Bit of backgroud so I have recently decide to give triathlons a go, and starting from a relatively unfit base (I used to be pretty fit 10 yers ago but have slackened off a lot and put on too many kilos.)

I started out running 4-5k 3 times a week for the first month and managed to get my time down to 28 min for 5k. At this point I decided I should actually do some research on how to train for triathlons and started swimming and went and bought a road bike (amazing how much purchasing a bike can help with your riding training!)

Anyway at the start of May I bought a heart rate monitor/gps thingy garmin forerunner 305 and found I ran the entire 5k up and down hils between 155 and 160, Finished in 27:50, so my pace was reasonably constant and I had something to basline against

Upon reading up on triathlon training there was lots of talk about base training at your aerobic threshold, so I ran 4.5k at a slow easy pace then sprinted the last 500m and during it I hit 185 (this seemd as good a number as any but not entirley scientific), so using a number of differnt formulas etc I came up with a aerobic threshold of 145 which matched another one I found of 180 minus age(34) etc

Ok so I spent the rest of May running my 5ks at av 145 and my pace dropped through the floor...I mean it feels stupidly slow, I am running at about 8:20 per km. However I have extended my run out to 7.5k without any hassles, just takes me an hour to complete (3 times a week runing cycling 20k twice a week and swimming 1k once a week).

My question is is it normal to need to run so slow to maintain this low a HR ? I am not really training for any specific event at this point in time, just trying to get a nice distance base up till I work out what length event to go for once summer gets here, but I would be keen to hear whether people think I should just stick with it or try running a bit faster?.

Hi Lightning. Welcome to CR.

You are doing everything right given your background and long term goals. It is all too common for a newbie to let their enthusiasm get the better of them and trying to do too much too soon. All this results in is increased risk of injury and potential loss of motivation or worse dropping out of the sport as a result of getting injured.

Your approach to low hr training is based on sound fundamentals. Over time your body will thank you for taking it easy in the beginning and will reward you with increased efficiency that then translates into faster times.

Good luck with your training.

run a bit longer instead and as the body adapts the pace for the same HR will start increasing ,
aim for at least 1 session of 90 minutes at that HR initialy, get there by gradual increase of time by 5 minutes...

Yes, it's normal; and yes, you should run for longer. You should be running for an hour or more at your low HR pace if you want to build endurance. Google "Hadd distance training" if you want some more HR stuff.

Yep totally normal, what you're referring to is known by a few names such as Maffetone or Hadd (there are slight differences and the 180-age is technically Maffetone).

I use low heart rate training almost religiously. I started building a base for the Gold Coast marathon in January this year, was running at similar HR levels to yourself with average pace of up to 7:20p/km. I did 12 weeks of running only at max. aerobic function (MAF which is 180-age) and by that time my average pace was down to around 5:45-6:00min p/km yet I then entered and did the Run for the Kids fun run (14.1km) at an average pace of 4:44p/km with NO speedwork prior to that.

Now five weeks out from the marathon my MAF pace is down in the vicintity of 5:20p/km (30km run on the weekend 5:22p/km).

The important thing with MAF training is that, as the others have already said, you need to increase the distances to really start to see improvement in pace.

Hope this doesn't come across as patting myself on the back, just trying to show (from my experience) the benefits that low HR training can have. And that yes you will be incredibly slow at the start but long term the benefits are great

Jimmy

Agreed that it is normal.

I always thought that injuries were the best lesson in patience. I was wrong.

