Kettlebell Maffetone 180 formula?

[offwidth]

Polar calculated HRM is 161.

As far as I am aware there are no reliable (valuable) methods of calculating HRmax.
The way to do it accurately (if one needs it) is to do an HRmax test.
The best way is to have the test administered by a doctor. One with a defibrillator on standby.
There are some self tests, but I won't describe them here.

 

[vegpedlr]

ill play devils advocate against it. Ive done endurance sports at high levels since 1988. Ive guided athletes at a high level since 1997. Id say the baseline MAF HR guidelines work for about 45-55% of folks. (i happen to be pretty close). But when I was in undergrad a peer and I did a Vo2 max and max HR test on a cycling erg. I maxed at 207bpm, he maxed at 159bpm. We were both 21 and ~67kg. HR is very individual. I would gather lots of data over many sessions. then adjust based on RPE and HR response from those sessions.

Maffetone believes MHR and VO2Max values are irrelevant to his training system. Maffetone isn't really much of a numbers guy. More intuitive. In fact he didn't even use his 180 formula with the athletes he coached. That came later. He just watched them run on a track at different paces wearing a HRM, noticed their change in gait, had them note the HR and based the training range from that.

For Maffetone, MAF is based on fuel utilization, whether it is primarily fat or sugar. The closest lab number to use would be Respiratory Quotient. Other coaches view this differently.

I've never seen any coaches do much with either MHR or VO2Max. Lactate threshold is much more common.

 

[kurt perham]

@kurt perham
"You can track heart rate with a true "deepening" of breathe"

Interesting, can you explain this a little further please?

As I mentioned, a noticeable change from light nose breathing to a more labored mouth breathing. Using running as an example mine falls in the mid 140BPM range. For me this is really close to the MAF target for my age. for my college peer, he would have been 20-23BPM LOWER based on his own INDIVIDUALITY and KNOWN max HR. Thats why I would collect lots of your own data and plot the data and use that as a guide for your own sessions. Now...for something like KB swings or other higher rep strength moves im not 100% sure that you could just 'slow down" and keep HR from rising. I guess thats the 1 million ? for this conversation?

 

[jhpowers]

Unfortunately my Polar H10 only gives the average when the session is finished. Pity it won't show a running average or at least a trailing average.

I use the FITIV app on my iPhone with my Polar H10. It gives a running average of HR. I prefer it to the Polar app.

 

[kurt perham]

totally agree. my point is that the 180 as the starting point for the math to determine the MAF rarely works. using myself and my peer, I would be real close. my peer would have a MAF limited HR of 5-10 beats above his tested MAX HR. So yea for sure, collect lots of data...then set targets off of that.

 

[Groove Greaser]

Remember the Maffetone Method is for aerobic endurance sports. Intermittent strength training would be classified as anaerobic by Maffetone, so HR does not apply. You're not training the aerobic system as Maffetone defines it.

Ah this makes a lot of sense. I knew that he was focused on LSD training and so-called chronic cardio, but this distinction makes a lot of sense to me. Thanks for deepening my understanding.

 

[vegpedlr]

totally agree. my point is that the 180 as the starting point for the math to determine the MAF rarely works. using myself and my peer, I would be real close. my peer would have a MAF limited HR of 5-10 beats above his tested MAX HR. So yea for sure, collect lots of data...then set targets off of that.

Maximum heart rate has NOTHING to do with Maffetone's 180 formula. He makes this clear in his writing and speaking. The 180 number by itself is meaningless. It is simply a means to come up with an estimation of MAF. It was created after collecting data on many athletes. That's why the formula also includes provisions for adjustment due to age and health history.

If one wanted to use other data to arrive at his version of MAF, one ignores MHR, VO2Max, even LT, and only pays attention RQ, looking for the deflection point HR of fuel utilization.

 

[Bret S.]

As far as I am aware there are no reliable (valuable) methods of calculating HRmax.
The way to do it accurately (if one needs it) is to do an HRmax test.
The best way is to have the test administered by a doctor. One with a defibrillator on standby.
There are some self tests, but I won't describe them here.

