Tri Talk HomepageTri Talk EventsTri Talk ForumsBlogsTri Talk TrainingTri TradeTriPlayerWikiTeam Tri Talk
Maffetone
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    TriTalk.co.uk Forum Index -> Training
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Roscoemck




Joined: 10 Aug 2016
Posts: 300
Location: Glasgow

PostPosted: Tue Feb 14, 2017 1:33 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

explorerJC wrote:
i sense a dichotomy developing...

...what is so wrong with selecting appropriate amounts of both...there's certainly a lot to be gained from appropriate training in a number of zones...


There certainly is and I will be doing so. I like to mix things up every so often. Let the body get used to doing things a certain way, then introduce something different. I like to think it improves things and stops me getting stale.

One of the great things about this sport is the variety!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
PCP




Joined: 13 Oct 2012
Posts: 1640
Location: Manchester

PostPosted: Tue Feb 14, 2017 5:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Today Pete Jacobs was advertising a Q&A session with him and Phil Maffetone for only $20 each. Just the additional travel to Sydney to factor in.

https://www.facebook.com/Petejjacobs/?fref=ts
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
smitters




Joined: 27 Aug 2009
Posts: 1719
Location: Enjoying my new favourite run

PostPosted: Tue Feb 21, 2017 3:57 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I followed a modified MAF method over this winter, leading up to a marathon and a 24 hour ultra in 2017. I ran almost all my runs with my average HR at, or below the MAF HR. I say average, because after two runs with my watch vibrating when I went over target I nearly smashed the thing. Since I wasn't running up huge hills, just rises in the road, I quit being so pedantic and enjoyed the easy runs. The exceptions were parkruns, either solo, or pushing a buggy.

Doing MAF tests, did I see a huge change between the pace at a set HR before and after? No.

Could I run a lot further at MAF HR after? Yes.

Could I run back to back days? Yes - which is new for me.

Had I had a very consistent few months? Yes.

So for me, spending time base building, running at MAF pace, whatever you want to call it, when the focus was almost solely on easy running, be it three or thirteen miles, was beneficial in that it allowed me to put together a consistent few months running. Have I got faster at parkrun? No. I have learnt about recovery runs after harder days and what my body can take - especially when trying to mix in some intense circuit training.

What I've really taken away is that in the past I've run my slow runs too fast, not recovered from them, and thus run my fast runs too slow, generally got niggles and not had a good consistent training patch. I have seen the pace at which pros on Strava run their easy days and it's eye opening. Mid 5's/km, even 6's/km for some.

I'm now at a stage where I accept that to run fast, you have to run fast, so I'm adding a steady state run (McMillan defined) in weekly plan, in place of a midweek easy run. If I can manage this extra intensity adequately, while still adding distance to my weekly long run, I expect to see some gains in pace over all HR, but especially at HR under my steady state HR range. This is ideal as the faster I can run at or below my MAF HR the better from an ultra point of view.

TLDR is, I think it works really well if you want to build stamina and protect yourself from injury, or manage a comeback from injury, but not if you want to nail a 5km pb.
_________________
Planning better and running better...
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Roscoemck




Joined: 10 Aug 2016
Posts: 300
Location: Glasgow

PostPosted: Tue Feb 21, 2017 4:41 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

smitters wrote:
I followed a modified MAF method over this winter, leading up to a marathon and a 24 hour ultra in 2017. I ran almost all my runs with my average HR at, or below the MAF HR. I say average, because after two runs with my watch vibrating when I went over target I nearly smashed the thing. Since I wasn't running up huge hills, just rises in the road, I quit being so pedantic and enjoyed the easy runs. The exceptions were parkruns, either solo, or pushing a buggy.

Doing MAF tests, did I see a huge change between the pace at a set HR before and after? No.

Could I run a lot further at MAF HR after? Yes.

Could I run back to back days? Yes - which is new for me.

Had I had a very consistent few months? Yes.

So for me, spending time base building, running at MAF pace, whatever you want to call it, when the focus was almost solely on easy running, be it three or thirteen miles, was beneficial in that it allowed me to put together a consistent few months running. Have I got faster at parkrun? No. I have learnt about recovery runs after harder days and what my body can take - especially when trying to mix in some intense circuit training.

What I've really taken away is that in the past I've run my slow runs too fast, not recovered from them, and thus run my fast runs too slow, generally got niggles and not had a good consistent training patch. I have seen the pace at which pros on Strava run their easy days and it's eye opening. Mid 5's/km, even 6's/km for some.

I'm now at a stage where I accept that to run fast, you have to run fast, so I'm adding a steady state run (McMillan defined) in weekly plan, in place of a midweek easy run. If I can manage this extra intensity adequately, while still adding distance to my weekly long run, I expect to see some gains in pace over all HR, but especially at HR under my steady state HR range. This is ideal as the faster I can run at or below my MAF HR the better from an ultra point of view.

TLDR is, I think it works really well if you want to build stamina and protect yourself from injury, or manage a comeback from injury, but not if you want to nail a 5km pb.


Brilliant feedback, thanks. I'm committed to giving this a go.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Gus




Joined: 07 Sep 2007
Posts: 2326
Location: Freezing my nads off in Aberdoom

PostPosted: Wed Feb 22, 2017 4:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Roscoemck wrote:
smitters wrote:
I followed a modified MAF method over this winter, leading up to a marathon and a 24 hour ultra in 2017. I ran almost all my runs with my average HR at, or below the MAF HR. I say average, because after two runs with my watch vibrating when I went over target I nearly smashed the thing. Since I wasn't running up huge hills, just rises in the road, I quit being so pedantic and enjoyed the easy runs. The exceptions were parkruns, either solo, or pushing a buggy.

