That's exactly how I'm feeling. I feel as though I'm learning to run slow. I know the idea is that I will be running faster at a lower heart rate, but I feel like I'm detraining my neuromuscular system.

I'll admit I didn't read every response in this thread so I apologize if this has been mentioned already, but the Endurance Planet podcast just had two interviews with Maffetone you might be interested in. The also talk about his methods a lot so if you dig through the archives you might find a lot of helpful info.

The problem with this is that metabolism is not an either/or proposition; while very short, hard efforts (about 2 minutes or less) will be primarily fueled by anaerobic metabolism and efforts longer than that will primarily be fueled by aerobic energy systems, it's not like one system shuts off and the other one turns on. So while a run in HR zone 2 will be primarily aerobic, so will a run in zone 5 and in both cases, there will be some contribution from anaerobic energy pathways.


And yet the system uses a generic formula to determine "aerobic" training levels.

Shane

I do not fully understand this either. Maybe someone could shed some light on what I am trying to say...

I guess the idea is to train or race with a higher aerobic capacity (slowing lactate building up). To do this you need time in, doing aerobic training. I've heard and agree, AG'ers go to fast on slow days and to slow on fast days. You need to push a certain amount of watts without buliding lactate to go fast for the event. This is aerobic capacity from my understanding. But to have your feet turn over quick, or go up hills you need power training or speed workouts. How much of each? I guess depends on the event you want to compete in?

What you're calling power & speed workouts are still aerobic workouts. The confusion comes in using the phrase "higher aerobic capacity" and then excluding threshold or VO2Max workouts from those workouts that help build the aerobic fitness.

Also, lactacte buildup in the legs is not what causes fatigue or causes you to slow down.

---

-Andrew

If you only ran slow for 100% of your miles, you probably would detrain your neuromuscular. Slow, however, means quite slow, like zone-1 or low zone2 efforts.

If you run some in high zone2 and even zone3, those will be fast enough to push up your speed, so long as you're doing enough volume. And you do have to remember that your pace will increase as your get more fit.

Some noncompetitive but serious ultramarathoners are a good example of folks who train quite slow but often run 120+ miles per week - they're typically not contesting for wins in anything short of a marathon, but they real excel at those ridiculous 50-100+ mile race distances, so you do need some specificity to speed. That specificity however, is a LOT slower than what people think. You do NOT have to hammer 400s 800s all the time to run a fast 5k for near your potential. Some of them, yes, but more valuable is the big aerobic base, which is built slowly.

And no, you won't detrain as long as you're not running ridiculously slow paces. Also, I hate this concept people talk about of "learning to run slow." Sorry, but that just means you aren't putting in enough volume or have your zones wrong. You will have zero complaints about paces being too slow for your comfort if you're really pushing up the training volume. WHen I was running 6:10 pace for a half marathon, a 9min/mile actually felt not too easy on me on a slow day since my legs were so toasted from the 85mpw I was running. Crank up the volume if you don't think its hard enough.

I've not read the entire thread, but I have a general idea of where it's heading. When it comes to the common person racing long course triathlon, we need to keep in mind what speed/pace we are actually moving at on race day. Mainly, the run, as this is where the success of your day is determined. What are common age-group Ironman run times?

3:30 (8:00 min/mile)
3:45 (8:35 min/mile)
4:00 (9:09 min/mile)
4:15 (9:44 min/mile)

Nothing fast about those paces. Age-group triathletes are much more limited by their chasis than they are the engines when it comes to the run in an Ironman. I don't prescribe to the Maffetone method, but when I hear the word "going slow" when it pertains to the common age-group athlete racing long course, I disagree that it's slow...more like "race pace".

---

Mat Steinmetz

51-SPEEDSHOP.com - instagram - @matsteinmetz - facebook

I was just going on what Maffetone used as a definition in his articles. Not technical terminology. ;)

He calls this the "max aerobic HR"

when running a 10k, its still aerobic, but your HR will be much higher than that "max aerobic HR"

and the only time that I've really done this type of training is when coming back from an injury. I had taken 6+ months off because of plantar fascitis so it was all slow, easy just builing mileage when I was healthy again.

