Other/Mixed Maffetone questions

[Al Ciampa]

Al, I would love to hear more about your experience trying to get Maffetone to work with ballistics. I agree that it would appear to be an unhappy marriage considering that Maffetone was not intended to be used in an interval like pattern, but had assumed there might be some possible modifications to stream line the system. Have you gone back to a more traditional combination of KB ballistics for alactic work and easy endurance (running, rucking, cycling etc.) for aerobic?

@AndyMcL good to hear from you again, Andy. The quick summary is that the HR value doesn't capture everything we would like it to in different circumstances. When applied to KB Ballistics, I've come to believe that muscle fiber type is the dominant factor. As Andrew Read mentions in his fine piece, there is no getting around the requirement for human health & performance: aerobic level locomotion. Where I'm at now is KB ballistics (A+A) and running (aerobic locomotion) hold the same status in the training regimen. When properly combined, we see some fantastic physical changes.

Studies on it have shown there's no correlation between max heart rate and endurance performance.

Yes. We in the western world love and pursue bigger numbers, often at the expense of all else. In this case, you'd (should) want to train so that you can perform a lot of work at low HR values, not just work to redline that sucker and hope for the best outcome.

@aciampa - Al, these were 2 different guys. One who couldn't get his HR over 125, and the other who survived the massive heart blockage with the leg function. They were good friends, though, and they ran together a lot. I realize it's anecdotal, but I do remember the day he proved his heart wouldn't go over 125 very well, as there were several of us at a track for a regular Tuesday track session, and I had just got a new Polar HRM. He said he didn't like them cause his HR wouldn't go anywhere near where it was supposed to, and then we pushed and pushed to see it that was true. The HRM showed max HR for the laps, and we all tried it out to see if it was malfunctioning. His never went over the 125, as he had predicted. Truth is, it was crazy to do, but we used to do crazy things without any thought. The other guys diet was very Southern, and he was proud of it. He sort of thought running 6 mi a day every single day, no matter what inoculated him from everything somehow. He was captain of his football team in HS in mid-1950's, set a lot of state track records then, and kept on running 'til 1995, RIP. Both of these guys were old-school runners, way before the running boom. Back in that general era, I was a guinea pig in a Galloway program that later resulted in his books, and they tested my resting HR in the evening on the way home from work, along with some other stuff, for a "beginning" stats, and it was 36. Those days are long gone...haha

Matts, in the same way I was originally taught strength training from the icons of the 50s and 60s, I love to hear the running stories pre-American running boom. "6 miles/6 beers per day" is gold!

Again, thank you! If I am interpreting correctly... patience, patience, patience. And maybe some LSD, preferably on foot.

Yup, yup, and yup. And walking will, at some point in your progress, be too slow a gait to further challenge your aerobic system. The volume necessary for using walking as your sole means of improvement leave time for little else in your life. Walking should eventually supplement running.

It takes a long time to build an endurance engine.

Frustratingly so. Good to hear from you again as well, sir.

 

[Matts]

thinking back on the pre-running boom days has been fun for me... The biggest takeaway I could give relative to this thread is people didn't necessarily run to be healthy, weigh less, or prevent heart disease back then- they ran because they enjoyed it, and a large part of the enjoyment was the camaraderie and the social aspects of it. When not on the track, we could always pass the "talk test," because we were always talking!(actually, BSing, telling jokes, etc.) It was fun. I think the health aspects and all that are quite important, now, but if more people got out for 20-30 mins a few times a week, run/walk easy, had fun, and enjoyed the break in the day, then less people would be less worried about their HR and meeting numbers. After some months of that, focus on increasing miles, getting faster, or whatever, in a sensible way, and you'll find the aerobic engine is well on the way.
p.s.- I'd also suggest that the advice in S&S to feel recharged and good afterwards is valuable for running and helps stay in proper range.

 

[Peter]

Yup, yup, and yup. And walking will, at some point in your progress, be too slow a gait to further challenge your aerobic system. The volume necessary for using walking as your sole means of improvement leave time for little else in your life. Walking should eventually supplement running.

Just finished 26' run at average HR 127 (my MAF HR is 180-55=125). Felt good. Able to nose breathe for most of it but the temperature was just above freezing... for now.

