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

It's funny that this thread came up. I decided this summer to try MAF training.

Let me say first that there are only small differences between what Maffetone advocates and what Lydiard, and, especially, Van Aaken recommended. Almost 30 years ago, I happened upon a copy of Van Aaken's book, read it, was intrigued, bought a hrm (EVA advocated training at 120-130 bpm) and, within a year had improved markedly. (Like 2:50 to 2:35 in the marathon) simply by slowing down and running more.

Over the years I continued to train (when I've trained....) at that heart rate. The problem is that, as I've aged and detrained it's become the case, I think, that 120-130 is no longer the appropriate range. This was brought home to me when my son finally convinced me to run a race with him - a road mile. I wore my hrm as much because I forgot to take it off and what I saw from the data from the race was eye opening. I ran that race as hard as I could and my hr never rose above 170. It occurred to me that, to put it simply, I'm old and the days when my max was around 190-200 are gone.

I kind of remembered something about MAF training and its similarity to EVA and googled it. One difference is that instead of one hr for everyone that EVA advocated (or at least in my interpretation) Maffetone takes into account the effects of aging. So, now I've switched to 112-122. At first, I had to walk just about the entire time, but, over a few weeks, I'm now up to running quite a bit of that. I know that, eventually, I'll be able to run all of it and, then at an OK pace. This happened when I'd run at 120-130. About 15 years ago, I was coming back from an injury and started at 8 min/km! Over the course of just 4 months, my pace at that same hr fell to 4:45. There was a proportional drop in my LT runs and, after those 4 months, I was racing nearly as fast as I ever had. This stuff works.

It does require patience and a lack of ego. If you're the sort of runner that is bothered by people seeing you run slowly, then this is not for you. If you care about performance and health, though, I, for one, can recommend it.

Link,

Thanks for you insightful and honest reply, it's encouraging to hear of someone who has had success with this method (or similar methods). It's also interesting to hear that even someone running such a fast time still had a big improvement as some well trained athletes have reported that by running at the MAF HR it's actually a pretty hard run, certainly too hard to run every session.

Your last sentence sums it up I think... have to not be bothered by what people see on Strava and take a longer term view on it. I think I'm good with that part.... I know some runners will pause the watch between sets when doing intervals so the recorded time is only the fast bits... I just leave it running which usually results in the overall time being way slow as I usually walk between intervals.

I am still conscious that I don't run big mileage by 'proper runner' standards and at only 25-ish miles a week it could take a really long time to see much difference? I go running three times a week plus one circuit training class and I just can't really fit in much more than that around work, family, household responsibilities etc.

PS - epic times in the marathon! That is a serious commitment to running :) I hope you get back to a pace you are happy with, it sounds like you are well on the way.

Chris

I have had some success with the Van Aaken method. I still train using it. I have looked into Maffertone and I think the main coloration is that both seem to be looking at overall health instead of training elite athletes. I think it will work for the individual who is interested to long term activity. I haven't raced in about a decade, but feel that I can run sub 3:00. I still enjoy getting out for my daily runs. It is not a short term method, but a life long one.

My pace over 10 months went from 11:00 miles to 9:00 miles. I could tell I was overtraining by the stalled tests. I average 35-40 throughout the year but 50 all winter (up to 70).

The key to LCHF for me was to lose the fear of saturated fats. Things like bacon, eggs, cream, coconut oil, avocados, nuts, butter are all part of my daily eating today compared with avoidance of these types of fat before. You are right, keep protein similar or slightly up under heavy training, otherwise it can convert to carbs. I am now full keto, since eating more than 50g carb gives me bad symptoms. Try Phil's Two Week Test, it will open your eyes. The main thing is to eat lots of fresh, whole foods (no processed starches, oils, etc). Lots of fresh veggies, and I eat sauerkraut and kombucha for gut prebiotics.

I find that eating in 8-hour window/day helps too. Running while fasting enhances fat-burning.

Good luck, it pays off. I am beginning some speed work and it is nice to not be sore or have aches after hard training. In my rock climbing I am setting all sorts of personal records after 38 years in the game. Inflammation is down throughout my body. It's like a whole new machine.

You are welcome to join the facebook group, there are plenty of knowledgeable, experienced folks willing to help with any questions.

That's great to hear. I have set my sights on trialling it until Christmas and hopefully there will be a noticeable improvement in pace at MAF HR by then. I usually run 25mpw so I expect it will be slightly slower progress than yourself.

Thanks also for the info re LCHF diet, it's good to have more specific info on what to eat. I will have to look into the two week test in more detail as it sounds worth a try.

