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

Chiropractor Phil Maffetone also developed the Maffetone Time Travel Fat Burning Methodâ„¢(Maffetone TTF-BM) (and special time travel diet).

Are there any Olympic medalists that have done Lydiard type training?

http://lydiardfoundation.org/introduction-to-lydiard-training/

http://lydiardfoundation.org/maximizing-aerobic-capacity-the-first-principle-of-lydiard-training/

http://lydiardfoundation.org/the-principles-of-lydiard-training-2nd-and-3rd/

http://lydiardfoundation.org/the-principles-of-lydiard-training-4th-and-5th/

Maybe.

wait. "Doctor" Phil Maffetone is a chiropractor?

I have a PhD and am referred to as "Doctor ____" and I'm not a medical doctor, so that's not an issue with me, but I've read his stuff and listened to him many times and sure got the impression that he was a medical doctor. Is that only my inference?

I googled just now and he doesn't outright claim to be a medical doctor, but he's oddly evasive about his qualifications. His website doesn't mention his degrees or qualifications at all as far as I can find.

You are not countering his comment with an appropriate response.

That's like you letting everyone know how many Olympic athletes you have coached. He was talking Lydiard vs Maffetone.

Lydiard 17 Oly Gold.

Maffetone 0 Oly anything.

One created and refined the method.

One is a sweet, pony tail wearing, guitar strumming, hippy dude attempting to re-invent the wheel.

Whoever that was writing about running a 2:40:00 marathon everyday, so what?

Most people would rather run a 2:10:00 once in their life than a bunch of 2:40:00s, like whats the point? He will eventually break down and need to recover....

Hate to break up your geriatric love bubble as you 69 yourselves into trollgasmic bliss (69 being both your ages and position):

http://blog.runningcoach.me/en/2015/10/06/everyone-can-learn-from-running-legend-frank-shorter/

But how did Frank shorter train? The great American runner once summarised his training philosophy, claiming that he had a simple view on long distance training: “two hard interval sessions a week and one long run […]. Every other run is aerobic and you do as much of that as you can handle. Do this for two or three years, and you’ll get good.” (Source: Sandrock Michael, Running with the Legends, East Peoria 1996, 156.)

This is what his training weeks looked like:

A.M. P.M.

Monday 11km (4:00-4:23min/km) 16km (4:00min/km)

Tuesday 11km (4:00-4:23min/km) 4x1200m (3:06-3:12min/km)

Wednesday 11km (4:00-4:23min/km) 11km (4:00-4:23min/km)

Thursday 11km (4:00-4:23min/km) 12x400m (1:00-1:01)

Friday 11km (4:00-4:23min/km) 11km (4:00-4:23min/km)

Saturday 11km (4:00-4:23min/km) competition 16km

Sunday 32km (16km 4:00min/km, 16km near 3:07/km)

(Source: Noakes Timothy, Lore of Running, Capetown 2003, 419.)

4:00-4:23/km = 6:30-7:00, DAY IN, DAY OUT. Well within Maff guidelines.

Below aerobic threshold, MAF or easier, except when adding quality (as Maffetone advises). No "black hole" training of 5:30-6:00 miles which do not allow sufficient recovery.

CHECK MATE.

Hey 50 year old Maff dork. Frank didn't run no kms. He ran miles.

Now go back to your black hole of 12 minute miles. Shouldn't you be posting over at Runners World.

Haymaker wrote:

(Source: Noakes Timothy, Lore of Running, Capetown 2003, 419.)

.

"South Africa’s regulatory body for health professionals lodged a formal complaint and has been holding a series of hearings against him generally reserved for doctors who commit fraud or harm patients. His medical license is at stake. Noakes’s detractors see a respected, powerful person who gave dangerous advice"

Hey, Hayseed, you like the quacks, eh?

Up to seven pages on this topic, and through this point ONLY ONE ATHLETE has been named who used the Maffetone method with world-class level success--Mark Allen. It's been entertaining, but really?

