Who here has done Maffetone Method (180BPM HR minus your age) for base?

Gaston Roelants wrote:

It is also relevant to me that Ed Whitlock trains in this way, of course having discovered it pretty much on his own through trial and error. Due to past injury issues he only uses races as speedwork, so by doing striders and sprint training I am actually still more on the speed side.

Another big proponent of long sow training was/is Ingrid Kristiansen, and Masters great Priscilla Welch trained with Maffetone.

Ed was doing 140 @ 8:00 to 8:30 at 70 if what is written is correct. Very few 70 year olds can run 140 a week.

Yes, you are doing speedwork, with slow recovery, which is not what Mr. Maff is preaching.

I used it last winter. Roughly January through March. I was returning to running after many years off. I was overall fit from lifting and doing other activities, but I figured the MAF method would be a good way to just get going again and build some miles. And I was in no hurry.

I also have no great success story. I just ran a lot for months at HR 145 or lower. I certainly got more aerobically fit, and in the beginning I would go fairly slow (8.5 to 9+ min miles) and my HR would spike fairly easily. But after about 6 weeks I was mostly cruising around in the mid 130s and running between 7.5-8 minute miles.

I still run a lot of my easy days via the MAF method, but I do some tempos and fartleks and progression runs as well. I don't think I would go back to strict MAF training, but I think it can be really useful 80 percent of the time. Similar to what others mentioned regarding the 80/20 method from Fitzgerald. Though I still don't do that much fast work. I might be more 90/10, and right now that is fun and working for me.

Gaston Roelents wrote:

I grew up on Lydiard-based on training, but his pace descriptions IMO were too subjective and too fast, including a lot of tempo and mid-range running which made it impossibe for me to sustain higher mileage.

Maffetone method allows me a gentle enough pace to safely increase my mileage without overstress, while including enough speed work (admittedly my emphasis, as my forte is 400-1500 racing) to maintain good form and turnover.

I can get where you're coming from on the pace side of things re: Lydiard. Having followed both Lydiard and Squires structures (with guidance on the former), what I noticed is that Lydiard's 1/4 effort for general pace (sometimes referred to as 70% effort) was essentially what Squires referred to as 'brisk' pace in his SWEP book (i.e. about Marathon pace + 60s). Squires has easy pace as another 30s per mile slower, which works much better for me.

Having said that though, Lydiardism now seems to refer to easy as 60-70%, so maybe the 60% would be more in line with Squires recommendations.

I found the 3/4 (90%) effort runs too tough in base as they used to tear me down (too close to my HM pace), but at 1/2 effort I was fine.

I've also noticed that the female base training schedule seems to suit me more, possibly because I burn a higher proportion of fat.

Basically what I'm trying to say is that it can work for you just fine if you pay attention to what your body is telling you.

Gaston Roelants wrote:

Mark Allen: reference "Road Racers and Their Training" 2nd edition, Joe Henderson. Marathon 2:20, 10K 29 minutes.

So Joe says that he ran 2:20:00. Where did he run that at? Maybe Joe just made that up, unless you can state the exact marathon he ran it.

Psycho-logist wrote:

I have experimented with it with some success.

To begin with, there are some people who absolutely will blow the method off as being stupid. They have the same mentality of people who claim you cannot lose weight by eating less - the critics are motivated by the butt-hurt associated with being told you are doing it all wrong.

Second, this is not a method that lends itself to experimentation. It takes a solid commitment of 3-5 years, and most people get impatient during that time. That is what happened to me. What I did find, however, is that while I was initially in terrible shape at anaerobic paces, improvements came much more quickly than in the past.

You are implying that his method would ask runners to slow down. This is not true for many, including Ipod and fanny pack above saying that it would be his marathon pace.

I'm 47 now, but my max heart rate when I was 16 was about the same. Running at 164 bpm when I was 16 would have been about 5:30 pace. A "commitment of 3-5 years" of running that fast for my easy or everyday runs for my ability at that time would not have been possible and guaranteed burnout.

There are so many exceptions and adjustments to his 180-age rule that it should just be acknowledged as useless to being with.

You could be right, but there are influences that are far more likely. Joe Henderson's LSD book was out about the time Maffetone was in practice and coaching. Tom Osler or EVA also come to mind.

On the surface, Maffetone training resembles these influences for more than Lydiard.

zzzz wrote:

There are so many exceptions and adjustments to his 180-age rule that it should just be acknowledged as useless to being with.

Correct. 180-age is as useless as the rule which says 220-age is your max heart rate. 180-age is a very different intensity for different people, and this is one of the biggest drawbacks of this program. The advocates themselves have mentioned another, that slow running doesn't provide neuro-muscular adaptation necessary for fast running.

shug wrote:

You could be right, but there are influences that are far more likely. Joe Henderson's LSD book was out about the time Maffetone was in practice and coaching. Tom Osler or EVA also come to mind.