 

[ali]

Is there any correlation between maf numbers and a lower, or lowering over time, of resting heart rate?
If max heart rate is considered a bit meaningless in terms of assessing improved aerobic function it is still the number, roughly, where the maf number is deduced, 180, or the zonal thing 220- age and percentages.
Someone with a maf number of 130 and trains with a rhr of 65 and reduces that to 55 overtime it is a sign of a more efficient aerobic engine. So is it fair to say then that those 10 beats can be applied backwards? The ability to do work at 130/65 being reduced to 130/55, so originally working at a max of 130, the same power can be achieved at 120, so enabling an extra 10 beats until reaching the desired maf of 130. And to get to 130 requires more power, resulting in more speed and power whilst still aerobic, or going faster, doing more whilst aerobic.
Is this an accurate perspective or perhaps only applicable, if at all, sometimes depending on the individual?
In other words, is rhr reduction a good quantitative measurement to gauge improvement?

 

[offwidth]

I'm sure that it is somewhat individual in nature. And that there are many variables involved. That being said, speaking only from my personal experience I notice that over the course of a year my RHR varies based on the training I'm doing. When it's at it's lowest I seem to able to perform my best (at least in endurance activities). I have no real data to support this however. But it probably stands to reason that if I am doing the type of aerobic training which results in a lower RHR, then I am also going to be correspondingly better in those types of things.

I guess what I am saying in a roundabout way is that when my RHR is consistently low I feel that my training has been effective enough and that I am confident to do what I have been training for...

These days a RHR of 48 is my performance baseline reference.

 

[AndyMcL]

Is there any correlation between maf numbers and a lower, or lowering over time, of resting heart rate?
If max heart rate is considered a bit meaningless in terms of assessing improved aerobic function it is still the number, roughly, where the maf number is deduced, 180, or the zonal thing 220- age and percentages.
Someone with a maf number of 130 and trains with a rhr of 65 and reduces that to 55 overtime it is a sign of a more efficient aerobic engine. So is it fair to say then that those 10 beats can be applied backwards? The ability to do work at 130/65 being reduced to 130/55, so originally working at a max of 130, the same power can be achieved at 120, so enabling an extra 10 beats until reaching the desired maf of 130. And to get to 130 requires more power, resulting in more speed and power whilst still aerobic, or going faster, doing more whilst aerobic.
Is this an accurate perspective or perhaps only applicable, if at all, sometimes depending on the individual?
In other words, is rhr reduction a good quantitative measurement to gauge improvement?

In short, yes. There is not going to be a direct 1 to 1 ratio of change in resting heart rate to change in heart rate at a specified intensity, but the trend of both decreasing will be observed.

More technical (not important to performance of exercise): The proposed mechanism behind this change is not entirely clear, but there is research being done. It was long thought (and what is still being taught in a lot of physiology classrooms) that the change was primarily due to the increase in ventricular filling due to increased ventricular hypertrophy and the resulting improvement in stroke volume. This change triggered the autonomic nervous system to reduce heart rate. Now, the first part about change in heart size is still widely believed to be true, but the mechanism of control is less certain. Recent studies have shown that there might be physical change in the sinus node of the heart itself so that regulation of heart rate is much more local than central. So far all of the research I've seen on this comes from studies on rats, so it is far from conclusive. In terms of healthy exercise and performance this difference is really not important, but in terms of post-training heart problems that affect former athletes it is a little interesting. LINK

I would also like to note that while change in max heart rate is not indicative, knowing your max heart rate is pretty useful. 220-age/180-age works fairly well for younger individuals, but it is widely acknowledged that it underestimates max heart rate in older people. Especially if they are physically active. 180-age is a good starting point, but there is a lot of individual variation.

Finally, in general lower resting heart rate and heart rate during exercise is good. But, some of the time it is a sign of too much stress on your body, so make sure not to focus on the numbers too much and always listen to what your body is trying to tell you.

Apologies on the length and getting a little off topic.

 

[AndyMcL]

good to hear from you again, Andy. The quick summary is that the HR value doesn't capture everything we would like it to in different circumstances. When applied to KB Ballistics, I've come to believe that muscle fiber type is the dominant factor. As Andrew Read mentions in his fine piece, there is no getting around the requirement for human health & performance: aerobic level locomotion. Where I'm at now is KB ballistics (A+A) and running (aerobic locomotion) hold the same status in the training regimen. When properly combined, we see some fantastic physical changes.

