My Track Record

Greg - nice post. As far as a few high profile athletes having great sucesses with Dr. Phil' methods, I offer two explanations.

1. They would be great no matter what training they did. This really can't be discounted; the genetic lottery is not fair. If they trained using a more scientific, Jack Daniels style approach, they would be as good or better.

2. They are all triathletes, meaning they are getting a ton of extra sress from the training for the other two sports, both of which are non weight bearing. Meaning, even if they stick to the low HR when training in the pool or on the bike, they are at a much higher relative intensity when doing so. This will have quite a bit of carryover effect.

I have long questioned the MAF approach.

The most successful of "MAF"ers is Mark Allen - 6 time Ironman World Champ. According to Noakes, via the Lore of Running, Allen got his MAF pace to 5:20 a mile (meaning he was running 5:20's whilst maintaining a HR near or below 150).

My concerns with the MAF approach have been the exclusivity of its approach - primarily the tenant that you can NEVER exceed a HR above MAF.

In any case, I have debated, using some points similar to yours, the usefulness of this approach.

I certainly would not recommend it for marathoners, particularly those who are veterans for running - for some of the reasons you mention.

That said, what I understand Phil means by aerobic versus anaerobic is indeed a twist of the definition. Phil considers MAF paces to be ones where you metabolize fat as fuel. Supposedly at low HRs, this is what occurs (versus glycogen). Anaerobic paces in his definition are those that metabolize carbs, or glycogen.

In an IM, where you will be competing for 8-15 hours, and given we are all generally limited to a glycogen store of about two hours, you do need to train your system for a LONG LONG haul and hence teach your body to metabolize other fuel to survive. Simply put, be it in an ultra, or an IM - you ain't going to make it just on sugar.

Hence, training, long and slow (or at a lower HR) will probably make up about 80 percent of the training (or maybe more) that one does for these events. Simply put - you are being specific for that event. You are not going to hold a HR of 185 for 14 hours. At least I am not.

So - I am not completely opposed to MAF training. It has applicability in three places
a.) general base building period
b.) the bulk of most training
c.) anyone who relatively new to sport and has been inactive for a good period of time.

My issue with it is the so called exclusivity of it. Supposedly, when you go above this MAF HR however, you tap into that anaerobic fuel system and the body does not reset itself back to an aerobic one for 18-36 hours (not sure if I buy that but that is what I have read).

FWIW - I still do two hard workouts a week (with an anaerobic component).

GZ

I too have seen the anecdote about Mark Allen's easy pace/MAF HR being 5:20 pace, but this defies common sense. If it were so, you'd expect Mark to have run a marathon well below 5:20 pace (ie, sub 2:20). In fact, in my own experience, your MAF pace corresponds to race pace at somewhere around 40 miles. 40 miles at 5:20 pace would be even more amazing than 6 Ironman wins!

Paul - that is a good point. I had not thought of it that way. I will dig up the specific Noakes reference to cross check it.

I need to think about this though. I am sure that there are athletes that could run at 5:20 pace without their HR cracking 150. I am not sure that means they could hold that pace for 40 miles, even assuming they have the muscular endurance to do that.

don't you love the fact he said he quit everything quite recently to study music?

Yeah, some of the stuff that Maffetone says doesn't make much sense. As I had told King Arthur Martineau on my own blog (he referred me to your post) - "I'm not a true Maffetone low-HR runner either. However, I can't argue the data that came out of my VO2Max test that I did with Eric (Sachs) a few weeks back either. So for now, I'm on a 42 day training plan that I compared to info from Maffetone, the updated stuff that Mittleman figured out on his own, and data from coaches like Daniels, Lydiard, & Van Aaken. There's a common thread to all of them - all advocate that you need a more solid aerobic base before you do anything else."

So for me, I'm following the Maffetone rules for now. But once I get to a point where I don't see any further gains - I can finally start introducing other forms of training to help me out.

Greg, thanks for writing this post. You have brought up several good points. Hearing other points of view, particularly from a runner of your caliber, is very helpful. Let me offer a few thoughts here.

