all posts post new thread

Other/Mixed Maffetone Aerobic Training - Session Length and Weekly Volume Guidelines?

Other strength modalities (e.g., Clubs), mixed strength modalities (e.g., combined kettlebell and barbell), other goals (flexibility)
Status
Closed Thread. (Continue Discussion of This Topic by Starting a New Thread.)
If you want to use the Maffetone method, I strongly recommend a HR meter with a cheststrap. It is an investment of less then most kettlebells.
Maf can be used in many ways, but theMaffetone method works best for running,. In my case that means trotting with plenty walking. I think anything less then 30 minutes is just a warm up, and Maffetone says anything more then 2 hours is not providing aerobic adaptions. I think 3 hours a week is minimum.
It can not be stressed enough, this is for long term gains. It is not a 8 week program, but it is a program for long term health.
 
Coyote said:
In my case that means trotting with plenty walking.
Click to expand...
Amen.

I think that's where the disconnect comes in for many people, especially those with athletic backgrounds. It was a difficult transition in my thinking where my training was concerned. After being a basketball and track athlete in college I understood how much time had been wasted in high school by coaches who simply had little, if any, grasp of proper training principles. It didn't matter what event you were in, 10-12x400 was the answer. I swore that if I ever got into coaching I wouldn't do to my athletes what had been done to me. All training is a work in progress and we never stop learning, but regardless of how effective the approach we used with our athletes was it didn't necessarily carry over to adults, particularly me. As biological organisms things change over time, like it or not.

Over time things such as road running lost their luster more and more. Perhaps it was my form, the dose, the accumulated stress, I don't know. I do know that I had to change and that's when you swallow your pride and adjust. Niko Niko running enters the picture, as does "trotting with plenty of walking" in order to maintain my MAF number. Hill sprints and 30-40m sprints with plenty of rest fit in somewhere as does the sled. I try to pay attention AeT and AnT and zones and all that but as I've said before this whole pursuit is always going to be at least as much art as it is science.

What I'm doing now is working for me, at least in terms of things that I consider important; ejection fraction, blood work, resting heart rate, and body comp to name a few. I wish that was more concrete advice for people my age (64) but I know that if I adhere to my MAF number my tests still improve. As one who always believed that an aerobic base was critical for his athletes I believe it more than ever for myself.
 
Denny Phillips said:
After being a basketball and track athlete in college I understood how much time had been wasted in high school by coaches who simply had little, if any, grasp of proper training principles. It didn't matter what event you were in, 10-12x400 was the answer.
Click to expand...

Some martial arts / boxing classes can have this problem- having students go hammer and tongs for a couple of hours. Moronic but the teacher is better than you at fighting automatically translates to they know everything about optimal training.
 
One of the problems with Track and Field coaching that Maffetone describes is how distance runners are often an afterthought. He claims that traditionally most coaches had more of a sprint/strength back ground and tried to train the distance crew similarly, thus neglecting aerobic development.
 
vegpedlr said:
One of the problems with Track and Field coaching that Maffetone describes is how distance runners are often an afterthought. He claims that traditionally most coaches had more of a sprint/strength back ground and tried to train the distance crew similarly, thus neglecting aerobic development.
Click to expand...
That makes sense. Short distances are where the big bucks can be earned.

Anything beyond 1500 meters and people rapidly loose their focus and interest.
 
Coyote said:
In Europe as well.
Click to expand...
I disagree.

The sheer amount of people watching and later commenting the 100 to 1500 meter races is way, way, way beyond to those who can stay focused during a whole 10K.

All of my co-workers know who Usain Bolt is. Literally no one I know knows who Joshua Cheptegei is.

Marathon and road racing cycling are more popular, but because people don’t follow the entire race. Instead, they binge watch it while falling asleep.

Specifically, in Spain is quite popular falling asleep after a late lunch (lunches here are the main intake for the day) while binge watching the Tour of France, the Giro or the Vuelta.

Chema Martínez, the Spanish long distance runner champion lives nearby. And quite frequently I bump into him in a trail not far from my home. Most people won’t even recognize him; the same people who can recite the whole lineup of most football teams competing in minor leagues (which is barely above amateur).
 
Last edited:
Oh, I was talking about Ultras. I don't really consider track and field "distance running", but I may have mis spoke.

I have never been to Europe, I was just judging by video and listening to runners who have ran in events like UTMB.
 