That's awesome to hear. It sounds like you're having a lot of success with combining yin and yang.

Have you experimented much with applying the A+A principles from KB ballistics to locomotive training? IE short 10-20 second sprints with lots of rest.

 

[Al Ciampa]

Is there any correlation between maf numbers and a lower, or lowering over time, of resting heart rate?
If max heart rate is considered a bit meaningless in terms of assessing improved aerobic function it is still the number, roughly, where the maf number is deduced, 180, or the zonal thing 220- age and percentages.
Someone with a maf number of 130 and trains with a rhr of 65 and reduces that to 55 overtime it is a sign of a more efficient aerobic engine. So is it fair to say then that those 10 beats can be applied backwards? The ability to do work at 130/65 being reduced to 130/55, so originally working at a max of 130, the same power can be achieved at 120, so enabling an extra 10 beats until reaching the desired maf of 130. And to get to 130 requires more power, resulting in more speed and power whilst still aerobic, or going faster, doing more whilst aerobic.
Is this an accurate perspective or perhaps only applicable, if at all, sometimes depending on the individual?
In other words, is rhr reduction a good quantitative measurement to gauge improvement?

While a comparatively lower RHR in an individual indicates improvement, it says nothing about what HR physiological aerobic threshold occurs. Only metabolic testing reveals this; and MAF claims to predict this. "180-age" is arbitrary, and only functions as a start point for MAF formula.

Doc Phil "believes" that HR is so closely interrelated with hormonal environment, that he adheres to the belief that higher relative HR equals anaerobic function. I don't believe that this is necessarily the case.

Have you experimented much with applying the A+A principles from KB ballistics to locomotive training? IE short 10-20 second sprints with lots of rest.

Why? I can think of a few reasons not to use sprints for A+A. Tool for the job, and all that.

knowing your max heart rate is pretty useful.

I am curious as to why you think this, beyond being curious about a baseline.

 

[AndyMcL]

Al, there are definitely a lot of reasons not to. For one sprinting is both much tougher on the body (especially for larger individuals) and more technical than KB ballsitics. I was thinking of it more for people you were training who it might be more specific for, or if you had found that KB ballistics were more than enough.

As for max heart rate, because like you said 180-age is just a starting point for aerobic threshold. For example, a rower at the club I train at trains her steady state at a heart rate of around 170. Based on her age and training history MAF would say 159 (180-26+5), but at 170bpm she has a lactate value of ~2.0mmol. This discrepancy is likely because she has quite a high max heart rate and will still go above 200 on intense workouts.

It is also because as you mention heart rate is not the be-all end-all of indicator for aerobic threshold. While power at a certain heart rate improves with aerobic training it is also possible that you can perform aerobically at a higher heart rate (this is why the MAF formula allows for adding 5). On the other hand, there are some days where your body might be producing more lactate than usual at the same heart rate. Heart rate is useful as a guide, but you also have to listen to your body.

Once again, for most people 18-age will work really well (as will the talk test). I just enjoy debating the nitty-gritty, but hope I am not coming off as pedantic.

 

[AndyMcL]

Bonus graphic for why the combination of aerobic training and alactic training works so well: GRAPHIC

Basically, improvements in endurance can come from two pathways, AMPK mediated and CaMK signaling. It is hypothesized that intense exercise induces improvements via AMPK and low-intensity, long duration exercise via CaMK. This is potentially why middle intensities are less advantageous. The intensity is not high enough to stimulate as much AMPK and the duration not long enough to signal more CaMK. But, it is still really tough on the body to recover from. So, more pain but not as much gain.

(this is a very simplified explanation, and mostly theoretical)

 

[Anna C]

Great stuff, Andy, thanks for sharing, and good to have you back on the forum!

The link in your post above doesn't seem to be working. You can copy/paste a graphic (screen capture it, then just paste it in)...

 

[AndyMcL]

Oops! Hopefully this works better.

 

[ali]

Thank you for the replies everyone. Some really interesting and insightful stuff. Need to digest it all.....have a good weekend, cheers