Regarding the one-size-fits-all comment on the 180 formula, the Maffetone method isn't as rigid as you've described. While it doesn't adjust for each athletes' individual maximum heart rate, which indeed can vary greatly, it does call for adjustments based on the individuals health and conditioning. In your case, under the 180 formula, you would add 5 beats-per-minute given your condition as a competitive athlete. So your MAHR under the 180 formula would be 150, not 145. If you were an average joe, you wouldn't add 5 beats, and if you were an average joe with a history of heart problems or the like, you would subtract 10 beats. Is this an exact formula? Certainly not. To keep this in context, however, I offer the following excerpt from Maffetone in the interview:
"I soon realized a new formula would be very useful as most runners were not able to have an expensive treadmill evaluation, and the 220 formulas were unacceptable. By experimenting with the math (I basically worked the numbers backwards), I was able to get a formula that correlated extremely well with what the treadmill tests were providing. This became the 180 Formula."
The point here is that Maffetone designed the 180 formula using his own empirical research as a tool for a broad base of athletes.
As to 10ks and marathons not being anaerobic events, I agree with your statement. But again, to put this in context, I don't believe Maffetone was suggesting 10ks and marathons are purely "anaerobic" events, rather events that tap into the anaerobic metabolism much more than ultra events.
Regarding your comments on specificity and simulating the demands that will be placed on the body on race day, I don’t think Maffetone’s method excludes this. His position isn’t that athletes should absolutely avoid race pace or faster training, rather they should be sure to develop their aerobic system before focusing on anaerobic training. In other words build your base, then work on speed. As he stated…
"anaerobic training can be very helpful. But whether it’s hills at higher heart rates, track intervals... incorporating anaerobic training before fully developing your aerobic system can be a problem. Consider that in an ultra distance event, 99% of your energy comes from the aerobic system, and only 1% from the anaerobic system. So the more well developed your aerobic system, the more your body is equipped to race long distances. This is the foundation of training that Mark Allen and other great endurance athletes developed".
He’s simply saying that anaerobic training shouldn’t come until after the aerobic base is built. And when it does come, proceed cautiously, as it increases the prospect of injury particularly when combined with the stresses of everyday life. The premise here is that training at MAHR will, over time, make you a faster runner at a lower heart rate. It is also likely to make the athlete less prone to injury and illness, and possibly give rise to a longer, more consistent career.

So, do elite and other endurance athletes need to train at anaerobic threshold and higher to maximize their potential? I believe they do, but I don’t think Maffetone suggests otherwise. Again, all in the right doses to avoid breaking the body down. As he stated, “…if you perform too much of it, the aerobic system can quickly deteriorate”.

Thanks again for your post, Greg. I look forward to meeting you in person one day.

Very good comments, everybody. Just a few additional points:

(A) Mark Allen's website includes a page (www.markallenonline.com/heartrate.asp) where he discusses his paces at various heart rates. He says he was able to run 5:20/mile pace at a heart rate of 155.

(B) Regarding the "+5" in the MAF formula for competitive athletes, Maffetone says in an online article (available only to people who have registered at his website, which is free) that the +5 is for people who "have been competing for more than two years duration without any of the problems listed above, and have improved in competition without injury." I have not improved over the last couple of years -- in fact, I've gotten slower -- so I wouldn't add 5.

(C) I strongly disagree with the advice that one shouldn't do any speedwork until the aerobic base is fully built. (Maffetone isn't the only coach who believes this, by the way.) I believe that almost everyone can benefit from some speedwork once per week, even during the base-building phase. This speedwork doesn't have to be exhausting, all-out, timed, or on a track. It can be something as informal as a fartlek workout or a few fast "stride-outs" toward the end of an easy run. This adds variety (the spice of life) to your training and keeps you from having to start at square one speed-wise when you get to the sharpening/racing phase. Plus it's _fun_ to run fast once in a while. People who think that this sort of thing interferes with aerobic development are being irrational.

Crowther

Your last comment C - AMEN. I agree! I am amazed however at how much push back I get on this topic, even by non-MAF types. They insist on a phase of development that is low intensity without any sort of turn over work.

My experience has been that periodic turn over work is even more critical as one gets older and does more slower work.