It seems to be a common thread that people using the MAF method are finding their peak fitness and ability at a later stage of life than you would typically expect, I'm 33 now and perhaps achieving a sub 3 marathon at some point in the future isn't totally out of the question; just need to find 42 minutes from somewhere!

I've requested to join the fb group so may catch up with you on there.

Alactic wrote:. You are right, keep protein similar or slightly up under heavy training, otherwise it can convert to carbs. I am now full keto, since eating more than 50g carb gives me bad symptoms.

I think you meant "keep protein ... down". Too much protein will knock you out of keto. But if you're losing too much muscle, you might want to eat more protein and stay low carb but not all the way in keto. Tim Noakes, for example, no longer goes keto because he says he needs more protein to maintain muscle.

I don't worry too much about protein since my appetite for it seems to self-regulate while in keto/LCHF. Definitely not old school Atkins with tons of meat, etc.. Probably around 0.8g/lb lean mass so around 120g/day. My muscle mass is 15 lbs greater at 60 than when I was a vegetarian high-carb marathoner in my early 20's, and Ii am extremely happy with my body composition. I am in the best strength-to-weight condition of my life right now. I fired off a PR of 18 fingertip pullups yesterday, up from only three a year ago (when I was in 5.13 climbing shape; entering 5.14 now), and registered my highest ketones since I began measuring two years ago.

keto this wrote:

Alactic wrote:. You are right, keep protein similar or slightly up under heavy training, otherwise it can convert to carbs. I am now full keto, since eating more than 50g carb gives me bad symptoms.

I think you meant "keep protein ... down". Too much protein will knock you out of keto. But if you're losing too much muscle, you might want to eat more protein and stay low carb but not all the way in keto. Tim Noakes, for example, no longer goes keto because he says he needs more protein to maintain muscle.

Oh, and to Chris: right now you may feel you don't have "time"for higher mileage, but since MAF running is so much less draining than "black hole/moderate" pace, you will find your overall energy and efficiency improve throughout the day so that the time will magically begin appearing. 50 miles/week used to be an effort, now it is a joy and it seems I have more time, not less, in my life for other things, despite taking 1-2 hours more/week to cmplete the runs. Call it the "MAF Time Warp".

MAF also includes, don't lift weights and don't sprint or doing anything else for the entire time you run a slow base.

Also, just pondering the maths, not actually doing them. How do you get much more mileage in 1-2 hours a week running slower? Even if you compare your new MAF pace to the old one. That isn't getting you much and the old one or the new one compare to "black hole moderate pace" which I assume is at least as fast a any MAF pace you have ever had, isn't getting you much if anything.

I seem to recall there is a very high minimum of hours per week to turtle along at some cardio endeavor to get the "MAGIC" . Not 1-2 hours a week more than the heatless grind of most training programs in the world. How is anyone doing MAF if their hours aren't way up there? Like 3 hours a day? I think Allen the triathlete said he did as much as 37 hours a week training for his Iron man races.

If some magic diet is included , that's just too much magic. What if a person is skinny and strong as can be on a completely different diet, MAF doesn't work? Sorry to be so cantankerous , adrenalin is pumping fron HIIT this morning.

Thanks to everyone for your posts, it has given me a lot of useful information and I now feel I understand enough and have enough confidence to give it a proper try. So my plan is from now until xmas to do most of my running at MAF pace, the only exceptions will be if I go running with a group or a friend that wants to go a bit faster, I've also signed up for a 10 mile trail race and a half marathon so I will run a bit faster for those too as it seems a bit of a waste not to. I do circuit training once a week and having worn my HR monitor for that this week it turns out my HR barely goes above 147 anyway, it only peaked a bit higher during the runs so I will take it easy on those to keep my HR down.

I am interested to see what happens to me running around 20-25mpw. My average MAF pace doing a 5 mile run on a flat surface with no prior warm up is 9:14/mile. I'll be very happy if/when it gets down to around 8:20-30/mile as I really enjoy running at that pace.

This has come at the right time for me as I have been following the FURST half marathon plan which is basically the polar opposite of the MAF theory as all the runs are really tough. It advocates 3 runs a week, a long run, one temp and one interval run, all three are really hard runs and I'm just feeling worn out from it only 6 weeks in. The mileage is quite low but the intensity is really high and it just doesn't work for me.

I will post updates for anyone interested!

