Will Low Heart Rate Running Help You Run Faster?
Vložit
- čas přidán 9. 06. 2021
- Low heart rate training promises many benefits... but does it deliver?
Subscribe! bit.ly/33sO9Bq
Training Plans: bit.ly/2YgBLAv
Podcast: apple.co/2L19km1
Many runners dedicate large chunks of time to low heart rate training. They keep their heart rate at a low, aerobic level for all of their running in hopes of building endurance and staying healthy. But is it effective? Are there better options for improving as a runner?
Jason Fitzgerald is a USATF running coach, 2:39 marathoner, and the host of the award-winning Strength Running Podcast. He's the 2017 Men's Running Magazine's Influencer of the Year and his work has appeared in Runner's World, Health Magazine, The Washington Post, Lifehacker, and other major media.
Visit strengthrunning.com/ to see their award-winning blog, free email courses, and full library of training programs and coaching services.
Podcast: apple.co/2L19km1
Twitter: bit.ly/3aGos5e
Instagram: bit.ly/2FARFP2
Facebook: bit.ly/2ZDEXIU - Sport
Ahhhh so refreshing to hear some sanity on low-HR running. Not knocking it, but also not worshipping it!
It does seem pretty popular in the CZcams world, for the fact that I don't run into many real world runners who have tied it. Some long term experts here haven't even heard of Maffetone. Folk I really respect. So I don't think it's had much of an impact outside of CZcams.
@@Shevock I think that's because proper athletes have proper coaches who know what they're doing and what works. I don't knock doing some easy miles at low intensity, that's great, but I'd you only train running slow your body will become very good at running slow. I understand the premise that if you train at a low HR running slow as you get fitter you'll run faster and faster at the same low HR. It might work to a certain degree, but it won't work on its own.
I tried doing a prescribed low HR training plan and I actually couldn't keep my HR that low!!! I'm not the world's best runner but I now to on feel rather than HR (I do wear a HR monitor, but as long as I feel it's an easy run that's fine with me. I also do other types of runs as well though and whereas the longer easier runs give you the base stamina I think the speedwork also helps lower the HR on the slow, easy runs, that's what happened when I introduced them anyway.
Lastly this doesn't mean I'm in favour of going out on every run and pushing hard, that definitely doesn't work, but just doing low HR runs doesn't either. I think those it does work for are those that were going out on every run and pushing too hard. That didn't work for them and low HR training works better for them. But the question is could they do even better with the right balance of different types of runs? Everyone is different and will need a different balance, there isn't a once size fits all, but just doing one type of training on all your runs definitely doesn't!!!
All true but a lot of people don’t know how to run slow. I found maf was a great way of learning to run slow and to get my mileage up to 60 miles a week at the moment. But now doing more 80/20.
I have also dabbled with MAF for a few weeks. I am an experienced runner with many decades of running under the soles of my shoes and I will say this: MAF is fantastic for a complete beginner because the vast majority of beginners run too fast. Focusing on low heart rate will force a beginner to go slower, much slower, and are thus less likely to get injured just as tehy get started. Injuries are demotivating and many beginners might never come back to running after an injury because they think they are not suited to running. Going slow is the heart of all endurance training, but it is not going to make somebody a faster runner. If it did, all elite runners would do it. We need to train for speed. So, for a beginner, slow heart rate training is good but only for the first 3 months or so and then get started on building in some variety and speed sessions and forget about heart rate.
Thanks for the info.
That's me. I just want to focus on time and maintaining a set heart rate cause the last few times I tried running ego got in the way.
I see low heart rate training as being about managing stress. It is important to do that, but if it all you do then it is pretty limiting. It is like saying that protein is an important macronutrient. It is true and essential, but protein alone isn’t a complete diet.
Excellent analogy. It has an important place in your training, but it ain't everything.
True
Precisely. I, like many runners, used to run all my runs at a tempo pace. Once I used MAF for my easy days I became a better runner. I still do workouts and don’t do ALL my runs at MAF, but it was good for me to slow down my base/easy days. 👍
I experienced the exact same. MAF gives me a good ceiling to work to for those easier/ bulk milage days
Why not use VDOT calculator which is more precise for easy running pace that some arbitrary HR formula?!
@@b09d4n VDOT method has its merits as well, but is also arbitrary. Takes heart rate entirely out of the equation.
I tried MAF last year for about 4 months.
Nothing longer than a 2 hour run.
Best for the pre season training.
However, if you do MAF In warm weather or hilly courses you will be frustrated trying to stay within your HR range. Avoid it at all cost during the summer months or you will be doing nothing but walking to stay in your zone.
Shortening you stride can be risky.
I gave it up after I developed a tight right hip flexor. Now I do 80/20 and my long runs are at a “comfortable “ pace. Hip flexor is happy again.
Thanks for this. I struggle with wanting all the wonderful results MAF promises, and wanting to enjoy my running more, without spending hours every day on it. I think I found a happy medium like you described with 1-2 easy MAF runs with strides thrown in at the end, along with my trail runs, which go over my MAF HR just hiking up steep hills! The main thing i got from 2 months of straight MAF was being able to breathe through my nose more, and not needing my asthma inhaler... but that won't get me to the top of a mountain or to the finish line quickly! 😆
I am 64 and began running again about 3 months ago and I am training for my 1st marathon which I will not attempt until next year in September at the Surf City Marathon in California. I just joined a local running club with many seniors like myself who have run numerous marathons. Recently, I talked to a member who made me aware they had a "speed night!" There is a local high school where they meet and they even have a coach free of charge to guide us. Woohoo! At 1st I thought I would not be concerned about time and I am not per se but I like the idea of toying with speed and at least being the best I can be. It's all about fun for me. But as they said in Top Gun, "I feel the need. I feel the need. I feel the need for speed!!!" Thanks for the video.
This video comes at a time when I am building Base again and it's a great advice as usual. Thanks Jason
Thanks for this, Jason. You are spot on every point. If I get someone asking me about low heart rate training or MAF, I will refer them to this video.
Thanks for posting quality content
Low HR training and other training methods are great for developing different aspects. For me I focus mainly on trying to get my mindset so that whatever I do I’m trying to do it with runners for enjoyment in mind. Enjoying the movement through whatever environmental I am in. I am very lucky to have a lot of places to explore in my City.
This channel should have way more subscribers. There’s some really sage advice here.
Thank you! This finally clears things out about low HR training.
Well said. Thank you.
Great advices.
MAF helped my understand what easy should be. I thought I was running easy but HR was like 163-7 average. Effort wise was totally fine but I later learned and have improved to sit in 140’s. I definitely throw in speed variations 1 - 2 week. Still have ways to go but I value Coach JF point in there needs to be a progression regarding intensity . MAF just helps coin a given HR based on + / - formula of 180 - age . Great Video Coach JF
* Sigh * another CZcamsr taking a cheap shot at MAF. The program does not say to forever stay in low heart rate for all training. It says to stay under your MAF max until you see a plateau. You test every month to see where you are, which is a form of training accountability. If you plateau, you’ve reached your limits of aerobic fitness and can move on to other forms of training like VO2 max, speed, and tempo. This fits very nicely into the 80/20 concept at that point. Most runner spend way too much time running way too fast, which leads to burnout and injury (I know from experience.) If you are going to critique a training program, give us the whole thing. Don’t just pick one part out of context and say that represents the whole thing.