Hey Offwidth, thanks for chiming in here. I don't believe I really need to know my MHR to cook up a good training strategy, as in I'm not sure what I would do with that information if I had it.

When it comes to heart training I'm sticking to the KISS principal. As I said before the technical aspects I've not studied sufficiently enough to form any kind of intelligent training strategy. I can only fit so much into my study/time bucket and frankly it's not at the top of the list right now. On what I've gathered from reading this forum and other sources I have a few thoughts..

- There is much debate on the subject.
- 40 years from now there will be much debate on the subject.
- 100 years from now there will still be much debate on the subject.

I think I'll just plug in some variation of LSD work 2-3 times/week along with my other training and call it a day as long as GPP remains the goal.

One caveat though.. I do enjoy geeking on the HRM and believe it's useful for logging data points for later comparison as Harald Motz does.

 

[offwidth]

- 100 years from now there will still be much debate on the subject

True that... very true

And I agree that one need not know their HRmax (or worry about HR training at all for that matter) to develop a good training strategy.

Doing some LSD (I prefer calling it LED) a few times a week will work great for you.

 

[Bret S.]

As I mentioned, a noticeable change from light nose breathing to a more labored mouth breathing. Using running as an example mine falls in the mid 140BPM range. For me this is really close to the MAF target for my age. for my college peer, he would have been 20-23BPM LOWER based on his own INDIVIDUALITY and KNOWN max HR. Thats why I would collect lots of your own data and plot the data and use that as a guide for your own sessions. Now...for something like KB swings or other higher rep strength moves im not 100% sure that you could just 'slow down" and keep HR from rising. I guess thats the 1 million ? for this conversation?

For now I'll be using the Warrior Conditioning snatch protocol for LSD type training. I'll be doing 7 snatches every 30 seconds with a 12k bell for 30-40 minutes and watch the HR pattern over time. The beauty of this system is that I can adjust reps and weight to get into the desired HR training range. What the optimal range for me is unclear at the moment, though I'm thinking 130-140 ish?

 

[kurt perham]

Maximum heart rate has NOTHING to do with Maffetone's 180 formula. He makes this clear in his writing and speaking. The 180 number by itself is meaningless. It is simply a means to come up with an estimation of MAF. It was created after collecting data on many athletes. That's why the formula also includes provisions for adjustment due to age and health history.

If one wanted to use other data to arrive at his version of MAF, one ignores MHR, VO2Max, even LT, and only pays attention RQ, looking for the deflection point HR of fuel utilization.

Right. We are saying the same thing here...i think. each INDIVIDUAL needs to collect their own data then adjust and set their own zones. Im in no way promoting Vo2 or MHR testing for the layman. Im just pointing out that blindly choosing an anchor number only works some of the times (for me it works...). So training = testing and then set zones based on each athletes anchor point.

 

[vegpedlr]

Right. We are saying the same thing here...i think. each INDIVIDUAL needs to collect their own data then adjust and set their own zones. Im in no way promoting Vo2 or MHR testing for the layman. Im just pointing out that blindly choosing an anchor number only works some of the times (for me it works...). So training = testing and then set zones based on each athletes anchor point.

I'm not trying to argue either, simply trying to clarify MAF training and the Maffetone Method. I often confusion and misunderstanding. It's not for everyone. It takes a lot of discipline to train at the requisite low intensity and patience to allow it to work. I think it has great value for most people, particularly those only interested in general health. But even performance minded athletes can benefit too.

Regarding testing, the only testing Maffetone values is the MAF test. One measures pace at MAF HR, or the time to complete a set course, or the distance covered in a set time. Progression is obviously good, a plateau indicates it may be time imcorporate anaerobic training for awhile, and regression means something is wrong.

 

[kurt perham]

I'm not trying to argue either, simply trying to clarify MAF training and the Maffetone Method. I often confusion and misunderstanding. It's not for everyone. It takes a lot of discipline to train at the requisite low intensity and patience to allow it to work. I think it has great value for most people, particularly those only interested in general health. But even performance minded athletes can benefit too.