Low HR training is. My average pace dropped by between 60-75sec/k when I started low HR training about a month or two ago. It is slowly showing signs of increasing. It can be soooo frustrating but I trust - I hope - that the hard (slow) work will be worth it long term.

i was very skeptical of this but am a convert after the last couple of weeks training...i ran a 10k in just under 45 min in a race a week or so ago (175 avg bpm) but on the weekend i went for a leisurely run at avg 150 bpm and ran 10k in 51.30 so only 30 or 40 seconds a km slower!!! amazing...thought it must have been a fluke or something but over 5k's the same thing happened when i compared my high (170 avg bpm) to a 150 avg bpm run...
i was also getting a bit sore after these faster runs but training at lower heart rate i feel a lot fresher post run
long story short...im sticking to low hr training for now to build a base to do speed training from in the future
stick with it lightning...hopefully it will be worth it in the long run

thanks for the advice and encouragement...although running longer seems strange when I started 30 min seemed long, then when I recently cracked an hour I thought wow that was long....now it seems 90 min is the go, amazing hows its all relative as you improve and a lot less scary.

looking forward to some sort of pace improvement over the 6-12 week period otherwise I will change my login to 'turtle' instead!

It has been mostly said but just to add my 2 cents, remember it is not actually low heart rate training, it is correct heart rate training.

You have done the right thing with regard to your goal heart rate. I myself went and ran and ran and ran increasing speeds slowly to work out where I went into oxygen debt and based my training heart rates on that.

Anyway, for some hard figures, I have a run from work that is 17.5km. I have done it since I started training in 2005. The first time I did it it was just a tad over 2:05 ~7:10 min/km at my 150-153 (my window, max 205, rest 49) pace. The last time I did it a couple of weeks ago, I did it in 1:23:33 ~4:45 min/km. I have really concentrated on this approach the last year or so and have come down from late 1:40s to this latest figure in that time.

Being a running site, I am in no way going to try and profess to know how to run fast, but this method of training will build the durability to run consistently off long bike rides in things like Half and Ironman events. If you are running 3:2X marathons in an Ironman, you are front of the pack in all male age groups. The only problem is that when I race something shorter like an OD, my 42 min 10K does not cut it

Yes.

Read Rudolf's post again. He knows this stuff.

On a more tri specific note, after reading some of the Hadd/Maffetone stuff it seems most of it suggests getting your running frequency up to almost daily while running in this low zone (although not all in the long 90 min range), is it realistic to do that and still do the cycling and swimming or would that be overdoing it , assuming all of it is done in the sub 145HR ? (mind you I have no idea how I can monitor my HR while swimming as the forerunner isnt waterproof and stopping to take your pule is not gonna be great, guess I just rely on RPE)

thanks again guys and any advice always appreciated.

my view is that triathlon is 1 sport, not the sum of 3 sport which You do along side each other.

so take a training plan from Lydiard or whoever else and simply take 3 pencils in different colours and mark each session from teh plan as either running or cycling or swimming.

say make 9 session a week plan, 3 of each.

It is much more logical to make a plan as 2 or week cycle or as 10 days cycle instead of 7 days.

I would say that in this case 1x60 min run, 1x75 min run, 1x90 min run

1x1H cycle, 1x2H cycle, 1x4Hcycle

1x40 min swim, 1x60 min swim, 1x( 3x15 min )swim

with the swim focus on technique, water feel, gliding etc, do not push it, the HR will take care of itself.

You have 9 different session, so do all of them in 1 time block, say within 3 weeks or 2 weeks, or 10 days, if You very fit and have plenty of time perhaps in 1 week ?.

Keep alternating between them run-swim-cycle but also alternate the very long ones with short ones etc, but bee flexible, depending on teh weather, time available, access to pool etc

Sorry to hi jack

But im also new to training and such, having only approx of 8months of triathlon training.

HR training is a concept new to me. Is this something i should also start doing now?

By way of background:
During winter of 07 i was running once or twice a week. 5km-10km runs
During Summer of 07 and 08:
Swims twice a week (1.5-2km per week)
Cycling 3-4times a week (15-25kms per session. 30kms per session near race week)
Running became irregular due to injuries from a motorbike accident, then training.

