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

Yep, Art Taylor 2:27 at 50 plus. Hey, that's faster than Mark Allen.

I am working the math backwards. So 2:27 is indeed faster than 2:40.

And age-grade formulas are not precise but 2:27 at 50 is like I dunno, 2:10 or 2:08 or something?

What's 2:40 in your prime? Women have to run faster than that to compete in the world champs....my goodness.

Mr. Kelsall: Some of us grew up on Lydiard, and in many ways he is the pioneer of modern training. But he was not God and not infallible, and many of us plateaued or found our health wanting trying to adhere to his protocol. Fortunately, just like every car on the road doesn't need to be a four-door sedan, there are other programs that focus on different aspects. In Phil's case, it is overall health with regulation of intensity based on heart rate. I don't really aspire to bang out 100-mile weeks any more, but I do value my long-term health. If I run some decent races along the way, so be it. Certainly my injuries and energy level have responded as predicted by the maff program.

As an aside, I should point out that Maffetone and Allen have had a far more harmonious relationship than Snell and Lydiard, though much of that was probably due to Lydiard's ego. He was a driven Elmer Gantry type of personality, whereas Maffetone takes low-key to a whole different level.

Also: Jack Foster didn't do Lydiard training, nor Turnbull, and neither did Hosaka. And of course, Mr. Whitlock is anything but Lydiard. Don't know about this Taylor fellow, but just because he was Kiwi doesn't mean he was doing Lydiard.

The best coaches (and athletes) try teh different ideas out there and see what works best for their circumstances. To generalize that the same cookie-cutter will be best for teens in a four-year program as an age-grouper trying to break 3:00 in a marathon is ludicrous. Even Lydiard's guys in their heyday got beat by the likes of Shul, Clarke and Mills, who did very different training.

The nonsense of "xyz was fast and didn't use Maffetone/Lydiard/Coe/Joeblow!" does nothing to disqualify a method. The fact that this thread has gone on for so many pages is testimony to the insecurities of people who are clearly have made no effort to try or research the Maff method.

Nope, that isn't it. The cultists try to claim that other athletes were doing Maff.

It isn't a method, as slow training existed before that guy came along.

Oh boy.

Comparing the chiropractor Phil Maffetone Methodâ„¢ which has produced ZERO Olympic medals and ZERO published research to Arthur Lydiard is comparing a Phil Maffetone used Ford Pinto that was recalled for an exploding gas tank with a Lydiard Ferrari that is winning a Grand Prix race.

Do you really want to bring 3 time Olympic gold medalist and physiologist Peter Snell into this drivel?

OK.

That is fine with me:

Take that MAF Troll Pupâ„¢.

Many of Lydiard's early runners were old guys who'd had heart attacks and were running to get healthy, so he was helping people's overall health through running long before Maffetone was. And Snell and Lydiard were fine with each other for all but a few months in the early 60s. About 14 years ago I asked Snell what he thought made him so successful and he said, "I don't think I had great talent. I think I had good talent but I had the best coaching."

If you get to know any of us who knew Arthur and worked with him you'll find that nearly all of us are fiercely loyal to him. He inspired that sort of reaction. None of this is to knock Maffetone. I'm not one of the people on this thread doing that. He obviously knows something about the sport and I'm sure he's helped people run faster but that's not all that hard to do. Heck, I've done it. And if you like what Maffetone is selling and are happy with the results you're getting then you should keep with it and acknowledge his role in your satisfaction. But you can't equate what either Maffetone's done what Lydiard did.

The Hansons have never dictated recovery pace for their elite runners.

Your source is 100% wrong on many things.

If you are familiar with the five Lydiard principles that govern the training method, then you would know that Lydiard training isn't narrowed down to the myths that follow him around like an albatross.

For example the 100 miles per week myth. Sure if you are 25 and have aspirations he would get you to run 100 miles per week - he found that number to be optimum, not including extra supplemental jogging, which is now counted often by competitive runners who supposedly run 110-140 miles, which someone would be quick to suggest isn't Lydiard.

