what do MAFFETONE and THE MOROCCAN training system have in common?

In summary, the Maffetone and Moroccan approaches are more different than similar?

Arthur Lydiard.

It is more similar to Lydiard than anything.

Lydiard created the method.

arthur lydiard had little to do with maffetone. Maffetone talks about intenisty. I am not saying the moroccan system was based on maffetone or around. It has been based on lydiard as has been told here before. But the adjustments of intensity make it look more like a maffetone system then a lydiard system anyway. That is what i try to conclude here.

If you disagree look at the differences for the lydiard system and moroccan system. Middle distance runners rarely ran longer then 60 minutes many of them only run 30 minutes twice a day for basic conditioning all at high end pace (not compatible with so called lydiard 3/4 or 1/2 pace).

Lydiard was big on doing different kind of durations of running and

The runs are of different intensity. It is periodized training as far as i can see but i don't see lydiard periodisation in it.

That is not what I am saying. Maffetone took he Lydiard method and created a slightly different version.

Africans often don't report all of their running, just workouts, much like Lydiard.

Have you ever even read one of his books?

wettydolphin wrote:

Now unlike most now maffetone recommendations are for most athletes to do most of their workouts at MAFF to MAFF - 10 bpm.

I've never heard of this method. Is this for steadier runs, harder workouts, what? This sounds like training in the gray zone (according to Daniels, 75-80% of max heart rate).

You are very right it is like the gray zone 75% - 82% (even 84% in some cases) but nothing goes over it in base training.

After a long foundation of base 6 - 8 months you are allowed to do 2 - 3 anaerobic sessions like any other method does. Amongst them weight lifting.

What could most of my interest was that this so called gray zone fell nicely within the limits of renato canova's specific conditioning.

If you are a 3'30" 1500 meter runner renato advices for endurance to do runs of 30 - 50 minutes at 1.3 - 1.4 x 1500 meter speed what would come down at 18.2 - 19.6. Obviously the faster end will be beyond 82% of mhr but the 19.6 per 100 meter pace will fall nicely in the Maffetone clear to train zone. So you could perfectly do runs at say 5'15" per mile in the early season a couple of short ones and some longer ones and have specific aerobic support for your event you would like to train. When you get more fit by the charts you could do a lot of your conditioning in the form of for example 6 mile runs at 5'/mile pace. What would also fall in the maffetone zone by then. Then 4 months or so you start speed work. Maffetone generally doesn't like hard hard workouts when going anaerobic. So start at 28" or 42" for 200 or 300 meters and as racing season comes closer you could up the ante.

Training at maffetone pace never feels hard but is not easy in terms of reovery runs either so if you plan to do 2 workouts a week make sure you do a morning recovery run below MAFF - 10 bpm to recover up and get ready for another conditioning session.

I think Maffetone is underrated in many things. I know an athlete that took a schedule right of one of the examples from one of maffetone's books and he did a 3 hour 59 70.3 ironman (running a 1 h 15 half marathon in the process). He only changed one thing instead of the 4 cycling sessions he made it three and bumped the swimming to four but duration and all other things mostly unchanged.

I don't see what the purpose of this type of training is (other than being high-end aerobic training, a pace you might achieve during a steady long run, but not a pace you'd run at for most easy days). It's too hard for recovery, and not fast enough to train your aerobic threshold (80-90% max HR) or anaerobic threshold (>90% max HR).

Is this supposed to be a different training approach ("rethinking the hard-easy method" by training in the middle zone)? Or as you mention, a different phase of a cycle? How often a week?

180 - age

- 5 if diseased or injured or not training 5 times a week

0 if training 5 times a week

+ 5 if training more then 5 times a week

+ 10 if over 65 and training more then 5 times a week

180-61 = 119+5 = 124 = junk training

Recovery pace = 80 to 105, resting = 42 to 46.

I adjusted the formula a bit for older peeps that know maximal heart rate just do maximal heart rate - 35 to 40(if that feels significantly better) to - 45(50 if you felt better at 40).

For the runner with a poor aerobic base it is slow running

You look at right at aerobic threshold or slightly below from there the 75% - 84% mhr (if you add 5 beats to the normal nummer i guess you are at aerobic threshold when fit, or slightly over if not fit).

I want to add another example from as far as i know it seems bernard lagat loves 5'/mile pace, seeing his low 13' performance this year you could say he does fare well on it.

Are you from Morocco? Because you write like a moron.

Or are you Sol Richards?

fred wrote:

180 - age

- 5 if diseased or injured or not training 5 times a week

0 if training 5 times a week

+ 5 if training more then 5 times a week

+ 10 if over 65 and training more then 5 times a week

180-61 = 119+5 = 124 = junk training

Recovery pace = 80 to 105, resting = 42 to 46.

I wouldnt be too sure that 124 is "junk training". Maffetone states that for those over 65, you can add 10 BPM so, putting you up a few years, your range would be 124-134 as the maximum aerobic range. BTW, as noted in Running with the Legends, Viren ran some really slow mileage as measured by his heart rate monitor. A typical schedule is noted on pg. 199. I count 4 runs that week at 90 BPM or less. Only a few of the 18 runs noted for that week could be considered anaerobic.

I've read both Maffetone books carefully and I dont recognize a lot of what wettydolphin is talking about. I've read The Maffetone Method and In Fitness and in Health, both of which are great reads.