On the surface, Maffetone training resembles these influences for more than Lydiard.

So Joe was hyping an alleged but not proven 2:20 by Allen as part of selling LSD in a book?

Why don't you ask Renato about long slow distance.

Mark Allen never ran these times on any legitimate course.

Ever.

Former D2 now 51 wrote:

zzzz wrote:

There are so many exceptions and adjustments to his 180-age rule that it should just be acknowledged as useless to being with.

Correct. 180-age is as useless as the rule which says 220-age is your max heart rate. 180-age is a very different intensity for different people, and this is one of the biggest drawbacks of this program. The advocates themselves have mentioned another, that slow running doesn't provide neuro-muscular adaptation necessary for fast running.

Maffetone often points out that he does not use the 180 rule with anyone he coaches. It's a starting point if you have no other information. That's what he's trying to capture with the adjustments.

The basic idea is to keep the intensity low, just below where you'd flirt with anaerobic. The overload comes from increasing volume.

Recently 100 mile record holder Zach Bitter started trying MAF and actually had to speed up and lower volume a bit since all his running was very low intensity and very long.

MAF disciple Lucho does include speedwork, but I'm not sure if Maffetone himself does. Seems like I remember Maffetone advocating some speedwork after a long base period, but that may have Lucho.

I don't know much about Mark Allen but I know Joe very well. Joe does NOT make stuff up.

shug wrote:

You could be right, but there are influences that are far more likely. Joe Henderson's LSD book was out about the time Maffetone was in practice and coaching. Tom Osler or EVA also come to mind.

On the surface, Maffetone training resembles these influences for more than Lydiard.

BUT if you ask either Joe or Tom about who influenced their training and subsequent writing about it they'll both tell you it was Lydiard.

HRE wrote:

I don't know much about Mark Allen but I know Joe very well. Joe does NOT make stuff up.

It's possible to be incorrect even if you don't make things up. What year and what race did Allen do this in?

I've never heard of the Maffetone Method. I did a quick search and didn't find out how to adjust the formula. How is it done?

Based on what I saw, it promises lower stress, less risk of injury, changing metabolism, and more fat burning. It probably does all those things as well as various couch to 5k training approaches.

It also promises to make you faster. I would agree with that for the majority of the population, i.e, people who are slow.

That's because exercise should be event specific and when you're going from couch to mid-pack, the Maffetone Method is event specific.

However, where it appears to break down to me is going from mid-pack to say, top 5% of age group. To get there, you need to train all the body systems. That's not saying someone can't get to top 5% using the Maffetone Method, but it's not as likely as a more traditional approach.

That said, good luck to everyone trying it. Keep us posted with your progress.

It is possible to be incorrect but if you know Joe as a journalist you'd know that's unlikely. He's very thorough and what isn't clear in my comment about not knowing much about Mark Allen?

So Mark Allen ran 2:20 exactly? No seconds? Sounds precise and likely.

HRE, do you have Joe's "Road Racers and their Training" handy? I am out of town for a week. It has the details. I encourage everyone to look at the training of Welch and Kristiansen too, very similar, as of course is Ed's. Van Aaken trained that way too, and Norpoth had great finishing speed and a better 5000 PR than Pre. He also coached Christa Vahlensiek, who broke the marathon WR twice.

As far as criticism of the MAF, all I have to say, is if you haven't tried it for at least a month, you are only being speculative. For me it feels like 45 years of abusing my legs and finally they get to breathe and relax. At first it's awkward, even embarassingly slow. But in my case I improved 90 seconds/mile in the fist six weeks (same HR). Any tempo or fartlek I do feels awesome,I defintely have to keep the jets cooled to overdo it. Another minute off my MAF and I will be at my goal, and I have plenty of time to allow it to happen.

I do and there is no mention of a 2:20 marathon. It's 2:40:04 which was done in an Ironman and may well be as good a performance as a straight 2:20 is but it's not 2:20 and not listed as such. There are 5 and 10 k times of 14:37 and 29:59.

And not to quibble but Vahlensiek's coach was Mafred steffney who himself was coached by van Aaken. Van Aaken coached Liane Winter who held the women's record prior to Vahlensiek.

I was forced to do it for about 4 months last year because of injury in the abs and groin. I could only go slow. It didn't do anything. I started a thread about it when I first heard of it here. I got so excited. Maybe there are individual differences. I don't know. Once I was recovered, I went all in on tempo runs. A lot of them. For about 4 months of hard running over the summer got me in a good shape.