Glad to see we're on the same page. As a coach, I've always balked at forcing athletes to run incredibly slow paces just to stay in a particular HR zone which is most likely calculated incorrectly. As you hinted, I focus on training athletes to "run" and not walk or shuffle (unless they're in a run/walk plan). That is, run easy, but maintain a normal gait cycle to train your body for the physical demands of running and racing. Ultimately, I want athletes to enjoy the process and not be bored and dread their daily runs.
I agree with you. I spend a lot of time doing MAF. The real gains came after I started adding harder runs. Running at 80/20 is the way. No injuries, better motivated.
Great insight. I think I built my best base over the winter when I switched from all slow jogging to Jack Daniels Red Plan, first block. It includes repeated tempo pace efforts twice a week, in addition to two slow runs. It never pushed me near injury, but it also didn't allow my workouts to devolve into multi-hour trudge fests either. I have no experience with marathons or ultras, so I can't recommend this plan for the base phase of those distances, but going from that to a 5k plan this year, I ultimately cut more than 5 minutes from my 5k time, and I didn't even follow the 5k plan perfectly (life stepped in for a couple of weeks near the end, so I had to cut out and abbreviate some of the hardest interval sessions).
I did this too! Not only was it fun, but I gained some solid fitness as well. Ironically, it taught me to run slow, because I'd be beat the days after workouts or it'd be tough to finish workouts if I didn't take it easy enough the day before. I'm base building again and throw in one of those workouts per week and they seem to really bolster my fitness much more than just slow running.
After holding my base for another month or two I'm either going to try his blue plan or try a 5k plan. Which 5k plan did you follow for that tremendous 5 min PR?
For me, there's a (mental and a technical) disciplined effort needed to enduring a low heart rate for sustained periods of weeks at a time with a definite payoff of much more endurance for fun runs.
Mental as in maintaining a prolonged focus (on keeping to a plan) that comes with putting in the miles, and technical as in focus on technique foot placement, core activation, ... for prolonged periods of time at a forced slow rate.
FWIW last year I didn't focus enough on my technique and developed a painful corn on my left foot where people can develop a Tailor's Bunion. More than a bad callus, this repetitive injury led me to discover wide toe box, zero drop running shoes which seem to work for me, once you get used to them.
Very usefull !
I did 3 weeks of MAF training and got my 5 mile run at a MAF rate (142 bpm max) from 14s to 10s and it translated to 15 minutes off my 10k and my long runs went from 7 miles to 15
Thanks for this! I actually do most of my runs with just the heart rate showing on my watch…..I do speed only one day a week & a long run on weekends….anywhere from 10-16 miles & I do these slow & easy & pick it up the last 2-3 miles depending on how I feel.
'we're not lungs with legs' - love it!
If you are considering MAF please don’t let Jason discourage you. His comments that it is slow and boring with little or no benefit simply are not true. Nor is it all slow running. As Jason stated easy conversational pace running is the foundation of any training plan and makes up the majority of your time on feet. My experience was after a couple of months adapting I was able to run those same easy miles, conversationally, at a faster pace so it was more enjoyable. If you follow the MAF method it does indeed allow for speed work. I’m 50 and my experience after about 5 months of MAF was I knocked off 2 1/2 minutes from my mile pace from 10:30 to 8:04. Not done yet. Love MAF method
Big fitness bumps from MAF are seen by runners who are starting out. No one that's been training for years will see those kinds of benefits.
I spent 3 months solely on MAF. Barely saw an improvement. Started throwing in faster pace runs every few days. MAF pace improved by several minutes over the course of the following month. Wasn't due to the 3 months tho - got busy and detrained, jumped back into fast runs every few days and saw the exact same progression
Couldn't agree more, MAF (or LSD as it was called 50 years ago) or low HR running is a skill every runner should practise, but.....only use it for your 22 milers and recovery runs. Don't do it all the time, it will ruin your form and you never practise race specific paces
💯. Say goodbye to your flexibility/mobility in your stride length doing only low HR running.
@@danielcommins1285 wrong, unless you naturally have no mobility. It's like saying if I start writing with my left hand, I'll lose the ability to be right-handed....lol, that's stupid....
@@mikevaldez7684 so you think doing a high volume of a limited, repetitive motion will not create muscle damage and healed scar tissue that will limit that muscles range of motion? I guarantee you it will be, because I've actually done that when I was a beginner. How much do you run?
@@mikevaldez7684 dare you to try this, go run 100k+/week of only slow running for a 100 mi ultra, then immediately after switch to your 400m track season and let me know if you've lost your stride length. I've actually done that and I can tell you I know the answer.
What you are saying in this video is precisely correct.
I'm doing this for 1-2 months only because even on my slow day I was running at the same speed. I been trying to learn to run slower. In 2 week I feel I learned enough to 80/20. Maybe not MAF 80 but easy and slow.
People overthink this stuff. It’s useful when you’re older as it helps you run miles and avoid injuries. Also helps focus on your breathing. Chuck in some other runs too - tempo, intervals.
Low HR is mostly good for building and maintaining a high mileage. Can’t do that running 50% of your runs at 85-95% max HR
If you're just getting back into running and don't have much fitness, when would be a good time to start incorporating workouts like hills and fartleks? Right from the start?
"Lack of endurance" -- reminds me of Bekele transitioning to the marathon. He has great speed but lacked the endurance. When he took Josh Herman's advice to train outside of Ethiopia, that's when he improved his endurance.
Interesting, sounds like saying Bill Gates is not rich enough .
If you have the 10K world record you got the endurance. You just need practice running longer runs. The best at 10K already have the potential to win a marathon. Transitioning is easier than being elite at 10K but still hard work.
The pineapple painkillers look cool. I’m wearing the same ones.
Hey are you in Minnesota? Looks like you were out here running around Fish lake on the bridge over the marshy area.
I'm out of MAF as higher temperature is increasing my heart rate significantly at given pace and also heart monitor itself has lot of error.
One of my friend, former marathoner gave me advice easy should feel or may feel easy but hard never feels easy that's what I do I go by the feel.
The biggest flaw in the MAF system is the age bias. At 62, my so-called MAF number is 118 bpm. My son, on the other hand is 21, so his MAF number is 159 bpm. He's 24km endurance runs are supposedly less taxing than my very slow walk/runs. I get his maximum HR is probably higher than mine, but not as much as the MAF system suggests. I set my Garmin to 120-135 and try to average within that zone. I also ignore the zone once a week, on my long runs. I will also add few strides to the back end of a couple of runs over the next few months.
Thank you for this breakdown. The majority of people on here tend to believe that "SLOW RUNNING" is THE ONLY method to 'so called get faster' . Thank you for pointing out the different methods of training to get faster ; All of which should be included along with "SLOW RUNNING." Bottomline, slow running is not the start all / end all in order to Get faster.
