Maffetone offers a way to estimate the AeT (180 minus age etc, etc) which I am sure you are familiar with. Out of curiosity, how does your calculated AeT compare with the result you would get from his approach?

---

__________________________________________________

You sir, are my new hero! - Trifan 11/13/2008

Casey, you are a wise man - blueraider_mike 11/13/2008

Casey, This is an astute observation. - Slowbern 11/17/2008

And this test is a great tool to gauge progress because it uses HR to measure intensity. As we know, HR is an excellent tool for testing, since it is not affected by factors like temperature, humidity, fatigue state, hydration, etc.

**heavy sarcasm off**

Not to mention the fact that heart rate is a very good indicator of metabolic fitness, and since running economy is immutable, you don't have to worry about the specificity principle when interpreting the results.

English please! ;-)

funny my best ever MAF is 12:48 @ 145 bpm.

I suck.

---

runfatmanrun.blogspot.com

makes sense to me.

In my training log, I note my average pace and average HR on all my runs. I also have named all of my standard neighborhood runs (varying in length from 4-12 miles), which I also record in my log. Since I tend to do the same loops around my neighborhood frequently, I can compare pace/hr data for the same course over a period of time.

Its not exact, but I can see a trend. Lower pace at same HR or same pace at lower HR.....with some variability for fatigue, heat, etc. Along with a few notes in my log, its helpful to be able to look back and see how performance is changing.

---

__________________
JP

my twitter feed

---

--
fork DOWN
times DOWN
woo - jackmott

No, somewhere in the 37sec improvement there are the improvements in aerobic capacity and running economy. The problem arises as you progress, when the gains in aerobic capacity and running economy are of the same (or lower) order of magnitude as the error introduced by using HR to gauge intensity.

Is there an aerobic function test that is easy to do without getting a VO2 test done?

Also, I have been using the subjective "first deepening of breath" as guide for AeT - what are your thoughts on this as a guide for AeT?

This is gonna be good...

Uh oh, what did I do - must have opened up something that was already hashed out somewhere in time on some forum.

I believe AC's comment is to the fact that your test is not specific at all, and probably not ideal at all. I hate it when AC just gives us these little snipits then runs. Why can't he give us just a little info on his comments. I think he likes to tease us!

AC what would you suggest for testing?

---

Mike

----------------------------------
Owner/General Manager North Central Cyclery, Dekalb IL
http://www.NorthCentralCyclery.com

"The best predictor of performance is performance itself." - A. Coggan, ca. 1980.

Shane,

When I read that last sentence I took a deep breath, I am pretty sure I was reaching some kind of threshold ;-)

The other day I was thinking that I wasn't sure if you were a tenured professor or not. Now that I see you quoting yourself, I know the answer to that question.

Paulo,

Do you not use heart rate as a tool for training programs or do you use it as an adjunct to perceived exertion and power?

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

---

---------------------------------------------------------
"When you like suffering, when you like the pain in your legs and all your body; it means you are good."
-Ignatus Konovalovas
winner stage 21 TT 2009 Giro D'Italia

It is a nice simple test to guage progress, but as Paulo says heart rate can be an erratic measure. To get any hope of useful results, conditions (weather) should be similar and you should be in the same state of rest (ie not overtrained). I used to do this some time ago, and the only thing I learned is that my times would be faster in mid summer when I was in peak racing fitness vs in early spring for the same heart rate, despite the heat. Occaisionally, my times in the fall would be better than mid summer times, when I had a full season of "running legs" was more rested and the temps were cool. This despite technically being less fit...so you can see where Paulo is coming from. Either way, I like the test. Its fun and you can guage macro improvements from season to season, just don't expect to pick anything useful out of it week to week.

Now a serious reply.

You're asking me what I think about a subjective test of a subjective... I don't even what to call it... that some people decided to call AeT.

If you want to use HR to establish training zones, then the best approach is to do a maximum effort for 30-60min and equate the average HR of that effort to your "functional threshold" HR in some way. For example, if you define a functional threshold as the pace you can mantain for a one-hour maximum effort, your average HR for that pace can be used to establish training zones. However, using any relation between pace and HR in order to check for improvement is not reliable. The only way to know if you improved is to see if your pace is higher for the same maximum effort.