Lydiard switched to time spent running after an elderly lady stood up at one of his talks and said she was running 18 hours per week to meet the 100 mile requirement. So goes another myth. He got her down to something around (I forget now) eight to 10 hours? The same sort of time spent as a person in their prime.

My understanding is that Jack Foster indeed did Lydiard training.

Arthur Taylor certainly did - no question.

I did throw in the Japanese runner because the Japanese very much respect Lydiard's method and I read where he phases out of a base period...putting two and two together, it's a short leap to guess Lydiard or Lydiard-ish.

If your energy levels are down and you are more likely to be injured due to age, that is where the five principles of Lydiard training would govern your running to suit. At least two of the principles would guide you to run less and easier.

--Feeling based training

--Response regulated training

If you are 60 or older, perhaps you need four or five days or a week between harder efforts, that is, if you are inclined to run harder efforts for the stimulating benefits. The man was smart enough to be the first person to have heart attack patients use exercise to recover, I am pretty sure he was smart enough to handle your needs.

Maffetone might be fantastic if that works for you, but Lydiard created the method, perhaps if you spent time researching Lydiard - a good source is the Lydiard Foundation website, you would grasp that the method is absolutely suited for all abilities, ages and goals.....

Thanks for using my name, while you remain anonymous.

The source of course wrote:

The Hansons have never dictated recovery pace for their elite runners.

Your source is 100% wrong on many things.

Oh, did I say that the Hansons dictated recovery pace for their elites. Where did I say that?

I think that Sage said that he had to hit a certain pace for recovery.

You have a problem with comprehension, don't you?

Of course LYDIARD is the father of modern running methodology, popularized jogging for masses, and had tremendous success with his runners. No denying that of course.

However, what I meant is that for the amateur starting from 0 and self-training, his "1/4" "1/2" "3/4" "efforts" system is for the least extremely vague, and as a result many have probably trained too hard (in the moderate zone - between threshold - most of the time).

MAFFETONE's method is a much safer way for masses to build a good aerobic base in a healthy and injury free way. And, as I and other have repeatedly said in this thread, it goes beyond simply training for endurance, it is a whole lifestyle change that many will make by embracing his method, leading to more energy and vitality on a daily basis, reduced health problems in particular when aging, well a better life in short.

And leaving a better life is the main purpose for 99.9% of us. Then, remains the 0.1% that are talented enough and have the will to become professional athletes, and then those will have to take their potential to 100% (even if it means scarifying in part long-term health for fitness...). For those, AFTER they have built a very good base, then they'll probably need to turn to a more sophisticated system and the day-to-day guidance of a good elite coach.

Hey, Athletics Illustrated, did Bruchet speed up his recovery runs? Did his coach ask him to run faster? And if so, what was the effect?

There's nothing "unsafe" in building your base like Lydiard had people do as long as they didn't do anything stupid. He told the "amateurs" you describe to run "out" for ten minutes and then turn around and come "back." If it took them longer to come back than to go out he'd tell them they'd run too fast.

Again, he took old guys with heart conditions, got them healthy, and got some of them running marathons in times which would place them well into the first half of the field at today's races. If his method wasn't safe he'd likely have killed a bunch of those guys.

You're implying here that the amateurs starting from 0, as you put it, were going to read "Run to the Top" and start following those schedules. But RttT was written for competitive runners. The guy starting from 0 would have read, or could have read, "Jogging With Arthur Lydiard," which was geared toward the runners you describe. Some of those joggers might eventually become competitive and his other books would become more appropriate for them. But it's been suggested earlier in this thread that Keith Livingstone's "Healthy, Intelligent, Training" is probably the best "Lydiard" book for modern runners who don't find Arthur's books clear enough.

Again, this is not to tell people who like Maffetone to give up on him. But any method can be "unsafe" if you don't understand how to use it.