Greg,

I compete in olympic and half iron triathlon and also 5K to half-marathon running races. I've used heart rate monitors for the past 18 years of racing. Even though I'm 51 years old, my max heart rate is 196, and I interval train once per week on the track, usually with my heart rate in the high 180's. The once per week high intensity track workout had proved to be critical to improving my run speed. If I used this formula, I would be running in the 120's to 130, which seems pretty low for my main mileage. This is a 9 to 10 min mile pace for me at this low heart rate. As has been previously pointed out, I cycle and swim year around during the week, so my running is relatively limited and focusing on speed and turnover has paid the biggest dividends. I believe I'm a good example of the great amount of heart rate variability by age that you pointed out.

I disagree with the notion that you have to "fully develop your aerobic system" before you add speedwork. Yes, there are periods in your training where you train mostly (or even exclusively) in the low heartrate zone - I just call them "easy runs" and "regular runs". For me, that's during the month or so after a focus marathon, or an Ultra that I ran hard. But I believe that even during the base building phase it is important to add faster paced runs to your training once or twice a week. 4 - 10 mile tempo runs, a 10 x 3:00 min hard, 2:00 min easy fartleg, or even mile repeats on the track, but 10 - 20 seconds slower than max effort (e.g. if you could do 5 x mile in 4:45, run 5 x mile in 5:00).
I also don't agree that beginning runners shouldn't do any kind of speedwork. I mean, if someone starts running in HS as a freshman, they shouldn't do any speedwork til they are a junior?

On a different note, I'm not a big fan of HR formulas or HR based training. And, as Greg can vouch for, it's not because I don't believe in science in general.
Instead of trying to monitor more and more variables such as HR, lactate, VO2 max, etc to guide your training, learn to listen to your body. And analyse your races and workouts. If a typical set of mile repeats goes like 5:35 5:40 5:50 and 6:03, may be the next time start out in 5:45. If you don't pass more people in the second half of a race than pass you, you're probably going out too fast.
Don't let any of those scientific tests tell you what you can or can't do. Case in point:
About 17 years ago both my coach and I had a treadmill HR and lactate test done at the sports medicine institute at the University of Tuebingen, Ger, where many of the German Olympians were tested.
Based on those tests he was told he should be able to run the 10k in 33:00 min. 2 Weeks later he ran a 31:00 on the track.
They told me, at age 19, I should be able to run a marathon in 2:12!!! At the time I was able to run a 10k at that pace (about 31:00 min).
So my point is: don't let some formula, even if it's based on scientific tests, hold you back or set unrealistic expectations both in training and racing.

The common misconceptions about the Maffetone method are:

--it's about running slow

--it doesn't include anaerobic training

--there is no room for adjustment, the formula is strict

The first and foremost idea that Maffetone pushes in his books is the maintenance of health. There is a difference between health and fitness. A runner can be fit enough to run a PR marathon, but it doesn't mean he or she is healthy. My experience on the many running forums on the web, and in my running club, is that there are many runners who are nursing one injury or another, getting sick down the stretch before a goal race, not improving, and hitting the wall and slowing down in marathons. They are running themselves into the ground trying to get better. Maffetone is trying to play his part in changing the no pain, no gain mentality.

His method is not about running slow, but about getting faster and faster at a heart rate where you are using more fat than glycogen as fuel. Running at a low heart rate has less impact, produces little lactic acid, and if the athlete doesn't overdo it in terms of time on feet, stress hormones like cortisol are greatly reduced. According to Mark Allen, when he first used the 180-age formula, it slowed his training during a four month base period down to 8:00 miles. He was used to training at a near 5:00 pace. ..reference: http://www.markallenonline.com/heartrate.asp

At the end of the period, his time at that heart rate improved by a minute. After a year of mostly aerobic training and very little anaerobic work, he improved his time to 5:20 at the 180-age heart rate (155).
He no longer felt unhealthy.
My own experience is similar. Improving at this heart rate improves race times across the board. I knocked twenty three minutes off my marathon time, and 8 minutes off my half marathon time. My 5k times also improved. Best of all, all minor injuries disappeared. I was no longer cranky, and never felt overtrained or sick.