During race season, most weeks are laid out similar to "The Training Bible" recommendations. Great source for any triathlete.

---

@tonywhitetri

That's exactly why I tried the method; I was coming off a groin injury.

Ironman race pace is slow... at least for most of us AGers. The main question is if you continue to run at such speeds are you really going to get faster at any distance? I would also think there would be negative neuromuscular consequences.

Strong agreement here from me. AG runners training for long-course often exhibit the "falling off the curve" running conditioning. Meaning...they can run a 10k or half mary at, say, a Daniels VDOT of 46. That equates to a "long run" E-pace of about 9:10-:15 or so. But they can't run 3-4 hours at that pace on tired legs. They have the metabolic conditioning to do it, but can't hold the pace "all day."

I've seen very few 1:40 half marathoners actually go out and do a 4:00-:10 IM run, but they should be able to.

Cure: More miles in training and more 20 mile runs in the 6 months before the race.

Are there any people on this thread who consistently train at high intensity who never get injured?

I am a Maffetone subscriber, have seen improvements and have been injury free since beginning. This follows a 3-4 year period where I was always battling an injury which often sidelined me. I stay 100% aerobic (base building) for anywhere from 2-4 months depending on race schedule, then incorporate anaerobic training for 4-5 weeks before returning to aerobic. My training is almost always slower, but I race faster now - no doubt. I want to be as fast as I can be, and love training fast, but I've found that being able to consistently train without having to battle injuries has been key to development as an endurance athlete. Maybe I'm injury prone, but I think I simply did too much intense, anaerobic work, for what my body could handle. It's also more important for me to be able to train year round with significantly reduced risk of injury then to hope to the Tri-gods that I avoid injury when punishing myself in training.

So when you incorporate intensity what does that look like? How frequently? Duration? How far out from your races? What benefits do you see from those 4-5 weeks?

8 min miles at 7000 feet plus while running up and down mtns on dirt roads isn't quite the same as an 8:00 min mile most would think of, but you're right, Mutai reportedly does have some slower runs than other comparable guys. But then again, if you look at typical Kenyan run training the progressive nature of their runs is fairly paramount. And still no hr.

I understand the concept of limiting faster work during base, but I still think complete eradication is a waste of time and modern training methodology is moving away from just slow running. Just like ideas have expanded since Lydiard, now more and more coaches and athletes are realizing that keeping in touch with speed and strength work year round is yielding much better results.

What people seem to forget is that aerobic capacity is still built upon with faster running. 80 mpw with two workouts is far better than 80 mpw of easy running, especially very, very easy running that some think MAF mandates. It's very likely far better than 90-100 mpw. The lower and higher end aerobic stimulus is still there and coupled with more specific workouts allows for more improvement year round versus just trying to hit the intensity in one to two build periods and then a peaking period.

After consistently getting running injuries in my mid forties I've switched to a lot more Maffatone style training with my running but not on the bike. I have a Vdot of 52 and approx 250 watt ftp on the bike.
For me it has been great. I've been able to up the mileage and my speed has increased at the same heart rate.
I've found if i want to speed up in a run I can and can also hold that speed well. It also makes you really concentrate on your form and wasting as little energy as possible. I still try and do long tempo/threshold workouts on the bike and swim as normal.
Looking forward to Ironman Melbourne next year without a buggered Achillies sidelining my running prior to the race. Ran a 4 hour IM marathon mainly due to my extra bike work but it hurt lots.
If you listen to the endurance planet podcasts with Maffatone they are quite interesting and he gets all his athletes to incorporate strides and definite tempo work into their training at the right time.
Angela Naeth is following his principles as a modern day version of Mark Allen (although she'll need a lot more wins to catch up with him)

while I don't use it currently because it gets a bit repetitive and the swim workouts are boring, I have used MarkAllen Online in the past and had good enough results to qualify for AG worlds in Sprint and Olympic distances using it, so you can get speed out of it too

It takes a while to see the results, so be patient, but it does work.

plus, in my opinion, the. tapering schedule for races is absolutely perfect. for these last two weeks alone the program is worth it. I still revert back to their taper for really important races.

best of luck.

Interesting new interview with Mark Allen at AthleteGo http://athletego.com/2013/07/22/markallen