You can also do a step protocol similar to a Conconi test. The only difference is that instead of looking for the HR deflection, which is meaningless, you carefully monitor your breathing in order to detect the ventilatory threshold (VT). The VT is NOT the AeT and it correlates very well with the usual measurements for "lactate threshold" (LT, AT, MLSS, etc). With this test you can find a decent approximation of your threshold HR and check for improvement in the speed at which you reach VT, even though this speed is not your steady-state VT speed.

LOL...uh, that's all I've got.

ps. congrats to the OP on the improvement, even if the numbers are not exact, it seems significant.

Heart rate is an excellent training tool as long as people work within its limitations as a training tool. Most of my athletes train with a HR monitor.

Paulo, so if I did the variant of the Conconi test, jacking up the speed on the treadmill by 0.2 mph every 30 seconds @ 2% grade (or let me know what speed increments, time increments and constant slope to use...) how do I know when I hit this VT?

I'd be interested in trying this test out.

I did the old Conconi test years ago and on the resulting graph we could never get a good "inflection point". I'd end up with anything from 169 to 182 depending on how you drew the inflection point in. As a point of reference this was back in 1993 and 1994. In 1993, I ran an entire marathon at 175-185 coming in at 2:48 (1:23/1:25), and the next year, a 1:59 Olympic tri with the entire bike above 175 and the entire run between 180-188....my max was 194 at the time and still is there. In both cases it was above the "low end" of where we would have theoretically drawn the Conconi inflection point.

This is why I have such a hard time with Maffatone's work, More so how he says to estimate HR zones, it is to cookie cutter to me. I am 36 and have a max HR of 204. I tried using his training methods about 10 years ago and got slower, I was training at such a slow speed I went from running my long runs at 7:20 pace to running them at 11:30 pace to be within his zones. I stuck with it for about 2 months, but my times were going the wrong way so I ditched his plan. It may work for some but it did not work for me. His MAF test was fine and I used for a while to establish if I was making improvements.

---

Mike

----------------------------------
Owner/General Manager North Central Cyclery, Dekalb IL
http://www.NorthCentralCyclery.com

Forget the Conconi test, I only used it as an example of the type of protocol to use. You can do it with longer steps and get a better approximation to the pace, for example.

The VT is the threshold between "Continuous conversation difficult at best, due to depth/frequency of breathing." and "Conversation not possible due to often 'ragged' breathing."

Of ocurse the MAF test is going to be subject to external conditions, heat being the primary variable. I live and train throught the summer in AZ and know what 110 degrees plus can do to your heart rate. Also fatigue can have a major detrimental effect on HR, in my case making it very difficult to keep my HR up. The point of my post is simply to bring to some peoples attention who train with HR a monthly or so perfromance test that they can do. Some of you REALLY need to relax a bit.

---

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

I do the MAF test on a treadmill and the conditions are very consistent. It is a nice test to see gains in fitness without having to go "all out" in the test. I have seen a 4 minute drop in my test over the last 11 months at a 141 HR.

How do you do the MAF test on a treadmill. Do you constantly have one hand near the speed button and then up or down the speed as your heartrate flucuates? At least on a track, you can slow down and speed up as your HR moves up and down from the target rate.

Paulo, thanks, I just wanted to get a guage for what the VT point is. So traditionally, this would be the point below people run a marathon (ie, they can carry out a conversation...at least for the first half...)

Enter a 10k or half marathon on a couple days rest. Race as hard as you can. Track progression over time.

Racing is the only foolproof testing.

You don't have to adjust the speed constantly on a treadmill. During your warmup you will get an idea of what pace keeps your HR where you want it. It's actually very easy, once you are going at the right pace, you will only have to adjust the speed a little every now and then. In addition, I like the tread because if you wear a Polar HR strap the treadmill screens shows your HR at all times right in front of you. I would think it would be harder to do the test on a track as you would have to look down at your watch?

Paulo, VT speed/power is more like LT or MLSS/IAT/OBLA speed/power ?

Thanks,

---

Ale Martinez
www.amtriathlon.com

More on the MLSS/IAT/OBLA ballpark, yes :-)

Just wanted to give an update on this subject. Today I did another MAF Test and now I run 6:46 average at the same 148bpm HR. I have improved over the past 2 1/2 months by almost 20 seconds per mile at my aerobic zone 3. Base building at it's best.

---

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

And that proves what?

I don't know.....that even considering all the elemental variables involved with HR training that aerobic base training can improve your efficiency? Or that you are just a obnoxiuos in the exterme? ;)

---

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

Exactly my point.