I'm a new runner and little overweight. I tried maf for couple days a few months ago it felt very strange. I'm not the fastest runner ever 6min km with heart rate of around 170 beats. So to do maf at 144bpm takes my pace way up (fast walking )and my mind set it's not doing anything so I just stopped doing it.
do you have an example of a weekly training for base training?
MAF was too frustrating for me. I live in a very hilly area & impossible to stay under the prescribed HR. Did it for 3 months and went back to 2-3 easy runs, a long run and an occasional tempo run a week
Same I lived in a hilly area and maf is not for me
I have so many hills around too. MAF just wasn't going to work for me. I'd have to buy a treadmill!
Hills and certain climates (hot and/or humid) make MAF fairly useless. You could be running at an effort you perceive to be easy and be shocked by how hard you were supposedly working according to the data. Heart rate is far too variable day-by-day and influenced by environment to be reliable as a daily tool, in my opinion. By all means, it can be useful for making sure your easy days are truly easy, making sure your cutback weeks are allowing you to recover, but I don't see much use for low HR training performance-wise other than maybe ensuring that you get to your training block or starting line fresh. A lot of what MAF sells is stuff that's already fairly common knowledge with any non-beginner runner (the importance of doing most of your running easy), so maybe I stumbled upon it too late into my own running journey to find it useful. For beginners it may take a good year or two, especially if they weren't active in some other aerobic sport, to develop a base before starting to focus on speed, so in that sense I see how it could benefit beginners in encouraging them to stay within their abilities until the aerobic system develops to the point of being able to handle more difficult stuff.
Although MAF may not be useful for beginners either because when you're less fit, anything more than a walk could exceed the MAF HR, depending where your fitness level is at, and also depending on the conditions. I think beginners should be focused on perceived effort first and foremost and not worry about heart rate, pace, or anything other than keeping it feeling reasonably easy and not doing too much too soon too fast.
Its for people with 30+ or 40+ mileage a week. If your normal runner thats like 10-25 miles a week i think its not for you. And no one ever mentions this in ANY online videos.
Im running at 115bpm at 630mpk is that means i have to speed up the low heart rate im 43 im fit but sometimes i feel my easy pace is way to slow because i can no up my heart rate. Is that mean i have to do my easier run faster to get my heart rate between 120 135. My resting heart rate is 39
Coach, I may be hammered by saying this. But this is my own experience. I tried the MAF method for about 5 mths and did the evaluation test every month to see progress. At the end of it I see zero improvement, my times were almost similar mth-to-mth. I gave up after that. How nice to train very slow-to race fast, run less-to race fast but in the end these are fairy tales (to me). I went back to do the hard stuffs. Today my bread-and-butter are the weekly threshold and tempo runs. Since then in 12 mths I have renewed my marathon/5k/10k PBs multiple times. Hal Higdon summed it up beautifully - 'Any good training plans will have a bit of endurance, a bit of speed and rest days incorporated'. I am a true believer! Tq for this video.
My experience has been similar to this.
Depends on the distance you are interested in training for. What is a marathon or half marathon but aerobic stimulus? After all.
I tried it this last season. I found it harder to maintain what I used to consider a moderate pace, and I ended up with the most long lasting injury I've had in years. Going back to more traditional workouts.
If it works for you, cool, but it's not for everyone and definitely not for me.
I’ve been trying so hard to run at
How do you monitor your hr without staring at your watch the whole time?
Just YES!
So I should do my long runs at this easy, low heart rate effort?
Nice
Strange this comes across my timeline just now. I run exclusively on a trail. This cold sucks and opportunity presented itself to run on a treadmill, my first time. I don't run with a watch. I don't have a heart rate monitor and I only gauge my performance by distance and time, leaving my front door, how long and how far before I’m back to my front door?
Not only did the treadmill kill me like a naturally aspirated engine blowing up on a dyno because there's no airflow, but it had a heart rate monitor in a handle. I grabbed it after the first mile.... it read 87bpm.
I thought; that's weird.
So I kept running and grabbed it again... 87bpm (@10minute miles)
I ran faster, 96bpm. (@8:40 miles)
After a 5K... still just 87bpm... 5K done in 31minutes. Shouldn't it be higher than that? I’m exhausted. Sweaty and gassed. Still my heart-rate was under 100bpm
I only do low HR training on my easy days or recovery days.
For someone like me who has just gotten into running, i am looking for longer endurance, so would these easy runs be a better go to? I dont intend on running any races therefore i dont, in theory, need to be very fast. My only requirement and the only reason i started running was to get fit and build endurance. So easy running is going to be the best for this no?
Based on your goals yes. You can always gradually add a workout in the future if you want. The .ain't thing is to be consistent, stay healthy and enjoy the ride.
@@Michael-4 i have had to stop running as it was literally making my patellar tendonitis feel like it was going to burst out of my knees. I had a 7 month lay off due to the pain, started up with a really really easy 6 rounds of 1 min run, 1min 30 sec walk just to ease me back in and the next day i couldnt walk. After being pain free for over a month this was so disappointing
This video is interesting and I think most people in the comments have it correct that there's benefits for certain people at certain times but not exclusively. I do have a question though for myself... I'm 17 and intermediate to advanced runner (4:50 1600m). I just ran 5 miles on the treadmill at around 180 bpm give or take throughout the session. It didn't feel extremely difficult or anything. I switched between a 3-3 to 4-4 breathing cadence with big breaths just to steady my breathing and make the run a little less boring. I was sweating pretty profusely but at the same time didn't feel overheated. Does it seem like I'm too intense for a base training run? I know going by feel is important but 180 seems awfully high or am I just overthinking it. All comments and thoughts are appreciated
Hard to judge without knowing a lot more details. My general impression from the description is that you are running somewhere around marathon pace, which is fine as a workout, but it's not the easy pace you might be looking for. HM to marathon pace is where people usually end up running their "easy" days. While MAF does have it's flaws, what it does well is show people what running easy/slow actually feels like. Maybe try a few runs at your MAF HR, you don't need to be 100% strict about it, like a couple of beats above isn't end of the world especially in warm conditions, but on the other hand do try to keep it below. See how those runs feel, how you feel after the run, the day after etc. And assess from there. Thing is (and I'm again a bit guessing your numbers here so adjust accordingly) runs at 170 bpm vs 150 bpm aren't that different in terms of benefit, but the 170 is more taxing on the body which will add up over time.
@@Draddar thankyou so much I'll try what you're suggesting
When you talk about 80/20, how do you calculate an intervall session in? E.g., 6 x 1000m with 500m jogging inbetween, and 3 km warmup + 3km cooldown. Are these 6 km fast, 8.5 km fast or 14.5 km fast? Given an 80 km distance weekly effort, it obviously makes a difference how you calculate the desired 16 km of intensive running.
This is why it is sometimes easier to calculate based on time rather than mileage. So in your example the warmup would count as low heart rate training so 15-20 mins low then the rest your HR is going to be high even during the jogging inbetween so the rest of the workout counts as high intensity however long it takes and that includes the cooldown IMO as again HR is likely still going to be highish.
