So Maffetone Low HR Training is a Bunch of BS, Right?

Just ask them how many races they won.

Not exactly new. Maffetone has been around for a while. And lots of people, including elites, do 80% of their training at relatively low heart rates.

That 20%, though, makes a big difference.

I think there is a lot of good in that training. I try to keep my HR around MAF (maximum aerobic function) levels for a good portion of my training. It has helped me create a good aerobic base (for me anyway).

And of course, as Maffetone proscribes, I train at much faster levels from time to time. It seems to work, at least for me, an underwhelmingly talented swimmer.

I suspect that most long-distance runners do a lot of their training at MAF pace anyway. They may just not know it.

maybe this wrote:

Not exactly new. Maffetone has been around for a while. And lots of people, including elites, do 80% of their training at relatively low heart rates.

That 20%, though, makes a big difference.

^^^ What he said!!! I run about 80% of my weekly runs easy, well under my MAF... The rest though is hard: tempo, threshold and intervals... If you do MAF right it'll help you develop a monster aerobic base...

For somebody new to running, less than 1-3 years, I think MAF running can be very useful, to prevent early injuries from "too much too soon" running and to build up a solid base... For somebody who takes complete breaks from running between training cycles, more than 2 months, it can be useful to re-build, again, the aerobic base...

Floris Gierman has interviewed a couple of 2:20 to 2:30 English club runners (including a 50 year old) that have had some success with MAF.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_6pwxJE5iVk

Floris is a huge proponent of MAF but in his recent race, he did WORST than his previous sub 3 marathons after a few years of consistent MAF training. He even admits he was surprised because he thought he was "in much better shape"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AQjJur3Mrig&t=764s

I did some low HR training and it’s what made me become competitive-ish, but I used Hadd’s plan, not maffetone. Went from a 43min 10k to 34min in the span of about 8 months. Also ran a 1:15 HM doing that, even though I didnt do anything at that pace in training.

My training is a lot different now though.

I've tried it.

I think it may be good to build a base, especially if you're coming back from injury or feel burnt out by traditional training. The problem is, if you stick to MAF and MAF only you'll become an endurance monster with ZERO speed. Also relying strictly to HR monitoring and MAF formula is not a guarantee to train properly for your ability.

doesitreallywork wrote:

Floris is a huge proponent of MAF but in his recent race, he did WORST than his previous sub 3 marathons after a few years of consistent MAF training. He even admits he was surprised because he thought he was "in much better shape"

He also noted that he was not prepared for the high humidity, and attributed that to his performance.

MAF seems almost cultish, and it definitely does not seem to be what any elites are doing. Nevertheless, the guidelines seem to help many avoid injury and stay healthy.

maybe this wrote:

Not exactly new. Maffetone has been around for a while. And lots of people, including elites, do 80% of their training at relatively low heart rates.

That 20%, though, makes a big difference.

The problem that I have with Maffetone has nothing to with that 80/20 ratio but with the method how the HR is calculated. If I calculated it by subtracting my age from 180 and adding 5, I would be running at a HR that is slightly above my aerobic threshold, i.e. not a very low HR. My HR range in running is something like 110-190 and when I run at paces that are slower than 8 minutes per mile we are talking about 110+, not 140+. That is the problem with the method. I never experienced that type of low HR training. When I started running, my HR was always high but once I got more experienced, it became lower for easier runs. I didn't need to such slow jogging at all.

that is insane.

My max is around 190. maybe a bit higher. but walking puts me at 120. Any kind of jogging puts me mid 130s, but into the 140s by 2nd mile. i have a very hard time staying below 150. My aerobic is trash, i guess.

DietBacon wrote:

I did some low HR training and it’s what made me become competitive-ish, but I used Hadd’s plan, not maffetone. Went from a 43min 10k to 34min in the span of about 8 months. Also ran a 1:15 HM doing that, even though I didnt do anything at that pace in training.

My training is a lot different now though.

That's some pretty awesome progression DietBacon. Were you just following the basic base approach of all easy days, two moderate tempos, and a long run? Also, what kind of weekly mileage were you doing?

keepgoing wrote:

DietBacon wrote:

I did some low HR training and it’s what made me become competitive-ish, but I used Hadd’s plan, not maffetone. Went from a 43min 10k to 34min in the span of about 8 months. Also ran a 1:15 HM doing that, even though I didnt do anything at that pace in training.

My training is a lot different now though.

That's some pretty awesome progression DietBacon. Were you just following the basic base approach of all easy days, two moderate tempos, and a long run? Also, what kind of weekly mileage were you doing?

I'd second those questions to DietBacon.

My thoughts on this: I noticed that the guys that tend to have a lot of success running with MAF also run races at lower HR's as well. They never really talk about the relationship of their age-based equation MAF HR versus their approximate Maximum HR. Ironically, a lot of their daily miles are actually quite fast relative to their race performances.