Doing MAF tests, did I see a huge change between the pace at a set HR before and after? No.

Could I run a lot further at MAF HR after? Yes.

Could I run back to back days? Yes - which is new for me.

Had I had a very consistent few months? Yes.

So for me, spending time base building, running at MAF pace, whatever you want to call it, when the focus was almost solely on easy running, be it three or thirteen miles, was beneficial in that it allowed me to put together a consistent few months running. Have I got faster at parkrun? No. I have learnt about recovery runs after harder days and what my body can take - especially when trying to mix in some intense circuit training.

What I've really taken away is that in the past I've run my slow runs too fast, not recovered from them, and thus run my fast runs too slow, generally got niggles and not had a good consistent training patch. I have seen the pace at which pros on Strava run their easy days and it's eye opening. Mid 5's/km, even 6's/km for some.

I'm now at a stage where I accept that to run fast, you have to run fast, so I'm adding a steady state run (McMillan defined) in weekly plan, in place of a midweek easy run. If I can manage this extra intensity adequately, while still adding distance to my weekly long run, I expect to see some gains in pace over all HR, but especially at HR under my steady state HR range. This is ideal as the faster I can run at or below my MAF HR the better from an ultra point of view.

TLDR is, I think it works really well if you want to build stamina and protect yourself from injury, or manage a comeback from injury, but not if you want to nail a 5km pb.




Brilliant feedback, thanks. I'm committed to giving this a go.



Maff's method definitely works for building endurance base. But you shouldn't see much pace improvement if this is all you do.

I found as soon as putting in a midweek tempo/intervals run and keeping a LSD run at the weekends, that's when the speed started climbing.

But this only works if you have built the base....
_________________
BLOG now updating again!
In a world where I feel so small, I can't stop thinking big...

My 15 minutes of fame
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
gingerbongo




Joined: 21 Sep 2012
Posts: 1299
Location: Devon

PostPosted: Thu Feb 23, 2017 9:48 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Gus wrote:
Roscoemck wrote:
smitters wrote:
I followed a modified MAF method over this winter, leading up to a marathon and a 24 hour ultra in 2017. I ran almost all my runs with my average HR at, or below the MAF HR. I say average, because after two runs with my watch vibrating when I went over target I nearly smashed the thing. Since I wasn't running up huge hills, just rises in the road, I quit being so pedantic and enjoyed the easy runs. The exceptions were parkruns, either solo, or pushing a buggy.

Doing MAF tests, did I see a huge change between the pace at a set HR before and after? No.

Could I run a lot further at MAF HR after? Yes.

Could I run back to back days? Yes - which is new for me.

Had I had a very consistent few months? Yes.

So for me, spending time base building, running at MAF pace, whatever you want to call it, when the focus was almost solely on easy running, be it three or thirteen miles, was beneficial in that it allowed me to put together a consistent few months running. Have I got faster at parkrun? No. I have learnt about recovery runs after harder days and what my body can take - especially when trying to mix in some intense circuit training.

What I've really taken away is that in the past I've run my slow runs too fast, not recovered from them, and thus run my fast runs too slow, generally got niggles and not had a good consistent training patch. I have seen the pace at which pros on Strava run their easy days and it's eye opening. Mid 5's/km, even 6's/km for some.

I'm now at a stage where I accept that to run fast, you have to run fast, so I'm adding a steady state run (McMillan defined) in weekly plan, in place of a midweek easy run. If I can manage this extra intensity adequately, while still adding distance to my weekly long run, I expect to see some gains in pace over all HR, but especially at HR under my steady state HR range. This is ideal as the faster I can run at or below my MAF HR the better from an ultra point of view.

TLDR is, I think it works really well if you want to build stamina and protect yourself from injury, or manage a comeback from injury, but not if you want to nail a 5km pb.




Brilliant feedback, thanks. I'm committed to giving this a go.



Maff's method definitely works for building endurance base. But you shouldn't see much pace improvement if this is all you do.

I found as soon as putting in a midweek tempo/intervals run and keeping a LSD run at the weekends, that's when the speed started climbing.

But this only works if you have built the base....


Yes and no in my experience. it depends on where you are coming from . A number of people i know, and myself as indicated in an earlier message on here, have recently (some have been doing it for a couple of years now) being following a Maf-esque training programme - not so strict on the absolute HR values, but based around lots and lots of slower paced running.

I have always out performed the race calculators at the shorter end of the race spectrum, but failed to convert my 400m/mile/3k/5k paces into equivalent performances at the half and mara distances. Naturally possessing a fair amount of raw speed, this was obviously not holding me back at the longer distances, but speed endurance and efficiency was. So the switch to low and slow training has started bridging that gap. My pace is increasing at the target distances.

Yes, i may lose a couple of seconds off my 1 mile time, but i will gain an awful lot more at the longer distances with this great big engine build.

I agree that if you lack natural speed, then this type of training isn't going to be specific enough to help with that issue. Nor is it designed for training for races like the 5km, it is much better suited to endurance events.

So i don't think it's as black and white as saying you need X for one type of training or Y for another ... instead you need to look at what you are personally lacking, what races you are personally targetting, what your personal injury resilience is and then select the training method based on that.

GB
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    TriTalk.co.uk Forum Index -> Training All times are GMT
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3
Page 3 of 3
  Share
 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum





Home | About TT | Privacy Policy | Terms and Conditions | Advertising | Contact TT
Copyright ©2003-2015 TriTalk®.co.uk. All rights reserved.