I heard it goes by sessions not by miles/kilometers. So the interval would be all toward the 20% I believe. Some pro-expert said this from another video. If your warmup and cooldown is huge then that might affect it. Like 3K for a warmup not alot but you can do less. I noticed faster runners need more time to warm up for races especially but intervals if very fast as well. I can get away with just 1K or a half mile warmup before intervals, usually with a few other warmup exercises but not alot. They might want you go to into a sharpening phase then then taper too since most of your runs are slower. But if your not like super super fast forget alll that and just have your watch do the work and make it more simple.
So what Heart Rate Zone are you talking about here? Zone 3? Zone 2?
What I dislike about MAF is that you're paying so much attention to your heart rate and due to factors such as how you slept, what weather conditions you're running in, etc., MAF could mean going as slow as 9:30/mile or a more reasonable 8:00/mile (still perceivably easy to me) depending on the day. You might be staring at a watch the entire time and it's not always particularly accurate, and I don't think the MAF formula is any less flawed as a one-size-fits-all than the 210 minus your age formula. The problem is the one-size-fits-all approach, not the particular numbers.
I feel like perceived effort is still the way to go for me. If I'm counting down the distance to the tenth of a mile looking forward to when I can take a break/stop but still feel in control then I know it's appropriately hard (for me, about a 6 or sub-6 min mile pace). If I'm cruising and sort of locked into a pace that is much slower than I feel like I *could* go but don't feel clumsy doing it then I know it's appropriately easy without being too easy (9:30/mile, for example, feels REALLY weird to me form-wise, and I'd imagine has very little benefit). Pace sort of helps me understand my perceived efforts a bit, but in the end it's still about perceived effort as the pace only reflects where my fitness is at the moment. Right now, returning from an overuse injury that cost me three weeks, my descriptions of these efforts might be about 30 sec/mile slower.
Check out Dr Stephen Seiler. Many videos here on YT. Basically what you are saying is what he advocates and was indeed the man who coined the 80/20 phrase, albeit misunderstood nowadays. Most, if not all, the gold medal winning endurance athletes use this method.
So your next video can address the run less, run faster philosophy. People doing this usually do only three runs a week but two of them are workouts and one is the long run. But cross training or easy runs on other days are encouraged so I don’t quite see the difference.
Whenever i tried to build a super massive base it never worked and my legs ended up not recovering enough as mileage got higher. I could do higher mileage when i was like 20 but after i was 22 i couldnt do it anymore and my legs just got weaker and all this advice just didnt work for me. I can only handle 20 miles a week. Slow or fast. so b etter for me to go fast not LSD or 80-20 since i cant do anything more so at least can have intensity up since i cant increase any other way.
Thanks for this video Sir. I miss doing Speed works after almost 3 months of MAFFETONE this month. Maybe, I should get back to where I train. I feel great running slow, coz of my Hip Flexor Injury from last year.
I agree. Running slowly for long period is good but I think I should incorporate these speed intervals. I’m 75. I can do it 😂oh yeah I run with Jack Daniels too 🎉
You are so cool!!
Please convince my kids of this, thanks.
@@JasonFitzgerald hello Jason
A lot of people misinterpreting what Jason is saying here because of the tone. He is still saying 80% should be around MAF heart rate. Too many people in the comments saying they are going to continue doing all of their runs at tempo pace
The reality is that low heart training, like walking and slogging, do not produce more efficient cardiovascular function. The body does not build up any of its systems or components beyond what is needed, so doing things at a level that does not cause stress to the body will not result in improvement, because the body will not detect any excessive stress and respond accordingly by building up the systems under pressure. An example is that you can curl your arm all day without any significant buildup of the biceps muscle, but if you do it with 10kg weight in your hand, after a couple of weeks your biceps will start to grow because the body has detected a need for additional strength. The same goes for the cardio-pulmonary system. No stress, no improved MVO2, no pushed ATP. In other words, no improvement. As such you will be able to run long but not faster. An endurance base is vital but only if it pushes the current maximums to allow for better performance.
Anybody reading this... don't listen to this guy!
Do you think this applies to "beginners" as well? Or do you think beginners should first of all build a solid aerobic foundation via 100% running "slow"?
Beginners should be building a solid aerobic foundation by doing I'd say 90-100% of their miles "easy" (as opposed to "slow," the distinction being that pace doesn't always reflect effort). 7:30/mile one day could feel the same as 8:15/mile another day depending on how much sleep you got, how recovered vs. overtrained you are, how hilly or flat the course is, how hot and/or humid or how much wind resistance there is (i.e. the conditions), etc. I didn't do a single speed workout my entire first year of running, and only after that started sprinkling in 20 minute tempos and fartleks and focusing on negative splitting some of my runs starting with when I followed Sage Canaday's aerobic base plan, before moving into different types of speed stuff now that I have a little over two years under my belt (e.g. longer intervals and repeats). I also focus on increasing my long run gradually, my longest to date being 16 miles.
Still, within that first year of running without any speed, I improved significantly, from averaging about 9:15/mile the first time I completed a five mile run to being able to do the same distance on the same exact course at a 7:45 pace one year later (and one year after that, I could hold about a 6:20-6:30 pace over that distance, at that same perceived effort). Beginners will improve the most rapidly as long as they are consistent, so you don't need to worry as much about optimizing your training until you're more experienced and have to squeeze the bottle more to continue getting toothpaste out, if that makes sense. While your aerobic system is still very undeveloped as a beginner, you hardly have to squeeze the bottle at all to get toothpaste out. Running is a long-term sport, aerobic development takes years upon years. Don't worry about running out of toothpaste. You've got a brand new bottle.
Plus, with speed comes increased chance of injury, which most beginners are less resistant to compared to more experienced runners as many of the muscles and tendons which are used in running aren't as adapted to handle the demands of running.
Depending on where you are, if, say, you're a beginner, there's no shame in doing 100% of your runs at an effort that feels reasonably easy to you. You will still improve greatly, while lowering the risk of injury which could disrupt your ability to be consistent, consistency being the most important thing - more important than heart rate and pace - for new runners.
@@ielle. Thank you very much for that elaborate answer! It helped me a lot :)
It’s surprising to me how many people are unaware of the 80/20 rule. I had a coworker complaining that shoe was not improving in her marathon time, yet she did 100% of her runs at a low heart rate. No tempo runs, no Fartleks, no strides, no speedwork whatsoever
Is this a high-mileage, low-heartrate method? It sounds like it's at least partially intended to help people lose weight, so it would make sense that people who see benefits are losing weight by running longer distances than they'd feel comfortable doing at a harder pace.
I've always had trouble getting my heart rate up and running fast but can run slowly fairly easily for long distances. I always joke it's like I have a sportscar engine of a heart in a Honda Civic of a body.
What is true for life, is true for running as well: diversity is key to success :)
How can I learn to jog continuously for at least 30 mins while remaining in zone 2 or even 3? If I run at all at any speed for 5-10 mins, my heart rate spikes up to 90-95%.
