I have posted this on a few other forums before, so if it’s redundant, my apologoies.
Now, for the uninitiated. An MAF test stands for Maximum Aerobic Function. It’s a simple and effective self test to gauge your aerobic improvements over the course of your training, especially base training. It does require you to know what your heart rate is at your aerobic threshold (AeT), either through a test like LT or VO2 or another self- test.
The MAF test is very straight forward. Go to your local 1/4 mile track. Warm up. Run 3 miles, splitting each mile for the pace. Run the 3 miles at EXACTLY your calculated AeT heart rate. No more, no less. Take an average of the 3 times and that’s the result.
When I began Ironman training with my coach, we determined my AeT was 148 bpm. When i first did my MAF test, I was around 7:40 average per mile at AeT. Since then, over the course of 5 months, I have been seen my pace increase at the same heart rate. Today, I averaged 7:03 per mile pace at 148. If you ever had a doubt about long slow base training, here is where you can see the benefits in a very tangible way. The faster you can go while remaining aerobic, the better your perfrormance for long course triathlon.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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
Can 37s/mi be explained away “by factors like temperature, humidity, fatigue state, hydration, etc.”?
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.
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…
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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