Ive stopped swimming since my last race.
Cycling still going on. But now 2-4 times a week (25kmx2, and 50kmx1or2)
Slowly adding running again. Focusing on building volume (for c2s). So far ive worked up to running 45mins and aim to do this 3times this week before increasing to 50mins next week etc etc.. eventually working up to 70mins.

So
-should i start HR training aswell?
-What HR plan is recommended?
-when to start speed sessions?

Rudolf: is this something a person would do if training for Ironman ?

I had followed a training plan that went for 16 weeks and structured similar to this, but the aim was to build volume each week by 10% (then -25% on 4th week for recovery).

However even by the 16week i was certainly not cycling 4hours, swimming 60minutes, running 90mins (i wish i was physically able to tho!).

I do not know, I was simply sugesting how to incorporate the low HR running training with the triathlon training.

The point is, if You building big aerobic base on lower HR, that You cant bugger it up with hard cycling or with interval anaerobic swimming etc,

so everything needs to be done in the same regime.

so no speed sessions at all, no treshold sessions at all.


if done realy in that HR zone, there is no reason why You cant build to 90 mins run or 4H of cycling or 1H of swimming

OK I need to do the breastroke if I attempt this.

and as I said, no need to pack it all into 1 week, have a rest days and spread into 10-14 days if needed, and of course build to it, so do not ride 4H in a first attempt.

Swimm easy, and take the brief rest if needed, but not becasue You puffing from anaerobic intervals.


All of that is simply the low HR aerobic base, which over the monts will guarantee the faster running, cycling and swimming speed at the same effort, same HR values... there will come teh time eventually when in preparation for some specific race (ironman as example), You might decide to incorporate teh hard sessions speed etc.

But there were successfull ironmans training stricly in aerobic zone only.

I occasionaly read the triathlon website and tehre is lots of articles and discussion about this, so You would be better off
to search for info and advice there.

Having said that, there is also lots of contradicting advice and experiences available, one of the tri coaches is pushing tyraining system more closely resembling our Victoralias philosophy, doing only hard sessions, and he actualy is pushing the idea, the cycling can be done in less than 1H sessions, going very hard on indoor windtrainers or mags machines ( he is Canadian living in cold winters) and never does more than 1H cycle session for many many months, even preparing for long ironmans.


It is important to really understand the each system, to know what and why and than choose only 1 system and really stick with it.

To combine systems is sabotaging ideas of each of them....

Thanks Rudolf for your reply. Got alot to think about and research on now.

Agree with rudolf's point - if you're doing aerobic training you have to stay aerobic for all your training.

It may also be of interest for those on this thread to look through a similar current thread

Jimmy

well...I ran for 90 min today and as a bonus I finished my first ever 10k run (well 10.2 but whose counting)...still slow (8:30 per k), but if nothing else my endurance is definately improving. Knees are sore, which I havnt really been feeling after the 1hr runs but I guess that could well be normal.

Keep at it. You will find your times will slowly get better. Low HR training is a long term method and most say that you need to stick with it for 3 months or more to reap the rewards. I have been using it and have shaved a lot of time off. I have decided to continue with it for a few more months, making the whole year dedicated to base building.

There's plenty of time!

Hit my first set back and it sucks, after a gradual build up in time and effort in each sport (1.6k swimming and 30k or so riding), my long run was up to 11-12k in about 1:30 which while still damn slow was at least showing signs of improving.

Then disaster struck I apparently have got achilis tendonitis (or something like that whatever the physio called it) apparently stretching and some calf strengthening work would have helped mitigate this, but anyway now I know getting old means warm up and stretch and I am no longer bulletproof, so looks like its just cycling and swimming for me for the next 3 weeks, hopefully I dont lose too much from the running fitness.

stretching is not always the answer to prevention or treatment of achilles, and in some case it can actualy be the very reason for the prob.

You need to do lot of reading to see what best describe Your situation...

Rudolf is correct. I'm surprised you didn't write down exactly what the physio told you it was, so that you could research the problem thoroughly.

the 'something like that' was in reference to how to spell it not as to what it was.

