all posts post new thread

Bodyweight MAF and Delta 20 principle

Status
Closed Thread. (Continue Discussion of This Topic by Starting a New Thread.)
Marino

Marino

Level 5 Valued Member
Looking at various sites for information on MAF programming, someone suggested for a beginner 3 30 minute MAF sessions, increasing the length of each session by 10% every 2 weeks and continue for at least 3 months.

Does the Delta 20 principle work for MAF cardio sessions? I'm thinking of 3 sessions a week with each session being 30, 40, 50 or 60 minutes. As explained in Quick and Dead, roll a dice to determine the length of each session and don't repeat a session of the same length twice. Keep heart rate at MAF rate.

Apart from because of spending more time at MAF rate over 3 months, would using this delta 20 approach improve cardiovascular fitness any faster than the 10% step plan above?
 
I don't know for sure, but I've read the Big Book of Endurance and Race training. Mafftone himself suggests to do <3 sessions a week, between 45 and 90 minutes, excluding 15 minute warm-up and cooling-down. Because of the heartrate, your tempo will vary. If you´re weary, the heartrate is higher resulting in a lower tempo, if you´re fit, the heartrate is lower resulting in more work to get you´re heartrate up.

Same for beginners, your tempo will be lower with an higher heartrate then an intermediate runner.

Your mitochondria take about 2 weeks to renew, so after two weeks you start to notice difference.

And make sure you use the correct formula and not, just, the 180-age.
 
you could totally apply the delta 20 priceable. 3 thoughts on how to do that.
Option A.
3 sessions x30min =90min per week (multiply 90min by 25%, 33% and 42% and get a 22 min session, a 30min session and a 38min session) this is a easy minimum dose/just getting into endurance training.

Option B based of @Tjerr recommendations.
40min, 58min, 72min and a 90min session (that keeps your total volume between 40-90min with a 20% difference minimum. between the sessions.

Option C
don't worry about it and just have fun and keep and eye on your heart rate.
 
Tjerr said:
I don't know for sure, but I've read the Big Book of Endurance and Race training. Mafftone himself suggests to do <3 sessions a week, between 45 and 90 minutes, excluding 15 minute warm-up and cooling-down.
Click to expand...
I don't recall any prescriptions from Maffetone. I don't see how less than 3 sessions a week will do much.

Your mitochondria take about 2 weeks to renew, so after two weeks you start to notice difference.
Click to expand...
I've read more like 3-4 wks. This stuff interests me, does anyone have any specific info and links?

Maine-ah KB said:
Option C
don't worry about it and just have fun and keep and eye on your heart rate.
Click to expand...
^ This one!
 
The 30, 40, 50, 60 minutes give you about a 20% difference too. I'm not able to do more than than 60 minute sessions but then I'm not an athlete or sportsman.

The mitochondria comments are interesting.
 
My understanding of aerobic base training is that the more the better. It is along the lines of S&S. "If you never have a heavy day, you don't need light ones."

I am almost positive that you will get better results by training 60, 60, 60 rather than 60, 30, 50. The extra 40 minutes really matter. Personally, when I am doing this kind of work, I try to get one long session in over the weekend. 2 hours give or take. Plus at least two 30-60 minutes sessions during the week. Life provides plenty of variability, but more minutes have had a pretty linear connection to better results.

Now when you start to talk about tempo runs or intervals, variability is much more likely to matter.
 
The only way to progress MAF training is by volume. Over time, more is better. But it also depends on your goals. How much aerobic fitness do you need? Anything over 30 min gets you benefits. No real need to go over an hour unless you enjoy it, or you're training for something that necessitates more volume.
 
I agree with @vegpedlr on this for sure. He and I both train for endurance events that last many hours. A six hour training effort is not uncommon. I've done things that have lasted over 30hrs non stop locomotion. At that point however it's not physical training that gets you through...

The 'average ' Joe needs nothing of this sort, and indeed it can be counterproductive to other goals and health.
 
vegpedlr said:
The only way to progress MAF training is by volume. Over time, more is better. But it also depends on your goals. How much aerobic fitness do you need? Anything over 30 min gets you benefits. No real need to go over an hour unless you enjoy it, or you're training for something that necessitates more volume.
Click to expand...

The new recommendations for exercise when it comes to health say that there is no minimum time for exercise, every minute counts. Is it different for MAF training? If so, are there different adaptations happening and how do they compare?
 
Marino said:
Looking at various sites for information on MAF programming, someone suggested for a beginner 3 30 minute MAF sessions, increasing the length of each session by 10% every 2 weeks and continue for at least 3 months.

Does the Delta 20 principle work for MAF cardio sessions? I'm thinking of 3 sessions a week with each session being 30, 40, 50 or 60 minutes. As explained in Quick and Dead, roll a dice to determine the length of each session and don't repeat a session of the same length twice. Keep heart rate at MAF rate.

Apart from because of spending more time at MAF rate over 3 months, would using this delta 20 approach improve cardiovascular fitness any faster than the 10% step plan above?
Click to expand...
As Lydiard noted a lifetime ago, delta 20 is effective for endurance running. It is in fact, a more effective stimulus for any biological adaptation, mimicking natural pressure. But this doesn’t mean that running 60 min, 3x/wk is fruitless. Whatever the total load placed on an organism, it needs to be progressively higher, however you decide to wave it. There again, you don’t seem to be asking about close to elite performance, so don’t overthink this.
 
Arthur Lydiard - that's a name I haven't heard in these parts before. Forgive me for changing the subject somewhat ...

The Wiki on Lydiard is interesting, mentioning the person I've always considered my guiding light as a runner, Jack Daniels, as one of his two main critics. I credit Daniels with help me achieve a lifetime PR at 5 km at age 45.

The great thing about Daniels is that he is specific about paces, based on recent race performances. It's much like, at least in my mind, a weight lifting program that's based on percentages of a recent max. I much preferred that my training paces were based on my recent race performances and not on something like a number and its relationship to my age. Maybe I need to go run another 5 k ...

-S-
 
I'm reminded of the original S&S wisdom of "if you don't have heavy days, you don't need light days". I would guess that, as long as you're staying down in the range where you don't really need recovery time (which is what I try to do), more would just be better. But waving would be good if you're doing distances that are challenging your recovery rate.

But that said, I run something like a rhinoceros does, so I'm no expert...
 
Steve Freides said:
Arthur Lydiard - that's a name I haven't heard in these parts before. Forgive me for changing the subject somewhat ...

The Wiki on Lydiard is interesting, mentioning the person I've always considered my guiding light as a runner, Jack Daniels, as one of his two main critics. I credit Daniels with help me achieve a lifetime PR at 5 km at age 45.

The great thing about Daniels is that he is specific about paces, based on recent race performances. It's much like, at least in my mind, a weight lifting program that's based on percentages of a recent max. I much preferred that my training paces were based on my recent race performances and not on something like a number and its relationship to my age. Maybe I need to go run another 5 k ...

-S-
Click to expand...
I've mentioned him before, Steve... you're slacking on reading, Every. Single. Post. :)
 
Status
Closed Thread. (Continue Discussion of This Topic by Starting a New Thread.)
Back
Top Bottom