Login required to started new threads

Login required to post replies

Prev Next
Re: physiology question re Maffetone [jroden] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
jroden wrote:
seemed too good to be true, guess I was grasping at straws hoping I could just jog around for months and get faster

Do you always make up your mind after one opinion from someone you don't personally know?
Quote Reply
Re: physiology question re Maffetone [Old Hickory] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Old Hickory wrote:
jroden wrote:
seemed too good to be true, guess I was grasping at straws hoping I could just jog around for months and get faster


Do you always make up your mind after one opinion from someone you don't personally know?

I wasn't trying to make up my mind so much as understand the logic or evidence base supporting the author's training method. Reading down through the responses, it seems to be more anecdotal than based on exercise physiology.

I don't personally know Archimedes but I trust his methods when I decide how full to make the bathtub. I don't need to know everyone in the world scientific community personally, it would require a lot of expensive air travel.
Quote Reply
Re: physiology question re Maffetone [devashish_paul] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
devashish_paul wrote:
swimming and zero risk of injury unless your volume is 30,000m per week.

Wrong. Totally.

John



Top notch coaching: Francois and Accelerate3 | Follow on Twitter: LifetimeAthlete |
Quote Reply
Re: physiology question re Maffetone [thirstygreek] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I've used this program to great success (at least from my perspective, it depends what your goals are), and I agree with everyone who has said that it is a way of training up until you plateau, and then incorporate speed work. When I used Maffetone I was just starting out in triathlon. The reason I liked it was because the low intensity workouts helped me to build up my endurance faster (so that I could train longer). I think a lot of people just starting out (including myself) may have a tendency to start doing high intensity right off the bat and either a) injure themselves or b) burn themselves out early. Maffetone method prevents that. I've also felt more energetic, and my recovery between workouts is very fast. I didn't start doing any speedwork until about 2 months out from my A race, and then only once a week for each discipline. I completed my first Ironman after about one year of training with the Maffetone method (adapted by Mark Allen Online, now Smart Triathlon Training).

__________

"Thankfully, persistence is a great substitute for talent" - Steve Martin
http://www.trifundracing.com
Quote Reply
Re: physiology question re Maffetone [devashish_paul] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Quote:
I did not let my heart rate go above 150 bpm in any sport


Here's the fundamental problem with Maffertone - arbitrary numbers like this. 150 is easy for you, but is starting to get into the truly uncomfortable range for me. I haven't worn a HRM for anything other than curiosity for a while, but if I had to venture a guess, I would guess that 150 is a touch over HIM effort for me in both the bike and the run. Not easy.

Yet my wife would be in the 160 to 165 range for an IM marathon, so 150 is just slightly harder than a brisk walk.
Last edited by: sentania: Sep 26, 14 12:09
Quote Reply
Re: physiology question re Maffetone [Halvard] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Halvard wrote:
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.


Are you sure that you're not confusing Nokia with Nokian? Nokian is still making some pretty awesome tires.
Quote Reply

Prev Next