For example, someone mentioned Floris's CIM performance being underwhelming. A month or 2 before CIM, Floris posted a VLog of a 20 mile run at MAF in which he averaged somewhere around 6:40 pace. This was faster than his actual marathon pace although, as someone else pointed out, he struggled with the humidity. However, it is an interesting data point.

If you read the fine print, a lot of these MAF advocates do actually supplement their running with speedwork. From what I've seen some of the more successful ones claim, it's usually about 3-5% of their total volume. The video of Jonathon Walton above is very, very interesting. If you check him out on Strava, he often will hit 120-130+ mile weeks mostly under 130 bpm, usually around 7:50 pace. But he also races a lot and has killer track workouts. At 50 years old he ran a 2:29 marathon at an average HR of 160 bpm.

At any rate, the biggest problem that I see with MAF is it will have some people running at a very low percentage of their Maximum HR and others at a relatively high percentage of their Maximum HR. For this to work, I think you need to win the genetic MAF lottery and have an appropriate MaxHR to fit the equation AND supplement it with at least some solid speed work.

To paraphrase Dr. Johnson, what's good about MAF is not original, and what is original is not good.

The idea that most of your running should be low intensity is not revolutionary. It's as close to a universally accepted law of running as you're going to find.

How MAF prescribes low intensity is bonkers. For most people, they'd be running way, way too hard if they followed the MAF formula. Now, some will say that the MAF guidelines are just guidelines, but I say a rule of thumb shouldn't be incorrect for most people.

The 80/20 guideline is also pretty silly. It's supposedly derived from analyzing elite athletes, but even if it were accurate, elites don't plan their training around a specific breakdown of high and low intensity. Typically their planning is a lot more nuanced, a lot more flexible, and they use a very wide range of paces for various purposes. They don't put their training in just the "high" and "low" buckets. Another issue with the 80/20 split is that it's simply inaccurate for serious athletes. If you're doing high mileage, it's very unlikely that you're doing 20% of your mileage at threshold or beyond. That's an unsustainable workload.

It's a bit ironic to me that MAF is described as generally a high volume, low intensity program, but the actual specifics Could have you cranking at 90% of MP on your easy days and doing 20 miles of intervals a week.

MAF is like Keto, basically its a niche thing that people attach themselves to (such as Floris) to derive followers, its 'click bait' to convince people of 'this one cool trick'. People like to feel special, like they have some lesser known knowledge or technique that will make them 'better' than others even if they aren't actually better (or in this case faster).

For lots of people, yeah it can help them avoid injury. Because depending on how that equation works out, you could be doing tons of volume at a super slow pace. But if you tell those same people to 'just run at a conversational pace' that doesn't sound as cool as doing MAF and using this formula and they don't get to feel like they are apart of this insider thing that only some people know about.

Low HR training is a very good thing when you are building base or significantly bumping up your mileage. Instead of following Maffetone's formula, do a field test or get into a lab to determine your maximum heart rate. I've done this and, along with using the Karvonen HR Reserve formula, my Zone 2 purely aerobic heart rate limit about 20 beats higher than Maffetone recommends. This allows me to run more naturally without shuffling or taking walk breaks except on long steep grades.

The benefits have been less soreness, much faster recoveries, and I go into quality workouts feeling physically very fresh and very motivated to run fast. Looking back at my younger days, I squandered too much talent by running too hard day in and day out. My old training logs look like nothing series of tempo runs and underwhelming track workouts yielding mediocre races.

Don't get hung up on MAF, 80/20, and the like. As I tell the athletes that I coach now - easy days should be run so easy that it is almost embarrassing to be seen going that slow. Quality days should be truly hard and tiring. Races should seem like a party - fun, exciting, and a chance to show off.

MAF is an attempt to give a method to finding a feeling. Helps some people by forcing them to slow down and learn what easy feels like. Many confuse moderate with easy especially when out of shape.

Running a lot of easy miles can keep you ready to get race sharp in a few weeks with specific work. Until you get old, when you need to work more on speed or it goes away faster than it's achieved.

Help me understand MAF. 180 - age =108. I have no correction factors to add or subtract that I can see.

So 80% of my running should be at/near HR=108. Is that right?

For reference, MHR is 184, but I seldom elicit more than 179, which I hit occasionally. My LTHR is about 160, determined by the Friel Method test.

fisky wrote:

Help me understand MAF. 180 - age =108. I have no correction factors to add or subtract that I can see.

So 80% of my running should be at/near HR=108. Is that right?

For reference, MHR is 184, but I seldom elicit more than 179, which I hit occasionally. My LTHR is about 160, determined by the Friel Method test.

You're 72? That gives you many corrections. And have you been training many years in a row? If so, more corrections. Your target MAF number could be closer to 130.

However, I have heard the generalized MAF numbers work the worst for young runners and older runners. There is probably a sweet spot for people in their 30s and 40s.

Still, if you like training by HR, nothing beats the % of max calculations, IMO. For me it just turns out that my MAF number is 75% of my max.