1990's) were all quoted as saying they latched onto this plan/program with good results. Further examination of their statements makes one wonder if they were "over-trained" and needed lower intensity and diet changes to balance themselves out. I have yet to read a study that demonstrated/pointed out aerobic fat burning is turned off at a certain heart rate marker.
Quote Reply
Re: physiology question re Maffetone [Billyk24] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I don't know about formal studies but their are athletes using this now. Angela Naeth is one, she is coached by Dave and Phil. I have learned quite a bit about it listening to Tim Wagoneer talk about it on some podcasts. He used it with great success as well. It's not Zero speed work. You use the MAF formula until you plateau then work in speed work etc then after that period go back to MAF. It's not much different than other methods.

All of these programs that use slow efforts (qt2 come to mind) all tout the improvements of running slow to run fast. Which I get but MAF isn't much different it's just not as slow. I have friend doing ZR runs at 10:00 mi in order to bring up pace at that HR and push the whole curve up. MAF would do this too and I think it's because you can do a lot of it. You can run in the grey Zone or do track work 5-6 x/week. For this same reason it's why Barryp's principles work. It's very easy For a while then at end start working in speed.

It's all periodization to a degree. There's more than one way to skin a cat and not one is correct for every cat.

"Base training is bull shit" - desertdude
Quote Reply
Re: physiology question re Maffetone [jroden] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
jroden wrote:
DrTriKat wrote:
You actually probably do get faster to a certain extent, but there is no scientific evidence that you should ONLY train slow. Relatively good evidence for polarized training (like 80% slow, 20% really hard/fast or something like that), and there are several threads on here about that. That is how the Norwegian cross country skiers train for example.


Yes, I thought of what I read about the Norwegian skiers in the 80's doing huge volume of ski walking in the summer or jogging around in rubber boots at low HR

You know we can also raise our FTP by riding RAAM volume and RAAM power. The reason why those Norwegian summer workouts work is because skiers have massive engines from the winter and hammer themselves multiple times per week all winter. They need time for their bodies to re coup. Also their engines are so massive, that if you send them off running, everyone will be "jogging" at 3:30 per kilometer and the pickups will be 2:55 per kilometer pace. The problem with that is that because their run volume is low all winter, their joints and muscles won't take it for too long without injury. So all that "ski walking" and those slow long runs "worked" because it kept them from getting injured and allowed them to keep up volume. Same things with Maffetone. If you cap your heart rate while running, you can do a shit ton of volume day over day over day over day.

You will find this interesting because you are a skier. This past winter I did more classic style XC skiing than ever. The interesting about classic skiing that unless your technique is really good (mine is bad), you never really send your heart rate through the roof. At the same time the easy cruise in classic skiing is actually harder then the cruise in skate skiing (assuming your skate technique is half decent). I did not realize how much volume I was doing in those "Maffetone" zones. I did my first half IM at Galveston off zero bike miles on my TT bike (I put my TT bike together in Galveston on Friday before the Sunday race)...I had something like 7x1 hour on the computrainer all winter, but decent XC ski, swim and run volume. The XC skiing was my volume filler (cycling usually has this role in the summer). Running was decent volume with some intervals. Swimming was all hard stuff. I had a great race at Galveston for where I was in the year and actually had my fastest run split all year in 4 half IM's (granted, Galveston has zero hills). I think my XC classic ski volume, while not "hard" like I do in skate skiing, was much harder than I gave it credit for, yet low enough to feel 'recovered' the next day. My hip flexors and back were also really well conditioned so staying bolted in the aero position for 90K was not a problem (suprisingly).

All this to say, I think that some of the "go really easy" training approaches just allows us to do more volume day over day.

By the way, back in 1994, I was going to ITU World's in New Zealand in Nov. I had a decent and hard season, so went on the "Mafffetone" program in Sep after my last race at Esprit for 8 weeks till the first week of Nov. I did not let my heart rate go above 150 bpm in any sport (at the time, I would race Olympic tri bike legs at 175 and runs at 180-185 and my max was 195). It was ridiculously slow, but over time, I got faster and faster and faster at 150 bpm. I would go to the track and do the Maff test and be faster and faster. "it was working". Then in early November, did a few weeks of intervals and put down one of my best races of my life.

However, it would be easy to look at this in isoloation. Like the Norwegian skiers I was pretty hammered from an entire summer of racing (did IMC Penticton end of Aug and actually went 1:59 Olympic at Esprit 2 weeks later). I was really fit at the end of Sep, but trying to push my body for another 2 months would have been a disaster. So going on the Maff approach allowed my body to recover for 2 months and really absorb the entire summer season, while not losing any fitness. If I recall, I went 2:06 on that crazy hilly and windy course in Wellington and closed with a 37 min 10K while spending 2 months jogging at 4:30 - 5:30 per kilometer.

So my personal view is that it works interleaved with "conventional" training. In conventional training our easy workouts are the same as Maffetone, but tomorrow we go hard. In Maffetone, you go easy/moderate for months and then throw some hard stuff in and go back to easy. They just spend more time doing the easy stuff, but you need decent volume of that or it is useless. For the time constrained age grouper, what do you do?