How about the healing music of the Phil Maffetone Method?

https://philmaffetone.com/fitness-guru-enjoying-singing-career/

http://www.bloomberg.com/research/stocks/private/person.asp?personId=1938276&privcapId=2482488&previousCapId=82032365&previousTitle=Omthera%20Pharmaceuticals,%20Inc

.

No Maff, Just Real Running wrote:

Haymaker wrote:

(Source: Noakes Timothy, Lore of Running, Capetown 2003, 419.)

.

"South Africa’s regulatory body for health professionals lodged a formal complaint and has been holding a series of hearings against him generally reserved for doctors who commit fraud or harm patients. His medical license is at stake. Noakes’s detractors see a respected, powerful person who gave dangerous advice"

Hey, Hayseed, you like the quacks, eh?

I would not want a chiropractor to manipulate my neck.

Sometimes bad things happen.

That would make sense. But the 180-age is his hook. Without it, he wouldn't have gotten any attention

I don't know, but why would his clinic have a good representation of all ages? Why would a high school kid go to him when they have high school coaching at schools? Or a college kid? Really old people probably don't do that kind of thing too. His clients were probably mostly 30 to 50, maybe 60. The 180-age formula implies that it would be useful for all ages, or at least a large span of ages. But I'm pretty sure that it would be recommending too high an intensity for high school kids. And notalthetime implies that the relationship, if any, falls apart hugely at ages above 50:

So, 180-age doesn't work for high schoolers or people over 50. Adding adding 15 beats to someone 50 would make them the equivalent of someone 35. And I'm sure there's enough variation in heart rates of everyone that those people from 30-50 that the age one year, go 1 bpm less hard gets lost in the noise. Where is the real variation solely due to age? I don't see it.

I bet that I could "invent" a HR method, let's call it the zzzz method, that would work just as well as 180-age in training aerobic ability. It would probably be better in that it would come closer to the aerobic threshold (or a bit below) than 180-age for a range of ages, and require fewer age adjustments. I hereby create the zzzz's 130 HR aerobic threshold method. Stay at or below 130 bpm, no matter what your age, until you are aerobically well developed - before adding intensity. I bet you would get the same results with the masses as 180-age, but have a better fit for high schoolers and old people. People, of the typical age that fall for these 180-age schemes, and with poor aerobic development, would still complain that zzzz's 130 bpm max would require them to run too slowly. And they would benefit from that and improve their paces at 130 bpm with enough time and discipline.

The reason 180-age is just a hook. It works for many not because, as BBen says, it will "provide a value that is AT or RIGHT BELOW one's aerobic threshold". I works for many because the masses who are not aerobically well trained do go too hard, and slowing most of them down until they are better developed aerobically is a good thing. And it works for most because it doesn't need to be that precise, down to 1 bpm. Like I said above, a non-scaling with age HR, like zzzz's 130 bpm would work just as well, and probably better than 180-age.

Fred.

Phil also has some fascinating comments on the first 1:59 marathon:

https://philmaffetone.com/barefoot-159/

I find Phil Maffetone fascinating.

He is like an Italian version of Alexi Pappas.

I slip your haymaker (you telegrapher, you) and drop you with a right straight to the chin. This isn't a board game here son. Have your trainer throw in the white towel and call the medic, the ref is waving his arms - how does that canvas taste?

Not quite 69 at 50.

Shorter was great, especially for then, but that isn't Maffetone or necessarily Lydiard.

Rod Dixon, NY 2:08:59 - VERY Lydiard training from his brother as coach.

Frank Shorter, 2:10:30 - Lydetone.

NY rolls, no pacemakers, only his second marathon, cramp in leg, came from behind.

Boom.

from what I've seen Phil is a chiropractor and a "holistic healer" (not a medical doctor).

