MAF Training - Downwards progress?

It sounds like you are not getting enough stimuli from MAF training.

Have you heard of Klaas Lok's "Easy Interval Method"?

It might work well for you at least to start with.

It's based on the principle (correct me if I'm wrong, Klaas) that it's better to do some sort of "lower intensity" speed work every day (or almost every day) than to do a couple of hard workouts and then just jog the other days.

The book is pretty good and there Klaas explains things in detail, like the distances, recoveries and intensities for different sessions. He also explains how to ease into this type of training for beginners, in order to avoid injury.

You can have a look at the thread discussing this method here:

https://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=10653553

Here's the Facebook page:

https://www.facebook.com/groups/316406889663700

Regarding MAF, I personally believe it has its place for some runners but that it is very limited for most.

Running fast (whatever that means for each of us) is fun and running fast frequently even more fun. MAF limits that too much for my taste.

There are, of course, plenty of different approaches you can take, the EIM being just a suggestion I believe you might enjoy.

Thanks for your feedback. I'll definitely look into that as it fits what I want to do :)

Seems strange to me. How long have you been running? What is your weekly mileage?

I’ve been running for about 15 months now however started MAF 4 weeks ago.

Weekly mileage is quite low due to only really having 30 mins to run daily (work etc) and my pace is incredibly slow. I average about 20km a week.

Like I said I don’t expect results in the first month as I know people suggest to give it 3 months but just didn’t expect my progress to go down.

I typically run the same routes, it’s very flat where I live (only about a 13 foot gradient change). I run at the same time as well.

MAF doesn't work well for low mileage. The idea is to be able to run longer without undue stress or injury. Either run longer or build in some quality.

Great. Thank you. I would like to run longer distances but potentially need to do something in the mean time to improve fitness. The thought of doing an hour at the moment with my current pace is more than frustrating but I’ll either change approach or increase mileage.

Is there a “minimum” that I need to be working towards? I’d love to get to a point where I could do a daily 5k with something like a 10-15k at the weekends but realistically the pace I’m at now would mean a daily hour and potentially 2.5hr as a long run.

danie1blackmore wrote:

Great. Thank you. I would like to run longer distances but potentially need to do something in the mean time to improve fitness. The thought of doing an hour at the moment with my current pace is more than frustrating but I’ll either change approach or increase mileage.

Is there a “minimum” that I need to be working towards? I’d love to get to a point where I could do a daily 5k with something like a 10-15k at the weekends but realistically the pace I’m at now would mean a daily hour and potentially 2.5hr as a long run.

The best alternative is probably Matt Fitzgerald's 80/20 training, which keeps the easier running but dovetails it with enough faster runs to progress, even with relatively low overall miles. For myself, I find I can maintain fitness on half the mileage (20-25 instead of 40-50) with lots of fartlek, hills, etc. in an 80/20 ratio.

I had seen this method and is something that I think I’ll also be looking further into.

Thanks for your advice, it’s much appreciated

I have never done MAF but have used MAF HR to govern my easy days. 36 and used 145 BPM. A few observations.

1) It does take a couple of months for things to really stabilize.

2) I focused more on making sure my AVG HR for the run was +/- 3 BPM of 145. I would usually start slow and accelerate throughout the run with the last mile or so closer to 150.

3) I can't imagine doing this without real workouts that are pace based. That is where you make your gains. MAF HR runs are best used IMO to keep your easy days honestly easy.

MAF, in my opinion, is idiotic and sets the bar far too low for the average runner to improve. If you have 12-15 hours a week to waddle around, then it might start to pay off because of the volume.

Since you are already using HR, and assuming that you have done a lab or field test to determine your true max rate, then just run 80% of your weekly mileage at no more than 80% of your max heart rate (using Karvonen Reserve formula). It should feel easy, natural, and pleasantly tiring. You should feel fully recovered the next day with proper hydration and a good night of sleep. Klaas Lok's Easy Interval Method also brings some good stuff to the table. I am not sure about doing nothing but intervals for training but, 2-3 sessions a week of aerobic intervals at 85% max heart rate will improve running economy and ease the transition to higher quality work.

My biggest issue with MAF is that it doesn't teach you how to run properly. Most MAF runners that I encounter are stuck in shuffle mode and simply do not generate any power in their stride nor have a flight phase where both feet are off of the ground. Maffetone's HR formula is complete horse crap! According to him, I should be running at no more than 134 bpm based on my age (180 - 56 + 10 beats) however, my real max heart rate is 190 and the Karvonen calculation puts my 80% figure at 162 bpm. At that HR, I feel easy, in control, and get aerobic benefits. At MAF, I am barely above a brisk walk pace and my form is awful. I gave MAF a try and after a few weeks, I was having hip issues and my fitness actually declined.

Google the work of Stephen Seiler and Joe Friel for some very good information on using heart rate appropriately. Get a real HR max number if you don't have one already.

danie1blackmore wrote:

I’ve been running for about 15 months now however started MAF 4 weeks ago.

It takes more than 4 weeks to respond to most training. Cannot conclude yet. Too soon.

It doesn't work. Ask yourself why not a single elite runner does MAF. It sounds wonderful in theory. Run slow to run fast. It's actually run slow to get even more slower.

Wrong. MAF has worked for a number of high level runners. Maybe not listed as MAF, but certainly follows the same principle.

shoeless in seattle wrote:

Wrong. MAF has worked for a number of high level runners. Maybe not listed as MAF, but certainly follows the same principle.

Who?

highhoppingworm wrote:

shoeless in seattle wrote:

Wrong. MAF has worked for a number of high level runners. Maybe not listed as MAF, but certainly follows the same principle.

Who?

Not exactly sure if he's referring to it, but about 70-90 percent of training volume by elite endurance athletes (running, cycling, XC skiing) is easy(zone 1-2 in terms of heart rate). Not sure about op training, but the trend I notice when people complain about slowing down after slowing their easy days or training by heart rate is that they forget they still have to do good hard quality workouts. I haven't done too much reading in MAF, but what little I have looked into it seems pretty solid. Sure for whatever reason people don't like heart rate on here. But I believe especially for newer runners it's a good tool to keep easy days actually easy and prevent injuries. Just my two cents.

MAF + intervals is working. No questions about it. Most elites runs according to MAF numbers when running easy, except they don't label it MAF.

Back when I first started running in my early 30's I got into MAF. From what I recall MAF was pretty rigid in that you were NOT supposed to do hard workouts at all, for like a year. So that other poster is correct. No elite runner is actually doing MAF. Sure there have been notable people who did MAF and had success but those people 1. already had a huge base and did MAF as a sort of refocus 2. Incorporated workouts after a long period of doing a ton of MAF training.

For a new runner, yeah its going to make you slower. Its what happened to me and why I stopped following it. Running your easy days easy and your hard days hard is not MAF. Normal HR training is not MAF. MAF is a specific method in which you run ALL runs under your MAF HR and you are not even supposed to allow your HR to go over during the run at all.

Maybe I remember some of this wrong, IDK, it didn't work for me and what I found was that the majority of the people who claimed success on it were just doing an 80/20 style training and it wasn't even really MAF. But people like to attach themselves to these buzz words because it makes them stand out.

Oh, the other thing is that MAF is really intended to keep you healthy not get faster. Its a way to build mileage while staying injury free. I seriously doubt there is a single person alive that strictly followed MAF and got faster without adding mileage. Injury free, sure. Got faster, nope.

Uprising wrote:

MAF doesn't work well for low mileage. The idea is to be able to run longer without undue stress or injury. Either run longer or build in some quality.

THIS. My success with MAF style training (Van Aaken) came when I was well over 100mph.