Your heart rate could be spiking due to lack of aerobic development, lack of sleep/recovery, the conditions of the day - maybe it's very cold or very hot and/or humid and/or windy etc. - or for any number of reasons. HR can be an interesting tool, but it's nowhere near reliable enough to be the end-all-be-all even with the most accurate of readings (and wristwatches are known to be off by a little bit).
What makes MAF useless for a lot of people, especially beginners, is that it's impossible to slow down enough to stay below the MAF heart rate (or within the desired HR zones if focusing on HR without the MAF method) while maintaining a run, as walking or slowly jogging is required to meet the arbitrary numbers. If you want to run and get better at running, you have to run, not walk!
Maybe this means you take walk breaks and alternate run/walk until the ratio tips more toward running. Maybe this means you run for however long you can endure and call it a day when you've reached your limit. The most important thing is to be consistent with your running, whatever that means for you, and you'll gradually be able to run the same distances or for the same amount of time at the pace you're currently going, but at a lower heart rate (and the paces required to reach the high HRs you're reaching now will become faster and the distances will become greater).
Don't worry about HR. I'm less than two weeks in to the swing of things after missing three weeks to an overuse injury (after a 9 month injury-free spell), and despite staying active on the elliptical, my HR data has been much higher than it was pre-injury over the same paces and distances. It reflects a small loss of fitness, which I knew was inevitable, but I don't feel any more than about 15 seconds/mile slower in terms of how my paces are aligning with my perceived effort. Before I know it, the data between pace/distance/heart rate will align as it did pre-injury, but the process will probably take a lot longer if I slow down much further than what I still perceive to be easy all in the name of matching a random MAF number or HR zone.
@@ielle. Thank you Danielle for your detailed response. Just to clarify, I am not at all into MAF (and don’t think it’s scientific). I’m also not into monitoring HR for the sake of it, rather a 90-95% HR is just one means of quantifying perceived effort, not to mention that my perceived effort usually correlates pretty well with what my watch shows. It happens all the time that I wonder why I’m suddenly feeling tired and look at my watch to see that I’m well into the 180s.
All I’d like is to be able to jog for 30+ minutes without heavy legs and a chest (which would likely have to mean around or below 75-80% HR). I have been run-walking for a few months but can’t seem to be able to cut out the walking part.
I of course *can* jog for 30 or even 60 minutes continuously, just that it doesn’t feel easy and I’m actually faster with respect to overall average pace if I take very short walk breaks every half mile to a mile as opposed to running continuously. I don’t know any experienced runner who is faster over 5K or 10K like distances by taking walk breaks.
@@aroundandround Has your ratio at least tipped more toward running over the few months you're describing? It sounds like a possible lack of aerobic development to handle a run of the duration you're speaking of, i.e. lack of endurance. If you're unable to cut out the walking, this isn't necessarily troublesome if you're able to run for longer before the walking break is necessary. In fact, it would be a good sign, even if it falls short of where you want to be.
In the first week or two back from my injury, the data from some of my runs showed that my heart rate suddenly spiked after about 20 minutes of running at the same paces I was running pre-injury, on relatively flat courses too. At the same pace pre-injury, I was running in zones 2 and 3 for about 75 minutes before it gradually crept up closer to zone 4.
At some point no matter who you are, it becomes inevitable after about an hour or a little more of running near your aerobic threshold that the anaerobic system must become involved in order to maintain the same pace (longer if you're going very easy/well below aerobic threshold), which means higher HR. The only way around your HR increasing is to slow down in order to remain aerobic, and at some point for all of us, the only way will be to walk (even for very experienced endurance athletes, albeit for someone like Kilian Jornet it could take an incredible amount of time to reach that point).
When you've been training consistently and pick up an injury that sidelines you, your speed goes sooner than your endurance, i.e. you lose anaerobic fitness more quickly (the body's ability to clear lactate from the blood, lactic acid build-up being the reason you'll feel that burning in your legs or chest, etc.).
In my case, I suspect the data is showing a spike at the same paces much sooner than usual because I'm now running above my aerobic threshold, whereas pre-injury that same pace was much more aerobic and therefore comfortable. Today was my first run of week three, 6 miles at 7:40 pace, and the spike didn't occur until nearly 30 minutes in, so I'm quickly re-gaining my pre-injury fitness. My ability to cover the same distances is relatively unchanged thanks to my consistent running over the past two years and in particular the very strong base I'd built over the past several months (as well as staying active on the elliptical while I was sidelined), but my ability to cover the same distances at the same speeds is relatively much more compromised. I'm a fairly experienced runner and I'll take walk breaks early in a return to training. I know runners much more experienced than myself who do the same.
In your case, it could just be that you're trying to do too much, too fast, too soon. If over 5k or 10k distances you're faster with walk breaks than you are if you did them without stopping, it sounds like your anaerobic system is becoming involved very early and that you lack the aerobic fitness (endurance) to run aerobically continuously for the stretch of time you're talking about (30-60 minutes). The walk breaks allow your HR to stabilize and from there you can run aerobically again until the next spike. From what you've described, pushing through a 90-95% effort is slowing you down to an extent greater than the time you lose to walk breaks. It can be frustrating as a beginner but it's necessary to slow down, and something that even experienced runners do after time away.
Possibly due to relative inexperience, you are likely starting off way too hard. On your next run, start off much slower than you normally do, and see how that goes.
Running at 90-95% max HR with such frequency is going to lead to overtraining, increased risk of injury, potentially burnout (it's hard to find fun or joy in something that exhausts you all the time), a plateau or even slowing down/inability to cover the same distances/overall decrease in performance, because your body is highly stressed and isn't recovering. 90-95% of max HR is the type of effort you only do for a few minutes at a time. If you find yourself unable to run at this HR for more than a few minutes, there's nothing wrong with you, you're just placing demands on your body that it's not yet ready for (too much/too fast/too soon).
Discard whatever image you have of what's too slow, don't worry about how fast you're going, and focus primarily on duration at the desired HRs, distance and pace be damned (other than ways of quantifying your progress within the duration at desired HR). Pushing through the pain isn't going to help you, and very little of your total running should be done at this intensity as it's nearly a race effort.
At such an effort, you're depleting your glycogen (stored form of glucose, which we get from carbs) rapidly, and unlike fat, it's a very limited energy source. When you run out of it, that's when you "bonk" or "hit the wall." Glycogen is stored in the liver and in the muscles. If you've ever felt unable to run any further despite your legs feeling fine, it's a sign that your liver's out of glycogen, it'll be the brain fog sort of bonking where your neurotransmitters are all messed up and it's like your body has forgotten how to run, your blood sugar is very low at this point, so you'll "crash". When your legs feel super heavy and unable to take you any further, that's more of the muscle type of hitting the wall, at which point your muscles have run out of glycogen.
Our bodies don't store much glucose but it's much more readily available than fat. Fat is an energy source that is effectively limitless and what you run at when running aerobically in those lower HR zones. Running/exercising aerobically trains your body to prioritize fat as an energy source. The more efficient your aerobic system, the faster/longer/overall more intense you can run before your body switches from fat to glucose to meet the energy demands being placed upon it from the stress of more intense running (emphasis that "intense" is highly personal, an effort rather than a pace especially when the same effort can be a different pace depending on factors such as weather conditions).