Regarding testing, the only testing Maffetone values is the MAF test. One measures pace at MAF HR, or the time to complete a set course, or the distance covered in a set time. Progression is obviously good, a plateau indicates it may be time imcorporate anaerobic training for awhile, and regression means something is wrong.

Oh yea...Mark A used the "patience period" to good effect 30 years back.

 

[Bret S.]

My first two full 30 minute WC snatch sessions. Some interesting observations here..
-Max HR 152 in session 1 vs. 149 in session 2
-The pattern tightened and flattened more in session 2
-Recovery time dropped over 3 mins in session 2

I know this is a small sample but I was surprised at the differences in only 2 sessions @30 mins. each. I'll be tracking this as I progress to 40 minute sessions. It'll be interesting to actually be able to watch the adaptations take place.

Questions..
-Would 3 sessions/wk yield better results than 2?
-Does waving the duration session to session make any sense?
-Would I benefit from some shorter sessions if time doesn't permit longer ones?
- I'm working toward A+A heavy snatching, is there a different benefit doing that?

 

[offwidth]

Would 3 sessions/wk yield better results than 2?

What results are you shooting for?

 

[Bret S.]

I'm shooting for..

- Balanced and strong heart health
- Flexible steel type of fitness/mobility
- Balanced full body strength through full motion range
- More punching power
- Looking to lift heavy things over my head (dbl. 36's and beyond)
- Some hypertrophy in the form of dense tight shoulder muscle

I guess most of these could fall into the GPP category. I have no aerobic specific goals but feel that some LED work would benefit. In the future I'll do some type of locomotion work but for now the snatches, swing clusters and A+A work will have to do. Next Jan I'll be entering my 60's and want to be in the best shape possible.

The x-factor for me is the LED work as I've not done it for decades. I always thought the MA and weight training were enough. Now I see the need for something different regarding heart health.. I'm just not sure how to implement it.

 

[offwidth]

I think you are on a good path. My bias on 'cardio' is more on the locomotion side. But then again I have been doing this type cardio for over 4 decades so I guess I default to that when discussing these things. I dig the swings and snatches too, but when I do them (I'm a 5-6 day/wk S&S guy), I don't equate them to cardio. Doing 30 min of snatches however like you are is a different animal. But that HR you logged as you know is not anything like LED (or MAF) given your age. (Nor need it be...)

I think you would benefit from LED, given your goal of balanced heart health. Pick your poison... running, cycling, rowing, x-country skiing, rucking.

 

[Anna C]

Questions..
-Would 3 sessions/wk yield better results than 2?
-Does waving the duration session to session make any sense?
-Would I benefit from some shorter sessions if time doesn't permit longer ones?
- I'm working toward A+A heavy snatching, is there a different benefit doing that?

Neat HR profile. I've never done VWC but would like to give it a try someday. Could you describe exactly what you're doing there? What weight, how many reps, how much rest, etc?

I don't know for sure on the session/wk, but it looks like a fairly stressful session so I'd opt for 2x/wk. Depends what else you're doing.

Waving the duration makes sense for some Strong Endurance type protocols. I'm not sure, on this one... it looks fairly glycolytic based on your HR and very little recovery between work sets.

Yes, you would probably still benefit from shorter sessions. HIIT sessions are short but powerful.

There are different benefits from A+A heavy snatching, yes. What you are doing will help with the muscular endurance aspect. The first change will be a very different mindset -- instead of max snatches in given time (fast pace), it's a hard fast effort with very precise and powerful technique, then LOTS more rest. For A+A, the kettlebell will be heavy enough to be more of a strength & power effort as opposed to an endurance and cardio effort.

 

[Anna C]

I apologize for the crappy photos, I don't know how to export HR data cleanly like others do on the forum.

For some reason I can't see any photos in your post above, just two IMG icons. What I usually do is screen capture. Use Snipping Tool or whatever, just copy what you want and paste it into the window here. Works great.

I want to plug in the VWC work maybe twice/wk.
Also sub in A+A snatches when my shoulders are ready. Obviously I'll have to re-configure exercise selection and volume etc. You know, 'Cost of Adaptation' and all... What do you think?

Sounds reasonable...

 

[Steve Freides]

I also do not see the photos but only the placeholders for them.

-S-