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

I'm six weeks into is and loving it. At age 60, I took all the "upgrades" and still have to stay below 130, which at first was ridiculously awkward, but now fun and allows me full recovery. It helps that my pace has improved a minute/mile at that HR.

Gaston Roelents wrote:

I'm six weeks into is and loving it. At age 60, I took all the "upgrades" and still have to stay below 130, which at first was ridiculously awkward, but now fun and allows me full recovery. It helps that my pace has improved a minute/mile at that HR.

So you're sub 14 per mile now ?

Participation trophy for you !

anyon else.. lol?

I am training for sub-3 in the marathon next year. I'm sure that you are doing much better post-60 though, forgive me. At least I am enjoying myself, which you clearly are unable to do.

Snake oil wrote:

Gaston Roelents wrote:

I'm six weeks into is and loving it. At age 60, I took all the "upgrades" and still have to stay below 130, which at first was ridiculously awkward, but now fun and allows me full recovery. It helps that my pace has improved a minute/mile at that HR.

So you're sub 14 per mile now ?

Participation trophy for you !

The Lydiard method is superior. Maffetone has used the Lyidard method as the foundation to guide his coaching, but inappropriately brands it as his own.

...often imitated, never duplicated.

If you love the heart rate training, do the Lydiard method and buy the book Healthy Intelligent Training, which modernizes the Lydiard language, but stays true to the method and gives credit appropriately. And provides all the information you will need on HR training.

Mind you, you can read the article, "Be a Body Whisperer" by Lorraine Moller - Google it, it is published by Running Times/Runner's World. It's an excellent article on the importance of listening to our own body.

If you need guidance there are many skilled and talented coaches who you can hire for online coaching. Or use the Lydiard Foundation themselves.

Two winters ago I was cycling and did base building at a heart rate of 135 and under all winter. I had really great hopes but the results weren't good. I detrained way too much. For me the number may have been low because my max HR and LTHR are high. I can say my max is at least 203, but probably several beats higher based on the effort where I reached that number. So rides at 135 provided very little stimulus.

At the end of summer 2015 I started running again, but I wouldn't use a method like this. There's so much more to running than just aerobic capacity and everything else is ignored for too long.

If it's giving you what you need, knock yourself out.

I am training for sub-3 in the marathon next year. I'm sure that you are doing much better post-60 though, forgive me. At least I am enjoying myself, which you clearly are unable to do.

Hey Gaston, Sub 3 at 60 is a tough goal, I just went sub three but I am young at 52. You should look into the principles of 80/20 Running and combine that with Maffetone, your training will be much more effective that using just Maffetone.

Kevin

Athletics Illustrated wrote:

The Lydiard method is superior. Maffetone has used the Lyidard method as the foundation to guide his coaching, but inappropriately brands it as his own.

...often imitated, never duplicated.

If you love the heart rate training, do the Lydiard method and buy the book Healthy Intelligent Training, which modernizes the Lydiard language, but stays true to the method and gives credit appropriately. And provides all the information you will need on HR training.

Mind you, you can read the article, "Be a Body Whisperer" by Lorraine Moller - Google it, it is published by Running Times/Runner's World. It's an excellent article on the importance of listening to our own body.

If you need guidance there are many skilled and talented coaches who you can hire for online coaching. Or use the Lydiard Foundation themselves.

this. By far the best Lydiard book and the set text for The Lydiard Foundation on their coaching course.

I find it hard to believe that you can run fast without actually running fast. This Maffetone stuff is garbage.

It's interesting to read about but cumbersome and to me, not fun. The only elite I know of who ever publically credited Maffetone with his success was Mark Allen (triathlon) who had immense talent and a deep aerobic base.

This seems dumb. At that HR, I would basically be running at marathon pace.

What's the science behind this?

What's the point of this?

Is 87% of max HR a tempo pace? Does Maffetone include tempo. If not, why not?

The 60 year old who just ran 16:39 for 5k, do you think he trains like this?

Is Maffetone a hobby jogger? If so, why do you call it running?

I include striders several times weekly, and do a 10 x 100 speed session (in spikes) at least every 10 days. My speed is actually IMPROVING, as my legs aren't chronically tight from constant pounding in the "chronic anaerobic black hole" of "medium hard pace"

As for tempos, intervals, etc, this is true BASE TRAINING, by spring I will gradually and sparingly introduce those sessions, in addition to races.

I am aware of 80/20, but for the marathon, which is 98-99% aerobic, I feel it is too skewed towards anaerobic. I used to train that way, and still got sick and/or injured. I would much rather be patient and build both my aerobic and speed components separately, in a manner well-described by Stephen Seiler as "polarized training". This allows all muscular components to be touched upon without engaging the glycolitic metabolic pathway, which creates oxidative by-products which undermine health and recovery.

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.

Also, Phil's dietary recommendations are spot on, I have been following them independently for a year now and have had massive health improvements.

xlev2 wrote:

It's interesting to read about but cumbersome and to me, not fun. The only elite I know of who ever publically credited Maffetone with his success was Mark Allen (triathlon) who had immense talent and a deep aerobic base.

"My only relevant bit of knowledge is that Mark Allen once set out to run sub-2:20 and dropped out at like the 18mile mark as he had blown-up. Some other's here know the story better."

So Mark Allen who had immense talent and trained the Maffetone way blew up when he tried to run a sub 2:20 marathon.

I guess all that low HR jogging didn't help.

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.

Essentially, the only major shortcoming I see is that there is little room for neuromuscular training.

Gaston Roelents wrote:

I include striders several times weekly, and do a 10 x 100 speed session (in spikes) at least every 10 days.

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.

.

You aren't actually doing Maffetone if you are doing 10 times 100 in spikes, and other speed work, are you?

Mark Allen ran 2:20 as well as 29 minutes for 10K.

fred wrote:

So Mark Allen who had immense talent and trained the Maffetone way blew up when he tried to run a sub 2:20 marathon.

I guess all that low HR jogging didn't help.

Gaston Roelants wrote:

Mark Allen ran 2:20 as well as 29 minutes for 10K.

fred wrote:

So Mark Allen who had immense talent and trained the Maffetone way blew up when he tried to run a sub 2:20 marathon.

I guess all that low HR jogging didn't help.

Mark Allen never ran 2:20.

The training was not specific.

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.