 

Couldn't agree more, been doing them for 4 years now. Although I feel that 3 miles is way too short to gauge any cardiac drift. I do one every two week. In the 3 week on 1 week recovery, I time it so that one falls right in week 2 to judge overtraining and the other during a recovery week to determine gain.

Test are ran on an indoor track. 10 minute warmup and a 5 mile run at a heart rate of 152. Each mile get the split and then total time for run.


Week M1 M2 M3 M4 M5 Total
01/11/07 W2 7:33 @ 151 7:39 @ 152 7:42 @ 151 7:48 @ 152 7:45 @ 151 38:29:00
01/25/07 W4 7:14 @ 151 7:19 @ 151 7:21 @ 152 7:21 @ 152 7:22 @ 152 36:40:00
02/08/07 W2 6:59 @ 151 6:58 @ 151 7:00 @ 152 7:04 @ 152 7:06 @ 152 35:09:20
02/22/07 W4 6:54 @ 152 6:59 @ 152 6:58 @ 151 7:01 @ 152 7:01 @ 152 34:55:00

And this test is a great tool to gauge progress because it uses HR to measure intensity. As we know, HR is an excellent tool for testing, since it is not affected by factors like temperature, humidity, fatigue state, hydration, etc.

**heavy sarcasm off**

-
Paulo Sousa

Could one argue that the above factors impact "performance"?
Why can't these same factors impact other gauges used to measure performance? What is it about HR that makes it apparently the least reliable?

---

"one eye doubles my eyesight, so things don't look half bad" John Hiatt

LOL! Sorry I'm not one of your fawning sycophants around here, though I do think you know you industry very well. Have you ever considered just being more constructive rather than hostile towrds people around here? I'm sure you treat your athletes better. Also, considering that in my first year in this sport I managed to make All American, run a sub 3 hour marathon, and finsh my first Half Iron race 4 min behind Desert Dude and placed 3rd in my AG, maybe I'm not as clueless as you think. But it's the internet and I really could care less! :)

---

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

"Could one argue that the above factors impact "performance"? "

You can argue, but it's tough to find someone to argue with.

"Why can't these same factors impact other gauges used to measure performance? "

They do, but is a different way. See my next reply.

"What is it about HR that makes it apparently the least reliable? "

The fact that it's just a measure of cardiac stress, not actual muscle work intensity.

"Sorry I'm not one of your fawning sycophants around here"

Yet you rescued this thread from the archives of oblivion...

"Have you ever considered just being more constructive rather than hostile towrds people around here?"

I have and realized that I would be repressing my online persona. That would make posting on ST not fun at all.

"in my first year in this sport I managed to make All American, run a sub 3 hour marathon, and finsh my first Half Iron race 4 min behind Desert Dude and placed 3rd in my AG, maybe I'm not as clueless as you think."

Those results say more about your genetic predisposition to endurance sports than if you're clueless or not.

I would be really interested to see your data going back a while further if you have it. Have you really been doing these consistently for 4 years?

[reply]"Sorry I'm not one of your fawning sycophants around here"

Yet you rescued this thread from the archives of oblivion...

"Have you ever considered just being more constructive rather than hostile towrds people around here?"

I have and realized that I would be repressing my online persona. That would make posting on ST not fun at all.

"in my first year in this sport I managed to make All American, run a sub 3 hour marathon, and finsh my first Half Iron race 4 min behind Desert Dude and placed 3rd in my AG, maybe I'm not as clueless as you think."

Those results say more about your genetic predisposition to endurance sports than if you're clueless or not.[/reply]

I rescued the thread only because I thought it was interesting, so I am my own sycophant :)
Yes, your argumentative posting are good, no argument there. :)
Yes, you are right, my genetic predisposition is more germaine to those results. My mother used to hold the world record for women age 40-45 at Konain 1986 and 1987. :)

---

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

You guys are funny...anyway, pick a number, AeT, MAF, whatever....use that number under similar conditions, when rested. Over time, if your pace gets faster, your training is working. If it is not, you need to change something. As Mark Allen/Gordo/Friel and Paulo would agree...you will eventually plateau and need to change things. Then you repeat the cycle over and over and over. 10 years later, you might be getting closer to fast.

In the end it doesn't matter if you can run 30s or 50s or 3min per mile faster than last year. If you aren't racing faster, it doesn't count.

BB







www.blakebecker.com

---

Professional Triathlete
Owner of Blake Becker Multisport Coaching LLC / Team BBMC
blakebeck@gmail.com
http://www.teambbmc.com

factors like temperature, humidity, fatigue state, hydration, etc. will not impact the measure of actual muscle work intensity, or is the measure of cardiac stress more volatile to these factors?