As to whether its the best way to help...self research or diagnosis by google I dont normally rate with professional advice from a physio (not saying he is correct just that he should have a reasonable good idea), so if it doesnt respond/improve based of his advice I will definately look at what alternatives there are.

Often achilies problems can be from you cycling. Sometimes there is too much float in the pedals. Sufferers will often think it is from their running and cycle heaps and just make it worse. Speedplay pedals are notorious for this.

I found that I got more injured when I tried low HR training...it appeared to impact on my running efficiency/biomechanics.

How often (once a year - e.g. pre-race season) and for how long (12 weeks or continuously) is it recommended that Low HR training occur?

I worked from the Maffetone program and from memory it was 12 weeks with strict instructions about what foods you could consume.
One of my training friends LOVES maffetone but I just didn't see the benefits. Would any elites athletes use this type of program as a base phase training regime?

Well if you call Mark Allen an elite athlete - he swears by the Maffetone method.
I've been using it for a couple of months now with great success.

Will keep an eye on that too, I have just been using my spin bike to keep cardio up this week so havnt actually been out on the bike, but it did seem to coincide with an increase in running mileage that added a rather steep hill portion.

Just thought I would give a brief update and see if people can offer some further advice.

1. I ended up taking 4 weeks off running and stuck to cycling and swimming, been very slow and cautious adding the running back in but I am now back to doing 2 1 hr runs (7.5-8k) and a 1:15-1:30 (10-12k) long run each week (also cycling 100-120k on alternate weekends, and swiming 1-2 times a week just FYI) .

I have found that changing my running routes to remove any significant hills seems to have helped and I can notice some slight pain if I do hilly runs, so in case it isnt fully recovered I currently just avoid any really steep hills (easier said than done!) I have also read up on chi runing and pose running and have even thrown in some barefoot running just to experiment with the differnce of feel, I personally have found minimising/removing the heel strike to be of great benefit and I plan to work on these techniques a bit more, interested to know other peoples opinions without starting a holy war

Now my real questions still sits around the MAF stuff as instead of runningfaster at the same heart rate I have been running at a slightly improved pace with a much lower heart rate. In my mid week runs I have gone from running 7.5k in in just over 1hr at av145hr (MAF) majority of running 143-145, to running 8k in an hr at 138 av with a large chunk of running occuring at the 135 area. So while at the moment I am happy anyway as there is an improvement I can track, I am interested to know whether people believe I should focus on continually trying to get the av hr down , or improve speed at the specific one, of course its possible that MAF -5 is completely appropriate and the right spot for me to be targetting at the moment anyway.

I am not training for a specific race at the moment so to me this is just base work anyway

On a personal note I must say I was also quite suprised to find it possible for me to run at that low a HR, when I started anything resembling a shuffle brought me up to 145 very quickly although I do still feel like a slightly more efficient turtle rather than a speed demon!

congratulation to the improvement and the progress.

I would wellcome true MAF discussion, this is however not possible as lately any attempt gets quickly sidetracked by invaders who will tell You quit teh MAF system amd, mixed it up, introduce speed etc basicaly telling You dropp teh MAF, as there is no such thing as a MAF combine with other system.

as tehre is no vegetaria, who does not eat meat for breakfast but for lunch and dinner,

You either are doing MAF or not, cant be half MAF, half veg or half pregnant.

To partially answer the question, I would point You back to the true MAF ONLY forum and this post of 1 member which I will try to reproduce briefly.

The runner training for months or maybe years on strictly MAF HR, was not making any progress at the pace at teh MAF HR

at 1 run he experienced some serious heart prob and went to emergency etc diagnosed with some issue heart related, was talking to the doc there who was runner/triathlet and the doc just smiled at the talk about low HR, giving in a way quite approval, not taking any responsibility for advice, what is important is that the runners decided to keep at MAF running, however decided to change the value of HR MAF.