At higher HRs, you're going through your glycogen stores and lactic acid is building up in your bloodstream quicker than your body can clear it, which inhibits oxygen flow and makes it feel impossible to run (if it's easy to remember this way, aerobically = with oxygen, anaerobically = without oxygen, "an-" is like the prefix "a-" e.g. "atheist" is "without god," what "theist" is to believing in god/s, "aerobic" is to running with oxygen, just tack on the necessary prefixes).
Build up of lactic acid quicker than the body is capable of clearing it can result in either form of bonking as described earlier.
Hence, every coach I've ever read or heard speak says the same thing, that beginners should start out alternating running/walking, even if that means running for 30 seconds or 2-3 minutes at a time. Gradually, the ratio should increase and you should be able to run for longer, unless you've always done it at a 90-95% effort, in which case you may have covered a little more ground in the few minutes that you could maintain a run, but you will have not improved your ability to run for longer durations.
If you start off being capable of running at let's say a 10 minute mile pace (just to make the math easy) but can only hold it for 5 minutes because you're running at 90-95% max HR, you'll have covered half a mile. A 30 second pace improvement for the same 5 minute run would only cover another .03 miles, or nearly 50 meters. As you can see, it doesn't improve endurance and it's not even an optimal way to build speed for people focused on getting faster, as aerobic training (endurance/ability to run for longer durations) is necessary to build a base upon which you build that speed. Even runners who specialize in 800m (2 minutes, give or take depending on skill) spend a ton of time training at lower HR.
The less developed your aerobic system is, the less efficient you are at burning fat for fuel, the sooner your anaerobic system will become involved, which is why beginners find running so much more difficult than experienced runners who make it look easy. But, we were run/walking before we were running. Two years ago I could hardly run a third of a mile at a time (about half a km!) and now I'm capable of running a sub-20 5k and holding a 7:40/mile pace for 15 miles.
I know there's a lot of no-pain-no-gain sentiment out there, but there's absolutely no shame in taking walk breaks. Without knowing you or how you've trained, if there's anything you take from what I've written, it's that I hope you don't give in to feelings of discouragement, don't feel pressured to maintain a run if your body requires you to take walk breaks, and give yourself permission to make running as easy as needed, especially in your first year or two of doing it when it's most critical to establish your aerobic base first. There is no such thing as too slow to classify a movement as a run, only too much/too fast/too soon. Slow down, and just enjoy the process and the fact that your body is able to run at all! Be consistent, go easier, and things will get better.
Also, make sure you're eating enough carbs to refill your glycogen stores! Hopefully you don't have any conditions which force you to limit your intake of carbs, because running or any intense exercise is much more difficult on a low-carb diet, though many diabetics have found ways!
And to end, speaking of perceived efforts, if your chest is heavy, lungs are burning, you can be sure that your HR is very near that 90-95% range, in which case, slow down, take that walk break, and don't hang your head because you had to do it.
I hope this helps. Stick with it!
@@ielle. Thank you for all those tips. I've definitely long let go of any walk shame, especially since it makes me both faster and makes the run feel more enjoyable. I also love carbs and get plenty of carbs and protein, and particularly enjoy how running increases my appetite and makes me ravenously wolf down pasta (having never had weight loss or body image issues thankfully, but having been a past sufferer of occasional reduced-appetite sadness when I wasn't burning enough calories).
Your improvement timeline and numbers are very inspiring, so thanks for sharing. Let me share mine as well so perhaps you can use your experience to tell me what I might be doing wrong or what targeted training might benefit me most. I started running late November 2020 having been a generally fit person (and a cycling enthusiast among others), and I was surprised at how I went from never having run and hating running all my life to loving it so much. As a newbie, I could run a couple miles at around or slightly slower than 11' mile pace and definitely improved a fair bit fairly quickly in both speed and endurance, but seem to have plateaued for a few months now. In the numbers below, "PB" is perhaps a stretch because it's more the best numbers my watch happened to have reported post-hoc (having never raced or intentionally tried to run as fast as I could during training) and the numbers are a representative sampling in reverse chronological order to give a good idea of my progress. All pace numbers below including the walking portion.
Goals: (1) To jog peacefully for 30+ minutes; (2) to be fastest while running continuously at 5-10K distances (not necessarily very fast, just faster than run-walking). I currently just randomly run ~4 times a week, few miles each run, experimenting with different things (intervals, barefoot on grass, continuous, HR-range-bound, etc.) with no targeted plan, which might perhaps explain my plateauing.
HR: resting around 56, max around 188 (Coros) to 191 (Apple Watch) based on observed max during training.
Current 1-mile mile pace: probably 7'30 to 7'45" (based on training PB of 8'04").
Run-walking (note poor 12'20" pace while trying to keep HR within Z3):
Jun 15, 5 mile run-walk, 9'52" pace, HR avg. 172 (started walking in when HR hit around 183)
Jun 10, 5.1 mile run-walk, *12'20"* pace, HR avg. 141 (started walking or running to keep HR in Z3: 131-148)
Jun 8, 5 mile run-walk, *9'23" pace [5mi PB]* , HR avg. 172 (started walking when HR hit mid 180s)
Jun 4, 3.6 mile run-walk, 9'54" pace, HR avg. 169, max 182 (HR-carefree)
Jun 2, 2.6 mile run-walk, 9'26" pace, HR avg. 164, max 181 (HR-carefree interval training on track)
Continuous running (note poor 12'04" pace when trying to keep HR at or below Z4):
Jun 6, 3.3 miles, 10'28" pace, HR avg. 173, max 188 (HR-carefree)
May 15, 4.6 miles, *12'04"* pace, HR avg. 166, max 172 (trying to stay below Z4 upper limit of ~167)
May 12, 4.2 miles, 10'10" pace, HR avg. 166, max 182 (HR-carefree)
May 8, 3.8 miles, 9'41" pace, HR avg. 151, max 175 (HR-carefree; anomalously good run I can't seem to reproduce)
May 5, 3.1 miles, 9'57" pace, HR avg. 171, max 181 (HR-carefree)
Run-walk with with one 3-min walk midway (note relatively low HR):
Apr 21, 3.2 miles, 10'08" pace, HR avg. 140, max 169 (HR-carefree)
Continuous running (note poor endurance):
Mar 8, 5.4 miles, 11'41" pace, HR avg. 167, max 186 (HR-carefree)
Jan-Mar: mostly continuous (except traffic stops) 2-4 miles, avg. pace between 8'30" to 11' and HR hitting 175+.