Chris

Dufus: My mileage went from about 30 to 50, pace from 8 min mile to 10, so I went from 4 hours/week to 8. A little over an hour a day is a commitment to my running I was able to make, and the payoff was less fatigue, aches and pains went away, and my aerobic threshold improved from 11 minute miles to 9. Three months of base with no speed work was a bit trying (I did do some weights and rock climbing), but as I reintroduced the faster stuff, I could feel the improved aerobic component and enhanced recovery.The diet was probably the most important aspect for me personally, despite always being lean, I had energy swings, morning lethargy, various forms of inflammation in the form of allergies, soreness, etc. All this vanished with LCHF and IF. I now am fully keto and my energy is strong and consistent, I recover as well at 60 as I did at 30, and life is just far easier in every way. N=1, take it or leave it, but many/most others that try it report similar experiences.

I have joe's book in front of me now. It says on page 12 that Mark Allen has a best marathon time of "2:40:04 (in Ironman)". Other best times listed are: 5K: 14:37, 10K 29:59, ironman triathlon: 8:07:45.

Is it really just 180-age?

I'd be doing all my running at faster than marathon pace if I went with that formula.

Thanks for your patient reply. A few years ago I did pretty much the same thing you do only more hours, about 12 a week ,4 or so being on the spin bike some times as run-bike bricks or just a two hour spin. i was 53, My HR at any given pace did not drop a bit.

Up until that time though, I was always very active , long days physical work more than running, so maybe my low HR stuff was already done by the work. My resting HR was never anything but low during my entire life and I have never been very out of shape.

I am not saying I can't have problems with running doing things other ways either, because I can have problems doing it ANY WAY ,if I make too many mistakes. In general for older people I think something like Joel Friel's fast after 50 is good. I read the book Younger Next Year, and it is basically the same as Joel Friel's methods for fitness, but for non-runners, as well as runners. So when I am not focusing on racing , I go with what I learned from that book.

LM wrote:

Is it really just 180-age?

I'd be doing all my running at faster than marathon pace if I went with that formula.

If that is the case then you have a very well-developed aerobic engine. In my case I had to throttle back from running in the 145-155 range to 125 (180-60+5 adjustment for good health and fitness). This meant going from 8:00-30 min/mile to 11:00-45 per mile, on the flat.

The calculation is a CEILING, you are actually encouraged to train lower than that if it is more comfortable.

LM wrote:

Is it really just 180-age?

I'd be doing all my running at faster than marathon pace if I went with that formula.

No. In fact such a formula is so ridiculous, it's like saying everyone should wear the same size shoes.

Maximum heart rate are really as variable as shoe size.

Namesake wrote:

I'm curious who has done the Maffetone Method for building base and what kind of success you have had?

Thanks

It works for me very well. I did it over 5 month period two Autumns and Winters in consecutive years. Every morning I ran about 3 miles over gently rolling grass, and every afternoon I ran about 7 miles over hilly soft trails. On the weekends I did 12 - 20 mile runs on soft hilly trails. The first month I started very gradually, walking a lot, keeping my heart rate below the low 140s at age 52. I kept my legs feet up by pushing on the downhills, which allowed my heart rate to stay down while I developed my steps turnover. If I had to walk for a little bit I would walk. By the second and third months I was in the upper 140s low 150s, and by the fourth and fifth months I was training steadily in the mid 150s and occasionally end of the low 160s. When I began my training I was only going about 8 or 8:30 pace. By the end I was doing six minute pace over hilly trails at a heart rate in the low to mid 160s.

When I went into my first race each season, usually a 5K, my heart rate would jump up to 190 very easily but I was not winded and was not tired and all I could feel like was I wanted to go faster and faster. It's an amazing feeling it felt like I had a Rolls-Royce engine. the 16:30s for 5K and low 4:40s for the mile. My very best mile is 4:29, 5K is 16:04. So to get down to those times at age 52 and 53 should tell you a lot about how effective the training is if it is done right.

Best of luck to you from Maryland!

No disrespect but that's not MAF training.

At age 52, you'd be expected to run everything with HR below 128. Even with the modifier it'd still 133.

Congratulations though on your times - very impressive. The HR vs Pace really show why MAF formula doesn't work for some people.

I did MAF training very stringently for five months and didn't get the results hoped for. I got up to about 8:45/mile in that time with over 1,000 miles run and having been capable of 5K times of around 20mins.

These days I'm running 7min/mile steady state at 160HR and improving every week. Six weeks ago I was doing 7:45/mile. This morning I did a recovery run at 9:10/mile which just about stayed below my MAF HR. To do that every day would be a waste of time and I wouldn't progress.

It'll probably work for people with lots of slow-twitch but anyone with a decent amount of fast-twitch will struggle to get heart-rate low enough if they're that bit older.

If you read his book almost all the people he documents are younger and get a limit of around 150-155bpm - I think you're better off just going with that number which is essentially what Fogrunr did.