Maffetone's method is not so much centered around the 180 formula as it is what he calls the Maximal Aerobic Function test, or MAF test. This is a 3-5 mile test performed at the calculated heart of 180-age, plus or minus any adjustments. It must be said that Maffetone's definiton of aerobic is processing oxygen using predominantly fat (a function of the slow-twitch fibers). The purpose of the MAF test is to monitor aerobic progress. If your tests are getting faster, then that usually means what you are doing is beneficial to the aerobic system. If they are getting worse or on an abnormal plateau, that usually means that something is impeding your aerobic system. He writes about how some of his athletes have had a period of unusual stress from family or work, and there MAF tests start regressing. Often he would prescribe less time on the feet, and the tests would start improving again. Life and running stresses all add up. On a personal basis, I have found the tests to be an invaluable tool of keeping tabs on the system. My MAF tests always regress by the end of a racing season. I have also seen regression during highly stressful times in my life. When I reduced my running load, they'd improve again.

Maffetone does not exclude anaerobic training from his method. He does say that in his experience that not very much is needed, and that he found no difference in anaerobic improvement from someone running intervals at 90% MHR or someone running at 95% MHR. He would suggest just doing intervals at 90% since they are less of an impact. If you choose to do them any harder, then keep track of the MAF test. He also found that 4-8 weeks was enough, depending on the athlete, any more and the MAF tests would start to regress. The MAF test is the key to the program.

Again, all these things tie into the idea that an athlete should be healthy before being fit.

He talks about adjustments to the formula. If someone with a low MHR is not improving at the 180-age, then the number should be lowered. He also has adjustments for having been injured, people on medication, etc.

One of the most important changes I made to my training on Maffetone's suggestion is running by duration and not distance. Before I came to the method, I was putting in 60-90 miles per week through the year. This added up to 12-14 hours on my feet. I reduced my schedule to two 90-minute runs and one 2 to 2.5 hour, with 45 minute recovery runs on the days in between. My mileage went down to 40-60 miles and 6-8.5 hours per week. I believe that two hours on your feet is two hours on your feet no matter who you are. An elite might be able to get twenty two miles in that time at an easy pace, and I can only get thirteen, but it is the same impact. My marathon time improved not doing any run over 16 miles. That's all I could get in in two and a half hours at my peak.

Mark Allen used the method in a rebuilding year, and then for base training on a yearly basis. He also did speed training, but not during the base period.

My experience thus far is that it works just as he says. I have experienced greater health. I spend less time running. I have not experienced a wall in a marathon in three years, and my times keep improving. Less than before, but still improving.
the first year was tough, as running so slow at first sucked, but it paid off. I got much faster as promised.

It's not a perfect system, as I know perfection doesn't exist. Most of it is based on Maffetone's experience rather than scientific studies. It might not be for everyone, but I believe health is for everyone, and this is one way to stay healthy and improve at the same time. If you find that you are always coming down with an injury, hitting the wall, or feeling tired most of the time. I suggest you give it a try.

I think "unscientific" means not looking into something completely. Not reading extensively. Not testing, not gathering data. I challenge that you have been unscientific when it comes to The Maffetone Method, Mr. Crowther.

The 180 formula was derived from hundreds of respiratory quotient (RQ) tested atheletes with whom Dr. Maffetone worked. The RQ test is a measure of how much fat and how much glycogen (sugar) a person is burning at a given heart rate. The heart rate at which there is 100% sugar-burning (1.0 on the RQ scale) is your anaerobic threshold. For aerobic base training, Maffetone used a heart rate just below the point where your muscles are burning 50% fat/50% sugar (about .85 on the RQ scale). He called this heart rate the Maximum Aerobic Function (MAF). He found that if his athletes (he worked with all different levels) worked at this heart rate and lower, they would develop great aerobic systems, and stay healthy.

He found that the MAF can vary in people and that it has no constant relation to maximum heart rate. You could take two athletes with a maximum heart rate of 200, and one might have an MAF of 135 beats per minute (BPM), and the other might have one at 150 bpm. It depends on the level of aerobic fitness. He encountered broken down athletes that were burning nearly 80% sugar at rest. At rest, you should be closer to 80-100% fat-burning. When he put them on an MAF training, this condition reversed, their endurance increased, and they returned to health.

He derived his 180-formula from the RQ tests. The formula comes with adjustments. For example, if you have been progressing in training and races for at least two years, there was a +5 adjustment. If you were injured, not progressing, sick a lot, then you lower the MAF by 5-10 beats. He found that the MAF HR gets higher in healthy athletes with good aerobic systems. Also the anaerobic threshold heart rate gets higher. Maximum heart rate does not matter with AT. Two athletes with the same MHR can have AT heart rates that are miles apart. If you go by MHR, you could be working over your AT without even knowing it.