Nov-Dec: mostly continuous running 2-3 miles, avg. pace 10' to 11'30" (wasn't monitoring HR back then)
If you read my long post until here, you are an angel, much thanks! :) I am so frustrated with all the running websites and videos out there that talk about easy runs, tempo pace, threshold training, spending 80% in Z1-Z3 and what not, and precious little for noobs like me screaming "but I just can't run more than a mile in anything under Z5!!". One question that would really help me is: *Should I continue run-walking while running in good form that feels great (my current bet) or should I really slow down to 12'+ mile pace to get down to Z4 (but still not Z1-Z3), a pace that feels unnaturally slow and in such poor form that I am hard-pressed to imagine it could be doing me any good, and worse, the poor form might be potentially injurious*. I doubt it makes sense to try to run at all in Z1-Z3 as I might as well walk briskly at 13' mile pace (and at least not feel stupid doing it).
Edit: You had mentioned run/walk ratio trends, so I thought I should note that I either don't have enough length of systematic monitoring to know that the walk fraction isn't improving or, as my intuition suggests, I've always been fastest with around 100m or 1-min walk breaks for every 0.5 to 1.25 miles (based on perceived tiredness) but reducing (or increasing) the walk lengths much will only make me slower.
@aroundandround This will be a two-comment reply because it seems youtube is having trouble posting it since it's long lol.
Seeing as your goal is to run continuously for 30 minutes comfortably, I would focus on doing as much as you can continuously as possible, disregarding intervals (won't help until your goals shift from distance/time to pace), and without being HR-bound (unless you have a medical reason for adhering strictly to it). Most of us don't know our true max HR, and wristwatches and chest straps are only so accurate.
HR zone training is only as useful as your knowledge of your max HR is certain, and in order to be certain, you'd need to get a test done at a lab which the overwhelming majority of us do not have available to us.
It can be useful to quantify in numbers exactly what an easy run feels like, so that you know for when you're running by perceived effort what it's supposed to feel like, but even then you can't just look at the pace, match it to the HR on that day, and think you've now found your personal "easy pace." Too many environmental factors can have a big influence on HR from one day to the next, which is why for a lot of people, perceived effort takes priority over HR especially in the less specific stages of training.
I ran about 72 hours after receiving the second dose of the vaccine, and I started lightly bonking after just 3.5 miles at 7:45 pace, a pace I'd held for 15 miles less than three months earlier! I had to stop twice during that run (6 miles, pace came down to 8:04 overall). My resting HR was about 10-15 bpm higher than usual for the first couple of days before returning to normal, but even though I hadn't perceived the effects of the vaccine before I set out for my run on that third day, I was clearly compromised. I'd have driven myself insane if I was focused on the HR data for that run without knowing the reason. On a "normal" running day, that reason could be life stresses, amount/quality of sleep, temperature/humidity/wind, and any number of things I might not be able to pinpoint.
In my opinion, especially for inexperienced runners, HR and HR zones tend to be a distraction, and are most useful for either medical reasons or understanding what different intensities feel like.
It seems you run mostly an average of 3-ish miles each time you get out there, sometimes run-walk, sometimes continuous. Doing this 4 times a week, you'd be averaging somewhere close to 12 miles a week. Let's say a 10 minute pace is realistic on most of these runs, especially on any runs below that 3 mile average. 12mi x 10min = 120 minutes (2 hours of running per week). Your goal of continuous running, comfortably for 30 minutes is 25% of your weekly time spent on your feet, subtract 2-3% if you'd like to use 10:30 or 11:00 pace as what you think you average on most runs which would increase x in 30 ÷ x (the principle is what I'm emphasizing more than the precision of the numbers, which you'll know better than I will). The ratio is the focus here, and no matter how we slice it, it seems that 30 minutes is a realistic goal for you. However, this is something you should be attempting no more than once a week at your volume. If your expectations are to be able to do this each run of the week, you aren't being realistic, and hopefully you aren't beating yourself up for it.
A general rule of thumb is that for most runners, your long runs should be somewhere in the range of 20-30% of your weekly volume, whether you define volume primarily as mileage or time spent on feet (either works). Your goal is realistic, but only if you aren't hoping to be able to run for 30 minutes non-stop during each of your runs. For that, you're simply going to need to be running much more volume than you currently are. But to be able to do it once a week? You're not far off. You have to be able to do it once a week before someday you're able to do it each time you run.
If you're interested in increasing your volume and getting an idea of structuring, I'll share the plan I followed coming back from a two month injury when I was looking to build my mileage back up safely, and to this day it has taught me a lot of useful principles. You shouldn't be attempting this plan until you're running about 15-20 miles per week for a good few weeks without any problem with injury or overtraining-related fatigue/illness, as stated by the author of this plan on the site. Currently, you aren't far off from being able to give a plan like this serious consideration.
higherrunning.com/training-plans/free-aerobic-base-building-training-plain/
There are also videos on this very channel, Strength Running, that talk about structure, which I'll link to as well. The examples go 40 miles per week and higher, which won't be applicable to you for many months or maybe even a year (take as much time as you need), but can still give you an idea in terms of the principles. It's worth bookmarking in case you finish the plan I linked to above and want continued guidance for higher mileage.
czcams.com/video/Rk7KZbewXss/video.html
Before you get to the point of following the plan, which you're not far off from being able to do, in the meantime, perhaps once a week, after a day off (4x a week allows for running every other day) and with the previous run having been your easiest run of the week, run for as far/long as you can continuously.
I eventually enjoyed the base phase. Wouldn't consider it boring. I do well off higher mileage and getting in the miles can be fun when you're keeping it easy. Especially in college I'd put so much pressure on myself and feeling pressure from my team/coach/environment. It was good to take a step back and just run. Generally the easy paced runs would be a bit faster than when in season. And throw in a few harder efforts here and there.
I tried MAF for a bit and lost interest. My heart rate is higher when I run a 6:30min/km pace than it is when I run a 5:00min/km pace
do warm ups first run at a faster pace or do strides to push the heart rate up and take a short rest then proceed with your run at your desired heart rate and pace.
Nice place to run
I can't run for more than about 45 seconds at 5 mph without having to stop to gasp for air. But I can walk at 4 mph for an hour without getting breathless. Why is that? When I see someone running easily for miles it looks like a magic trick to me.
I’m not sure what the point of this video is - no one ever suggested that *all* your endurance training should be at low heart rate, just that a substantial amount of your training should be, especially if far out from any competitive events etc, since it offers substantial physiological benefits. But even in base training phase, no one is suggesting that it contains low heart rate training only.
I completely agree. I did MAF for 2.5 months and did get faster but I plateaued at the same heart rate. One day out of frustration I did a couple of mile repeats and on subsequent runs my aerobic pace started to rapidly drop after adding one fast run a week. In a couple of weeks my pace dropped by about 35 seconds.
I intended to try MAF but gave up after just one run of staring at my watch and having to slow to about a 9:25-9:30/mile pace to keep my heart rate at or below the number deemed appropriate for my age. It wasn't enjoyable and it felt ridiculous and clumsy form-wise (calling it a fast shuffle might be generous), and I didn't have the patience to wait for my MAF pace to increase. Perceived effort is the way to go imo. Easy runs should feel slightly boring but not excruciatingly so, slightly tempting to run faster but satisfying enough that you're able to not give in out of frustration. If 210 minus age doesn't work it's because it's a one-size-fits-all, and the MAF formula isn't any less of a one-size-fits-all even if it allows for +/- 5 here or there. I find the Jack Daniels VDOT calculator to more accurately reflect what an "easy pace" is for me (anything in the low 8s-9:00/mile) since you're using your best recent performances, but then I don't stare at my watch for pace either as it's just an indicator of current fitness and perceived effort is still what I prioritize during base and any workout that isn't particularly specific.