---

"one eye doubles my eyesight, so things don't look half bad" John Hiatt

[reply]funny my best ever MAF is 12:48 @ 145 bpm.

I suck.[/reply]

3mi in 12.48 at 145bpm?? I didn't know Bekele was posting here...

Yeah, only during my base periods though, which typically last 12-16 weeks. When I first started triathlon, someone gave me a copy of Mike Piggs training software which has a built in MAF test. My first year I used this software and then just started doing my own training programs, but have always kept the 5 mile MAF test cause I liked to see the progress.

I have last years numbers in excel, 05' in Polar, and 04' in Pigg. I have been meaning to get them all over to excel anyways. I'll post them when I get them compiled. It's pretty interesting. I recall my first year starting at ~9:30 minute miles and ending at ~8:45. I think 05' I started around ~8:30 and finished at ~ 8:00. Last year I started at ~7:55 and ended at ~7:40. This year has been particularly good. I switched my training program over to a high frequency running program. 7 days of run. 1 LR varying terrain/surface each week, 1 negative incline, 1 postive incline, 1 right at AT, 1 active recovery, 1 water running and 1 brick. For the MAF I just swap the AT Run.


It's been invaluable as far I am concerned. I know Paulo mentions Hydration etc.. etc.., but I do actually preprare slightly for an MAF test. If I do not prepare for example being dehydrated, well that will reflect in the test. Hell I think I got a good enough feel for this test that I think I can determine quite a lot regarding impact from hydration, nutrition, sleep, overtraining, and even differences in shoes.

Those factors do impact actual muscle work intensity, but the way they impact cardiac stress is not necessarily the same.

'atta boy! Now we have a conversation! Seriously, I have the utmost respect for your knowledge (sycophnat alert!), I just like a good inane internet argument as much as you seem to. :)

---

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

If I ran every day at a relatively easy pace, my easy pace gets a little faster every week or 2.

No need for fancy terms, tests or equipment, just run every day. It seems so simple yet some of you guys make it so hard.

---

----------------------------------------------------
Striving to have sex more than 66 times per year

But does your race pace get any faster by doing this?

no, for that i mix in a couple days of speed work. then i get really fast.

---

----------------------------------------------------
Striving to have sex more than 66 times per year

That's pretty awesome that it has worked so well and so consistently for you for so long. The fact that you are improving year over year as well as within each season is a great thing to see in the tests. It looks like you are not following a Maffetone protocol (ie. all runs below your MAF heart rate) with your training this season. Did you follow one in past seasons?


I'm not a huge believer in the Maffetone system but I definitely see the value of the tests themselves. You have obviously used them to great effect as a tracking tool for the past few seasons. I think in a perfect world, the data point that *I* would want would be 5k or 10k pace. It would certainly be impossible (for me, at least) to run a max effort 5k or 10k every two weeks. Have you found a good correlation between your MAF test paces and your race paces? I would think that especially given the training that you are doing - that is, well rounded, a range of intensities, terrains, and distances - an improvement in your MAF test pace *should* correlate with an improvement in other paces. Have you found that to be the case?

[reply]I would be really interested to see your data going back a while further if you have it. Have you really been doing these consistently for 4 years?[/reply]

10 months. My first tests were around the 7:40 range.

---

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

Is there an aerobic function test that is easy to do without getting a VO2 test done?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hi Mr C,
I was just reading through the amusing banter between Bryce and Paulo here, and looked back at the rest of this thread to see where it all came from. Came across your question above. I can suggest an incremental (and maximal) bike test you can do that you can easily translate to quite an accurate estimate of VO2max. It does require an accurate power meter, but so many ST'ers seem to have PM's I guess there's a chance you have one too. I'll need to scratch up some specific details about it, but if you're still interested then reply to this post and I'll give you the run down.

Randy

Everything in base is done below my MAF except the AT. I really like the 0%, -1% and -2% grade runs. You can keep the HR down below your MAF yet still work on strides and retain leg speed. Even the inclines are still done nelow the MAF. The first year I was pretty religious about keeping my HR well below, but I have found that throwing one right at AT doesn't seem to hurt me any.

My race pace has definately increased every year, but I really don't know how I would form a relationship between that and base. You throw in the build period and peak and all that speedwork would just throw off the relationship. I could keep doing the MAF during my build periods, but I would probably only do them during a recovery week as I would want to waste a good race simulation workout or speedword, tempo session by replacing it with an MAF test.