Well this is a left turn. Not sure the relevancy, other than some sort of personal jab.

For those wondering, Bruchet competed in the 2016 Rio Olympics and trains under the direction of Richard Lee at the BC Endurance Project. There are several top Canadian athletes at BCEP, which is run in the Greater Vancouver area, including CDN 10,000m record holder Natasha Wodak.

But to answer the left-turn question here, I have absolutely no idea if Lee asked Bruchet to speed up his recovery runs. Nice try though.

Try a different tactic...by the way, you sorta narrow yourself down to a handful of people with that question, "fred".

Give me more clues.....

Athletics Illustrated wrote:

Well this is a left turn. Not sure the relevancy, other than some sort of personal jab.

For those wondering, Bruchet competed in the 2016 Rio Olympics and trains under the direction of Richard Lee at the BC Endurance Project. There are several top Canadian athletes at BCEP, which is run in the Greater Vancouver area, including CDN 10,000m record holder Natasha Wodak.

But to answer the left-turn question here, I have absolutely no idea if Lee asked Bruchet to speed up his recovery runs. Nice try though.

Try a different tactic...by the way, you sorta narrow yourself down to a handful of people with that question, "fred".

Give me more clues.....

It's not a jab. It relates to those saying that the recovery isn't slow enough.

So my question is did Bruchet get quicker after increasing the speed of his recovery runs.

I'm not trying to jack you around.

Okay my apologies.

I get spooked easily. Let's just say if I get 100 email messages a day around editorials I have written, 99 of them are positive, the one that isn't is more work than the other 99...So I sometimes read with the sarcasm filter on full blast (takes one to know one ;o)).

I can only guess. I am not privy to their training at all. Neither Lee or Bruchet are big self-promoters, so it is not "all out there" or anything.

There is no way I would speak on behalf of their training, so anything I write below is my guesswork and nothing more.

So if I was to guess, I would suggest that it has to do to more with maturing through the volumes, workouts and volumes of workouts and not being injured as much as the average bear.

I just doubt that speeding up his recovery runs would make him faster as a single item. I think doing more AT work and longer AT work would be foundational to improvement. As well as more overall volume, which usually allows more volume of quality later on in the training cycle as well being able to handle that quality too. Which leads to more efficient nuero-muscular coordination to take advantage of that bigger engine (heart et al).

He lost a few pounds a while ago, to me that is a huge factor. I have seen this equation work time and time again with elites and age-groupers. Not even sure where I first read this: For every pound that you are over optimum weight, you lose two seconds per mile per pound.

So an average height person gains 10 pounds, they lose two minutes over a 10K race.

I think the numbers go askew at the top towards Bruchet's ability and at the other end for hobby joggers - but it is seemingly roughly right. Also, I think weight has a more deleterious effect on taller people. So correlation/causation jump here, if you are short, perhaps the weight has less of an effect?

The loss of weight might also have to do with consistency of quality - you can dump weight pretty fast in an anaerobic phase.

So less weight (while healthy) + more AT volume, handling LT and V02 max session better and more of them would be my guess.

Maffetone training isn't slow training. Initially pace at MAF heart rate is usually slow but over time it becomes relatively fast (e.g. Allen going from 8 minute miles down to 5:30 miles at MAF heart rate).

I'd argue that Maffetone training for base building is "safer" than Lydiard's obtuse 1/4, 1/2, and 3/4 effort recommendations as BBen mentioned above, especially for less experienced runners. There's no chance at all of running above lactate threshold if you run in your MAF heart rate zone. I'm not saying that Maffetone is better than Lydiard, just that Maffetone can be a useful base building system for many runners.

Why does this Fred character act as if he has any clue what goes on at any elite training camp?

Now the interference is just weird.

Really, I'd argue that running itself is safe as long as you don't do it past a pack of unleashed Rotweillers or into the path of a moving bus. I don't think safety is an issue for either method.