Hello,

Reading this post about UTMB made me think about this C. Weller's post on Instagram about running / walking in function of the slope. Below is the copy-paste:
When you're trying to move quickly in the mountains over long distances, it can be tough to decide the right points at which to switch between running and walking. ⁠
⁠
On flat ground, this is easy enough. It's dependent on speed. At slow speeds, walking is more efficient. At higher speeds, running is more efficient. (this is why race walking is so weirdly exhausting - it'd be easier to just run at that pace) ⁠
⁠
If you're measuring biomechanical efficiency, we tend to transition from walking to running a little bit early on flat ground. Most people find it more comfortable to start running or "shuffling" just a little earlier than is functionally necessary. ⁠
⁠
This changes when the terrain goes from flat to uphill. ⁠
⁠
At some point, no matter how quickly you're trying to move, walking becomes the fastest, most efficient way to get up a long hill. You could try running, but you end up putting more energy into going the same speed or slower, and wearing yourself out. ⁠
⁠
The point at which we naturally figure out this transition is on slopes of about 15 degrees or more. Once hills are that steep, most people instinctively revert to a purposeful walk, even when trying to move fast. On hills lower than 15 degrees, we're likely to still want to switch to running earlier than is necessary. There is an awkward transition point where neither mode of travel feels quite right. Walking is too slow, but running seems unnecessarily fatiguing. ⁠
⁠
Researchers have also found that in variable and steep terrain people tend to do best with an alternating approach between running and walking. Aside from the variability introduced by natural changes in the slope, this is a way of allowing for alternating recovery. ⁠
⁠
The soleus muscles (part of your calves) have been shown to do 36% less work when running uphill rather than walking. Running switches the demand to other leg muscles and the aerobic system. ⁠
⁠
By periodically switching back and forth between running and walking, you're able to let your calves recover from walking, and then let your hips, quads, and aerobic system recover from running. ⁠"

Kind regards,

Pet'
 
Super interesting thread. Could those more experienced in this method of training help me out?

I'm in my mid 30s. I can run a 5km in about 18m30s reasonably comfotably.

I'd really like to improve my rhr and general cardio health.

Currently I run for an hour three times a week keeping my heart rate below 142.

I also do a fast 5km once per week and two weight lifting sessions.

Is this optimal? I'm toying with the idea of doing the following

Would I be best doing 5x45min running sessions (keeping hr below 142) and at the end do a quick 20 mins of weights or some fast sprints instead fo the fast 5km?

I'm around 173cm 70-72 kg. Max hr 187, lowest recorded 37 while sleeping. Fit bit pegs my resting hr between 47 and 51.

I want good overall health and strength.
 
I don’t believe that anything is optimal. There are too many variables to consider.
You have a decent 5k time. (Unless you want to compete)
You say that you want to improve your RHR. 47 (if you believe your Fitbit) is already pretty low. Assuming it’s accurate (it isn’t) at your current level of fitness it’s unlikely you will reduce your RHR by any significant amount. Nor would I see the need to.

Although you don’t mention what it is that you are doing exactly in your ‘weightlifting sessions’, I think what you are doing overall is not far from the mark for meeting your stated goals. (Although ‘overall health and strength’ is a bit vague...:) )
 
Thank you for your reply off width. Please excuse my vagueness. I have a tendancy to drone on a bit in posts like these so I was trying to keep things short.

Basically I'm always torn between getting strong and having great cardio performance.

My strength days are where I try and get a full body a good workout - weighted chins, squats, deadlifts, bench, ohp, shrugs. I'll basically do upper body one day, lower another day. But I'm not sure this is optimal. Maybe 45 minutes of zone 2 hr training followed by just one body part strength session over 5 days is better with 2 days rest?

I want to be strong, I want a halthy cardio vascular system and I'm would ideally also like to look in decent shape - I can do all three seperately, but unsure how to balance all at same time.

In my past I have just been a runner and was super lean weigth about 12 kg less than I do now. I have also got very strong and been as high as 76kg with sadly substantially more fat thn I'd like and cardio that wasn't good at all.

I was also told strength training is alwasy considered anaerobic by the mafftone method and so should not be done on days of zone 2 training - which is why I do the weights all in 2 days now.
 
I started again running MAF 3 days x week but my numbers are pretty low. I'm currently running more or less 3 kms each day at a avg pace of 8 mins / km. I do it on Mon/Wed/Fri but I start my sessions with Kb Swings (sessions varies between 10 min and 26 mins) once finished I start running (sessions I programed to vary from 20 mins to 36 mins).

Tue/Thu/Sat I focus on strength training (Giant programming + pull ups )

I'm heavy at 103kgs , never been a good runner really but I need to improve my aerobic capacity as I plan to get back on OCR by Nov21 (hopefully if Covid permit it)

You guys talk about very looong sessions compared to mines, should I need more? maybe program sessions from 30 to 46 mins? This month I will keep things like these as I like to build up time / kms to adapt but It would be nice to know the optimal amount of time each needs to improve.
 
Hello,

@What_A_Melon
To a certain extent, it is possible to build both strength and cardio vascular capacity - meaning aerobic capacity. However, up to a point, one has to "choose".

Using a park bench routine such as Dan John's Easy strength can perfectly be paired with long slow distance training. The latter can be done almost daily, as long as you stay in your Z1-Z2. This type of running session can last very long. Z1 can be performed for hours. If you do not practice a weekly long run, they are not supposed to be taxing. 3 or 4 sessions of 40 minutes are plenty if you do not aim for a race or Something.

@Eyetic
It depends on the length of your race. If you want to do 20km OCR, it may be interesting to pile up both km and duration. If you do a 5k however, it may be enough.

Kind regards,

Pet'
 
Status
Closed Thread. (Continue Discussion of This Topic by Starting a New Thread.)
Back
Top Bottom