@@ielle. Well said. MAF training served a purpose for me as it got me out of zone 3 and eventually to the 80/20 approach. I do believe the MAF formula was fairly accurate for me since I checked it against a field test. Not perfect but maybe good enough. I have an injury but when I return to running I plan to go with perceived effort just because I don’t feel like struggling with the summer heat and looking at my watch all of the time. Eventually I think I will adopt a purely perceived effort approach for easy runs. I do like having my MAF tests to gauge my aerobic fitness. I’ve gone from about a 9:38 pace to about 8:10 at low heart rate (age 57). But yes looking forward to more watch-less runs and reconnecting with my body. Also, without walking on hills (as I did with MAF) I hope to have stronger more injury resistant legs.
@@ethers I think that any of these one-size-fits-all could end up being close to accurate for any given person which is why there's so much disagreement lol.
For example, I've had readings as high as 207 bpm (thanks in part to a hilly route on a very hot day), but at age 30 my maximum according to the 220 minus age formula would be 190, and it's possible my true max is even higher than 207 while for another 30-year-old the max might be below 190.
Following that formula, I would be overestimating my efforts and not getting as much benefit as I could if I followed it religiously, while for someone my age whose true max is below 190, the extent to which they'd be underestimating their effort would be parallel to just how far below 190 their max is, and if it's well below yet they follow the formula closely, they could be at increased risk of overtraining.
For someone age 30 whose max is below 190, maybe something like MAF comes closer, explaining why for me, I have to go what feels horrendously slow and boring just to stay within the MAF range. If we use MAF's 180 minus age, 150 is 72.4% of a 207 max HR (assuming my max is truly 207 for simplicity) while for the other 30-year-old runner who let's say has a max HR of 187, 150 is 80.2% of max.
MAF is more likely to be too frustratingly slow and boring for me considering the relation between the MAF recommended HR of 150 and the highest HR I've recorded (207). I find that my most comfortable easy runs tend to come in at a range of 155-164 bpm (going by perceived effort and what the data showed), which is 74.8%-79.2% of max (possibly lower if my true max is higher than 207 as I suspect but do not know). This might not seem like a significant difference from 150/72.4%, but I find this could be the difference of a whole minute or more per mile. Perhaps I'm less efficient at such a slow (for me) pace, but then why bother improving my efficiency at an uncomfortably slow pace when I'm already more efficient and comfortable at a pace faster than that? All for the sake of a reading which I don't even know to be fully accurate?
I find that as I improve my efficiency and lower my HR at paces that are already comfortable through consistency (vs. limiting myself to adhering strictly to arbitrary zones throughout my training and hoping to gain speed as a result), paces that were faster than comfortable start becoming more comfortable and new paces start becoming more within reach, which to me seems like how it should be.
@@ielle. Your point about max heart rate makes sense. Have you met Maffetone’s criteria for adding 5 points? Regarding your comment “but then why bother improving my efficiency at an uncomfortably slow pace when I'm already more efficient and comfortable at a pace faster than that?” If your faster pace is aerobic then you are right there is no reason to go slower but if your faster pace is above the aerobic threshold you are missing out on training the fat burning energy system and all of those benefits (endurance, etc).
@@ethers According to the formula I either wouldn't need any modification or I'd need to subtract 5 for seasonal allergies/asthma (but neither have really bothered me as much as they used to since I began running and my asthma in particular improved after I became vegan in 2014).
I might meet the +5 but I haven't done any MAF tests, improved MAF tests being one of the guidelines for adding 5. I could probably safely add 5 since my data has shown I'm getting faster at the same HRs, which is in the spirit of MAF.
I like to look at my average HR over the course of the run rather than worry about time spent in certain zones, which is antithetical to MAF as the emphasis is on limiting as much as possible time spent above the target HR that the formula gives you, ideally never exceeding it. This means that you have to progressively slow down throughout the run.
I like to get in the habit of running steady-state where I do all of my miles close to what I'm going to average for that run (at different intensities), or as a progression where I start off a good bit slower than what my average pace is going to be for the first couple of miles, run closer to what the average pace is going to be in the middle miles, and then run proportionately faster over the last mile or two in relation to the first couple of miles (if I'm averaging 7:45 over an easy 8 miles, I'm often doing miles 1 and 2 close to 8:15-8:25, 3-6 close to 7:45, and miles 7 and 8 close to 7:05-7:15).
I may spend time in different zones that go against the MAF principle, but my average HR on my easy days tends to be pretty close to what MAF says it should be for aerobic running. If I'm below it by 10-15 bpm for 16-17 minutes and above it by 10-15 bpm for 14-15 minutes and very near it for the other 30-ish minutes, it doesn't bother me as I'm still seeing lots of improvement, and I'm still running aerobically for roughly 75% of that run. When I'm glycogen-depleted and need to recover, that's when I'll typically run closer to an 8:30-9:00 pace where I don't spend a single second running anaerobically.
Maffetone does say on his site to only pursue anaerobic development once you have consistently seen improved MAF tests as an indicator that your aerobic system is ready, so I suppose MAF isn't really applicable to me in my current condition anyway (I'm still seeing major improvement). It seems more geared toward beginners who need to develop an aerobic base or experienced runners who've plateaued/overtrained perhaps because they were doing a lot of race-specific work and neglected re-establishing their aerobic base after their goal race or season ended.
In that regard, I can't really figure out what MAF is teaching that I haven't heard every other running coach say, distinguished only by the obsession with a number that's said to be your max aerobic HR and never ever exceeding it until your tests show that you're ready. It seems more like a branding to sell a coaching business, not that I have a problem with that since it isn't bad advice when interpreted correctly, other than that I think it's weird to stare at a watch and worry about spending a minute or few at an intensity which requires even a minimal amount of anaerobic contribution. I'm no expert and maybe it actually is the most optimal way of building a base, but I want running to be enjoyable lol (don't we all?).
Using coaches of elite runners is not a good example.
They often train people who are genetic anomalies that will excel with any training. It is an added variable that cannot be ignored.
The coaches who take 300lbs couch potatoe and turn them into sub 30 minutes 5k runners are who I take seriously.
I think as you trained ur heart rate will be low ..u trained less intensity keep ur pace as low as you can to stay injury free and build stamina
I did MAF training for 6 months, the greatest regrets in my life. It is a hoax…
keep in mind that the average person has very average ability, & will just make very small improvement no matter how hard they work or what they do...eg. you can train like Usain Bolt all day & maybe take a 10th off your 100m time...lol
Is there an 80/20 elephant in the room somewhere?
He spends the first 6min trashing low heart rate training, then immediately (at 6:15) contradicts himself saying he recommends 80% of training be done at low heart rate! Lol... what a fool