Maffetone never says that anaerobic training is inherently dangerous. He says that it could be for some athletes. He suggests that when you include runs that speak more to the law of specificity, that you monitor your MAF tests. If they start to regress, this means your aerobic system is degrading--you are doing tooo much. If the tests progress, then the amount of anaerobic training you are doing is okay. Your body is handling it.

Every year, after working with Maffetone, Mark Allen would start with 12 weeks of training at MAF and below. He called this his patience phase. He then would start to add speedwork (but lower his volume). He only did this for a limited time. He used the MAF test, which is 3 to 5 mile test run at MAF, to monitor his aerobic system. If the tests reached a plateau during speed phase, he would end it, and return to his MAF runs.

What happens when you develop your aerobic system
correctly is that you gain "aerobic speed." Your Type 1 fibers (slow-twitch red) get so developed that you end up running speeds at MAF that are very fast. Yet, it doesn't feel like you are working hard. When your MAF speed was 9:00 in the beginning, and 6:00 two years later, it feels the same. You are breathing the same. This aerobic speed and development makes the wall disappear in aerobic events like marathons.

Specificity is not ignored by Maffetone. He knows s

Here's a link to an excerpt from Noakes' Lore of Running on Mark Allen (good read):

http://forum.slowtwitch.com/Slowtwitch_Forums_C1/Triathlon_Forum_F1/Mark_Allen_/_Maffetone_/_Low_HR_training_%96_lengthy_excerpt_from_Noakes_Lore_of_Running_P2182666/

I believe the reason most won't try Maffetone's ideas for training is that when they see how slow they are at MAF when they begin, they don't want to run that slow, even though the test is telling you your aerobic system needs lots of work. They don't have the patience to stay with it and to watch their aerobic speed build to paces as fast as ones at which they used to train. I can tell you from my own experience, that it does take time, but the rewards are great. The biggest is that I've been healthy. I no longer have sore spots, minor injuries, and all that.

I challenge you to go do an MAF test. See how your aerobic system is doing. Make an honest self-assessment. Do you find that you are always on the edge of an injury? Have you stopped progressing?

Healthy Running Babe and Bobby S.:

Your comments are about as long as my original post, so I'm not going to go through each one point by point, but here are a few things to keep in mind.

My first reaction is that I'm glad that you have found the Maffetone method effective. If it works for you, you are certainly justified in sticking with it. Nevertheless, I have no desire to try it for myself because I find it illogical, as explained above. Yes, my progress has hit a plateau, but I see that as a symptom of getting older, not a symptom of poor training methods.

On to a few specific issues raised by Bobby S. First, you say, "[Maffetone] found that if his athletes (he worked with all different levels) worked at this heart rate [MAF] and lower, they would develop great aerobic systems, and stay healthy." Yes, this is what Maffetone believes, but exactly what does it mean to develop "great aerobic systems"? The bulk of the peer-reviewed research literature indicates that VO2max is boosted most significantly by high-intensity training (above MAF). Isn't VO2max a valid measure of one's "aerobic system"?

Second, you say that "[MAF] has no constant relation to heart rate," citing the example of two people with identical max heart rates but different MAFs. Your example is OK, but I'm concerned with the opposite case -- two people who have very different max HRs. If they are similar in all other respects (age, health, training status, etc.), their MAFs will be calculated to be the same -- let's say a HR of 135. But for a guy with an unusually low max HR, his MAF will be close to his max, whereas for a guy with an unusually high max HR, his MAF will be far below his max. Why should one guy be doing his training so much closer to his max HR than the other guy when they are similar in all other respects? It just doesn't make sense.

Third: "Maffetone never says that anaerobic training is inherently dangerous." Well, he doesn't use those exact words, but here's a representative quote from his website: "Building a great aerobic base is accomplished by training _exclusively_ aerobic for a certain number of weeks and months. During this period, anaerobic workouts (including higher heart rate training, competition and weight work) should be avoided. Anaerobic activity can actually impair the aerobic system, therefore, each workout during aerobic base training should be only aerobic." Why would he forbid athletes from doing ANY anaerobic training during their base-building period unless he considers it dangerous? Heaven forbid that an athlete grow bored of MAF training during this period and desire to run fast once in a while....