For swimming, I think this is waste of time due to bad technique developing swimming easy all the time. There is less recovery penalty in swimming and zero risk of injury unless your volume is 30,000m per week.
Quote Reply
Re: physiology question re Maffetone [jroden] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
By the way, on the heavy rubber boots, the total weight of those would be like a ski and ski boot, so the hip flexors and hamstrings would have a similar "lifting" load if you know what I mean.
Quote Reply
Re: physiology question re Maffetone [jroden] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
jroden wrote:
I was reading a little about this training philosophy and was curious if there was any evidence base to this whole notion that you need to do ALL of your training below heartrate X for a set period of months. It seems a little extreme to just categorically say don't do anything remotely hard for 3 months, but I have not read the guy's book.

I'm just curious I guess.

I'll let you know after IMFL. So far so good, went 4:50 last week in a HIM (previous PR 5:12) on 12 weeks of MAF training 19-20h / week and 2 weeks of speed work. All of this on IM training not HIM specific training.
Quote Reply
Re: physiology question re Maffetone [devashish_paul] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
devashish_paul wrote:
By the way, on the heavy rubber boots, the total weight of those would be like a ski and ski boot, so the hip flexors and hamstrings would have a similar "lifting" load if you know what I mean.

Interesting stuff. I'm hoping to make it up for the marathon this year, last one I did was the first year of the point to point, I really enjoyed it.

I have been trying to get better at running in my 50's with little improvement. My latest drama is an arthritic toe thing called hallus rigidus, which may explain why I have so much trouble balancing on my right ski.
Quote Reply
Re: physiology question re Maffetone [jroden] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
jroden wrote:
I was reading a little about this training philosophy and was curious if there was any evidence base to this whole notion that you need to do ALL of your training below heartrate X for a set period of months. It seems a little extreme to just categorically say don't do anything remotely hard for 3 months, but I have not read the guy's book.

I'm just curious I guess.

I don't believe he says to do all of your training at x heart rate. But I may be wrong. Many other coaches use similar methods in the off season to get a solid base. Jack Daniel's is a pretty well respected coach and he starts his off season with all slow mileage, he uses pace and not heart rate.

I start last season with all "Zone 2" stuff for 2 months, building in long runs. Then adding tempo work and finally proper track speed work as my A race approached. Worked well for me. All that base also meant that this summer I could focus my marathon training better and turned out a 3 hour marathon with minimal training in the last 8 weeks and felt great doing it (my goal was to have a successful marathon without taking away all my summer with training). I would say that 80% of my yearly load is "slow"

It takes time to build up the engine, and the more running you can do in the off season the better and the slower and "easier" you do it at the less likely you will get injured.

I started training this way 2 years ago and my easy pace was about a 5:30 km. Now at the same heart rate I am about a 4:20 min/km. My marathon was all done in Zone 2.

But I do speed work as well, it is just not the biggest part of my training.

Ian
Quote Reply
Re: physiology question re Maffetone [jroden] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
The most used rubber boots for training in Norway in the 80s was made by Nokia (yes the cell phone maker, Nokia also made some really good winter tires back then).
My whole family had those and I used them for running in the woods when it is wet as a junior. They were easy to run with.

They are still made under a different name.


Quote Reply
Re: physiology question re Maffetone [Halvard] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
i'd love to see pictures of that
Quote Reply
Re: physiology question re Maffetone [jroden] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Perhaps Barry P explains it best. You've got to be consistant... and that means healthy and fully recovered. I can not put in too many fast runs and still maintain 4-5 runs/week over a matter of months. Throw in some road races and strides, and that is the formula that works best for me.
Quote Reply
Re: physiology question re Maffetone [thirstygreek] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
thirstygreek wrote:
I don't know about formal studies but their are athletes using this now. Angela Naeth is one, she is coached by Dave and Phil. I have learned quite a bit about it listening to Tim Wagoneer talk about it on some podcasts. He used it with great success as well. It's not Zero speed work. You use the MAF formula until you plateau then work in speed work etc then after that period go back to MAF. It's not much different than other methods.

All of these programs that use slow efforts (qt2 come to mind) all tout the improvements of running slow to run fast. Which I get but MAF isn't much different it's just not as slow. I have friend doing ZR runs at 10:00 mi in order to bring up pace at that HR and push the whole curve up. MAF would do this too and I think it's because you can do a lot of it. You can run in the grey Zone or do track work 5-6 x/week. For this same reason it's why Barryp's principles work. It's very easy For a while then at end start working in speed.

It's all periodization to a degree. There's more than one way to skin a cat and not one is correct for every cat.

Angela is not advised by anyone named "Dave"...

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Paul Duncan Jr - Triathlete/Coach/Loyal Friend - Coaching Site -

Quote Reply
Re: physiology question re Maffetone [pduncan1984] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Angela is not advised by anyone named "Dave".

Zing!

Good one, Paul!

Post of the day, stuff right there.


Steve Fleck @stevefleck | Blog
Quote Reply
Re: physiology question re Maffetone [pduncan1984] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Mark Allen not Dave

"Base training is bull shit" - desertdude
Quote Reply
Re: physiology question re Maffetone [thirstygreek] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
thirstygreek wrote:
Mark Allen not Dave

haha, I figured... That's how rumors get started :-)

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Paul Duncan Jr - Triathlete/Coach/Loyal Friend - Coaching Site -

Quote Reply
Re: physiology question re Maffetone [devashish_paul] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Sounds like a good argument for training in Hokas!

-Robert

"How wonderful it is that nobody need wait a single moment before starting to improve the world." ~Anne Frank
Quote Reply

Prev Next