I have a 10k benchmark race coming up before I start my build period, plus another carconi test. I will be curious on the results given another significant increase this year to my MAF test. I am sure there has to be a relationship, just not sure how to make it given a build period. Unfortunately, I haven't really tracked a lot of my speedwork sessions in the past. It's always been hard for me to get out there and do it in the first place. Planning on changing that this year.

I don't think it would be a bad idea for sure to do a variation of the MAF test during a build or peak period, perhaps a LTR + X.

I would still want to keep it on an indoor track. To this day I still do all the MAF test on an indoor track, thursday morning @ 7:00. Call it anal, but I like to keep the variables as close as reasonbly possible.

[reply]Is there an aerobic function test that is easy to do without getting a VO2 test done?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hi Mr C,
I was just reading through the amusing banter between Bryce and Paulo here, and looked back at the rest of this thread to see where it all came from. Came across your question above. I can suggest an incremental (and maximal) bike test you can do that you can easily translate to quite an accurate estimate of VO2max. It does require an accurate power meter, but so many ST'ers seem to have PM's I guess there's a chance you have one too. I'll need to scratch up some specific details about it, but if you're still interested then reply to this post and I'll give you the run down.

Randy[/reply]

Bryan...not Bryce :)

---

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

Crap, sorry Bryan. I must be dyslexic, or just plain can't read too well. Sincerest apologies.

bye, Randy

Maximal??? You're losing the point here. The MAF test is for people who don't like to suffer ;-)

Maximal??? You're losing the point here. The MAF test is for people who don't like to suffer ;-)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Haha! I see your point. I'm would prefer not to judge, however, as if the MAF test is good enough for the likes of Allen, Pigg and Deboom, I certainly won't slag it off.

Back to my suggestion to Mr Consistent though, if you want to get a measure of maximal aerobic function, ie VO2max, without going to the lab to get on the gas analyser and so on (and have the required PM, of course), then I may be able to help.........

Strangely, I became extremely tired while reading that sentence...

Your measurement is using a bike test in order to determine HR ranges for the run?

I also wouldn't use some of the Pro's you mentioned as a reason to use MAF. The reasons they "improved" on Maffertone's concept wasn't because of a magic HR range or test like the MAF.

---

http://www.reathcon.com

Your measurement is using a bike test in order to determine HR ranges for the run?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

No, this is not what I'm suggesting. Mr Consistent just asked a generic question about a way to measure aerobic capacity without having to go to a lab to get tested. I figure a bike test is as relevant as a run test for anyone reading/posting here!!


I also wouldn't use some of the Pro's you mentioned as a reason to use MAF. The reasons they "improved" on Maffertone's concept wasn't because of a magic HR range or test like the MAF.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm sorry Rob, I was misconstrued a little I guess, as might be gleaned from Paulo's response, implying he has heard it all before, many times over!!! I'm not saying I think MAF testing/training is the be all and end all, just that that I don't feel I'm in any position to judge it harshly based on the fact that some very successful pro athletes used it very successfully, as did some amateur athletes I'm led to believe. I can see that around here, it doesn't get particularly good press, and that's fine, and possibly deserved. That being said, I do understand the basic theory of why it should/might work, in the right context, and can easily explain if anyone cares to know, but there's enough talk of that around here, and I don't feel much like joining in that battle.

bye, Randy

When you're talking about assessing fitness levels, the test must apply to the intended purpose, especially for the bike and run. Majority of the time when assessing max O2 consumption for multisport athletes, the bike is typically a peak VO2 while the run is a max VO2. This means you can't (or shouldn't) use a bike test for run parameters, or vice versa.

My fault if that was how things came across, but if you feel like explaining your view I'd like to hear it.

---

http://www.reathcon.com

When you're talking about assessing fitness levels, the test must apply to the intended purpose, especially for the bike and run. Majority of the time when assessing max O2 consumption for multisport athletes, the bike is typically a peak VO2 while the run is a max VO2. This means you can't (or shouldn't) use a bike test for run parameters, or vice versa.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Absolutely no disagreement here. I think, once again, I didn't explain myself. When I say bike and run are relevant for everyone here, I mean we generally all bike and run, therefore a bike test of some sort will be useful for our cycle training. I figured Mr C might be able to use the suggested test as a measure for his bike training. I probably should have kept in context with the rest of this thread, ie, running.........