I am in the middle of super endurance studying and I am getting really confused about a lot of stuff. At my level I am doing all my runs at an aerobic/fat burning/2/easy/slow level. This is a great level for me because of the out of shapeness. My question is why some people, Dr. Maffetone specifically, think that any anaerobic anything will wreak havoc on you aerobic base. This includes anything that happens in daily life. Is your aerobic base that delicate? How much damage can you really do?
maffetone does not understand exercise physiology.
My take on it is that proponents of of high volume training avoid anaerobic sessions because of the likelihood that you will need more recovery from more intense sessions, losing training time leading to a lost opportunity to build base.
During my training I stick with the lots easy idea but at work sometime I have to lift a lot of heavy things. It doesn’t seem to effect my running but is it? I would like to point out that I know I am over thinking this but that is how I roll.
During my training I stick with the lots easy idea but at work sometime I have to lift a lot of heavy things. It doesn’t seem to effect my running but is it? I would like to point out that I know I am over thinking this but that is how I roll.
no its not going to substantively screw you up. relax bro.
but don’t throw out your back
During my training I stick with the lots easy idea but at work sometime I have to lift a lot of heavy things. It doesn’t seem to effect my running but is it? I would like to point out that I know I am over thinking this but that is how I roll.
no its not going to substantively screw you up. relax bro.
but don’t throw out your back
My understanding if the ST orthodoxy is that lifting heavy object will destroy any chance of successful triathlonification. But as you know, jack, I’m am feeble minded so I’m unable to understand the the nuances of lifting at work compared to lifting at the gym.
I would look at a few exercise physiology texts to get a better handle on how the exercising body fuels itself.
The cliff notes version being that anaerobic v aerobic isn’t an either/or.
nah the orthodoxy is just that is probably isn’t that helpful.
My understanding if the ST orthodoxy is that lifting heavy object will destroy any chance of successful triathlonification. But as you know, jack, I’m am feeble minded so I’m unable to understand the the nuances of lifting at work compared to lifting at the gym.
Could you graph that for me? 
Tibbs, if you’re out of shape then it all helps. Whatever you find fun and whatever gets you out the door exercising is what you need to be doing.
Maffetone and at least one other guy, Olbrecht have end user publications saying that an yanaerobic training will destroy your aerobic abilities, then lots of other people who reference those. Frankly for most average run of the mill triathletes, I don’t see it at all.
I haven’t read Maffetone since the mid-90s, but if I recall correctly, his definition of anaerobic was an intensity that was below FTP. Maffetone advocated a HRmax of 180-age +/- 5bpm for consistency of training or lack of same. That put the top of my training zones ~150 bpm. Now, I haven’t worn a HRM for more than 2 years, but in 2008, 13 years after Maffetone told me not to go over 150, my HR (bike) at FTP was ~160-165 and my avg HR for a 10K run was 165-172 bpm. In other words, in the Maffetone scheme, even moderate tempo work was considered “anaerobic”.
I would say Maffetone’s understands things about exercise physiology that few other coaches do. On the other hand he avoids certain principles that have been proven effective. I believe that he is correct that aerobic metabolism makes up a huge portion of our endurance activity and that the body can be trained to maintain higher outputs using mostly aerobic energy systems (ie burn a higher % of fat). Most tri/running distances simply do not demand much anaerobic capacity, so perhaps he is right in questioning its value in training. If our training sessions are filled with anaerobic sections we inevitably disrupt the function of the aerobic system and its adaptation to a constant output over a long period. Doesn’t that make sense? I have an n=1 experience that tells me yes, my aerobic capacity (MAP in Maffetone speak), and my fat burning ability have both improved on a program keeping HR below 155.
When the season comes I will do some anaerobic and threshold work but probably only 1-2 times a week for 8 or so weeks towards a peak. Maffetone specifically recommends this. You could do more but at what cost? I believe Maffetone is also dead on in his assessment of the exhaustive effect of anaerobic stimulus on the adrenal system. After 3 years of year-round intensity and a year-long battle with severe chronic fatigue, Maffetone’s prescription turned my health around in 4 or 5 weeks. I have great fitness without touching an interval (other than a test) for 5 months (FTP is as high as ever), I will save my anaerobic matches and burn them when it counts. Maffetone may spout some odd pseudoscience but the plan seems to work.
Do you pray to the altar of Maffetone and his Son, Mark Allen?
Tibbs,
You can make this as simple or as complicated as you want. Which do you prefer?
If you are talking about explaining it then I say complicated all the way. I love lots of info and detail. If you are talking about actual doing i then simple cause I is not smart.
Nope, but I don’t think that he needs to be crucified.
The problem with the believers is that anything that is not pious agreement is perceived as a crucifixion .
“Maffetone does not understand exercise physiology”.
Yeah, you’re right. That is just a smidge away from pious agreement, like super, super close to agreeing with my religious convictions about aerobic training. Like basically, essentially almost literally the same thing as I believe. Please forgive my insensitivity to the nuances and semantics of the above 6 word argument.
“Maffetone does not understand exercise physiology”
This is not 100% true. There are elements of what Maffetone espouses that are true and directly applicable to endurance sports training, but there are other things that he talks about and promotes that are questionable.
He’s all about the aerobic, which is key - if you buy into that and you are onside with that then you are starting to get there!
Maybe the easiest way of looking at this is that a guy like Bradley Wiggins can be a 4000m medalist and also a Grand Tour podium guy. Perhaps the use of the word anaerobic is where the problem lies. Basically all this stuff is aerobic unless we get down in the sub 2 minute range and really use the anaerobic system (or lift weights for that matter…). The question is really what part of the aerobic range are we talking about? Maffetone would just keep his athletes at the low end of the range and thereby minimize their recovery penalty so they could do more the next day and the day after and the day after…as we know we can raise our FTP without riding a single pedal stroke at FTP and simply do RAAM like volume at 60% FTP…
Obviously in cycling the technique is not any different between riding at 60% FTP and 100% FTP, but in running it is, so to keep the foot speed up, Maffetone would advocate downhill running on a gradual downhill so that his athletes could do “speedwork” at low intensity.
We can argue about the science behind what Maffetone suggested, but if you look at what he got his guys to do, on the balance the results will come out OK IF the athlete has a fair amount of time. There are more time effective ways to get the same (or better) results.