His "method" is nothing new.... you have to run slow and relaxed on your easy days so you don't get hurt (And so you can stay consistent) for beneficial aerobic adaptations. If the average runner increases their Easy paced mileage from 30-40mpw to 50-60mpw they usually get quite a bit better!

It's really a fancy way of packaging (and reselling) what Lydiard had preached about aerobic base building (and periodization) decades ago.

What is more troubling is all the other stuff he promotes: i.e. putting raw eggs, cream and butter in one's morning coffee (delicious I'm sure, but not something people need for "fat burning").

His "1:59" book of his is full of some pretty rich stuff as well...he makes statements saying that a sub 1:50 marathon is just around the corner. If only the top East Africans would stop eating so many carbs and run barefoot with better form!!

Athletics Illustrated wrote:

I slip your haymaker (you telegrapher, you) and drop you with a right straight to the chin. This isn't a board game here son. Have your trainer throw in the white towel and call the medic, the ref is waving his arms - how does that canvas taste?

Not quite 69 at 50.

Shorter was great, especially for then, but that isn't Maffetone or necessarily Lydiard.

Rod Dixon, NY 2:08:59 - VERY Lydiard training from his brother as coach.

Frank Shorter, 2:10:30 - Lydetone.

NY rolls, no pacemakers, only his second marathon, cramp in leg, came from behind.

Boom.

Geoff Smith was the pacemaker.

Also earlier that year Shorter thrashed Dixon over 10k. Shorter never reached his marathon potential because of his crappy feet.

Gaston Roelants wrote:

You would definitely qualify for the "+10 beats upgrade" (assuming no medication, illness or other mitigating factors), which would put you in the 11-12 minute range, which is where I started from. Now I am getting close to sub-10 minutes and feeling great, I can literally run a marathon at this pace any day of the week. I dropped a 6:40 mile into one of my 10-milers last week and it was smooth as when I was competitive ten years ago. I encourage you to give it a try, at least for your long and easy runs.

Most older runners are I think too proud and impatient to go slow, then wonder why they are always breaking down and losing fitness and gaining weight overall. Like bben said, it is a holistic system designed to have performance coincide with health, which is a tricky prospect at any age.

I'm increasingly convinced that one key to older (60+) running success is recovery, so running as slowly as possible on recovery days is what I'm seeking.

I tried an easy run of two miles at the lowest HR I could maintain while still running. I could occasionally get as low as 117 for a stretch with bumps up to 122. My average was 118 BPM, For me this is (180 - age + 7 = 118). This was about 10:30/mile and it felt aerobic. I would probably have to walk occasionally to keep below 118 on a rolling course, so maybe it's closer to 121 as someone posted earlier.

The Maffetone method says I should not go ABOVE that HR, right?

My goal is to run at as low a HR as possible while still getting an aerobic benefit on recovery days.

Fisky, I can jog at a HR of 68. So what.

I don't know if you watched Dixon's race at New York, but I did and it would be very hard to say Geoff Smith was Dixon's pace maker. Pacemakers don't move out to huge leads over the people they're pacing and Smith and Dixon were almost out of each other's sight because Smith was so far ahead at some earlier points in the race.

That said, I agree that Shorter could have been faster at the marathon if his feet weren't such a problem.

Dixon did not run the 10,000 - we have no idea how fast he could have been....well....faster than 27:51....but we don't know, like we don't know Shorter's potential....Dixon only ran two maras, one to see what it was like in Auckland, the other NY.

HRE wrote:

I don't know if you watched Dixon's race at New York, but I did and it would be very hard to say Geoff Smith was Dixon's pace maker. Pacemakers don't move out to huge leads over the people they're pacing and Smith and Dixon were almost out of each other's sight because Smith was so far ahead at some earlier points in the race.

That said, I agree that Shorter could have been faster at the marathon if his feet weren't such a problem.

I watched it. A pacemaker is anyone in front of you that you think you can catch.