Instead of adding +10 to the number 180-age (+10 = very fit, healthy, long time runner with regular nearly everyday training and aerobicaly very fit), decided to use 180-age - 10 (for unhealthy, unfit - since diagnosed with heart issue).

That kicked his MAF HR value 20 beats lower.

He resumed his running at this 20 lower value, was feeling good no heart issues so was building volume and after weeks realized, trhat suddenly he is improving his pace, all teh time, and after few additional months he was running same pace at his new by 20 lower HR MAF, than what he was running at his old MAF HR by 20 higher.

His conclusion was that sometimes we are too optimistic at choosing our MAF value and the agreeament on teh forum was thjat if You cant improve or hit plateau, start using lower HR, so oposite to treh usual philosophy - cant improve the pace - start running slower instead of pushing it faster.


So perhaps Your true aerobic fitness and body state means Your own true MAF HR is 135, rather than 145.

Personaly I very rarely go to my formula caalculated HR as MAF and am using values 10-20 less (different for walk and different for run)

Rudi said:

Rudi if ideas are strong they'll come through. They will stand the test of "invaders".

Questions.

I agree that it is a good method for beginners but does it really work for seasoned runners? How?

According to MAF, to get your threshold heart rate you need to take your age from 180. For me that is 125. My maximum is still around 180 (end of hard four k race). Thus I'd be running really, really, slow (for me) like 5 to 4:30 minute k pace. I know for certain that if I trained at that pace and nothing else I would race a lot slower. I race (hope to) at 3:20 pace for ten k. I cannot see how this method would improve on that pace. I guess because I am at the my limit of my abilty.

I do see that for a runner who has room for improvement the method would work and is probably the safer more sensible alternative.

Do you think that this method would work for all runners or just certain runners?

END of invasion.

Ron, sorry to say this, but You are constantly displaying the lack of understanding, what the MAF method is, how it works and why it works.

You propably read the maf forum very haphazardly, not paying attention and taking only what You wanna see.

1 issue comming up all the time is the racing. You cant race every week on maf system, You have to have long periods no racing, and minimum races.

This is not that different to Lydiard and his idealy 6 months of aerobic only stuff, no racing.

Look at Buster, Bideau - smarter than Lydiard method - racing ready all year around, but pretty inferior when the main season is on.

True Lydiard would make Buster to peak at the main race of the year, the smarter than Lydiard Bideau version makes Buster ready to take $$$ at out of season races, but fail at the main champ.


This is only very distand comparison of the issue, MAF has nothing to do with Lydiard, but if You can see the difference between Lydiard and Bideau, You have a chance to look at MAF from the correct angle.


If You are member of a club and forced to perform 52 weekends in a year, You cant do MAF but also You cant do Lydiard.

Rudi. I am asking you these questions based on the assumption that the athlete does adhere to the MAF program for an extended period. That is, running at a level where their heart rate doesn't exceed their aerobic threshold. For me, according to MAF, 180 minus my age 55 which is 125. I assume that the purpose of MAF is to run a fast time in ones chosen endurance event at the end of the race-free program. I know that if I ran around at a slow pace for a long time I would race slower. Am I wrong? Is it just to improve fitness for fun runners? Can it improve fitness in those who believe they are at their limit now? I don't understand.

I have reposted my original questions below. Hope you can assist me.

Ron, talking about MAF, You need to forgot everything You ever read or did regarding running training.


MAF HR is not aerobic treshold, staying under MAF HR is not about staying aerobic.

You keep looking at it from the old perspective using the old terminology.

There are many ways to get to the destination, many travels agents will get You there, however You need to stick with one
and follow that way forgetting that other ways do exist.

It is different concept.

You saying that Your MAF HR is 125, based on 180-age.

180 here does not represent the HRmax or anything like that, and the training is not based on some % of HR max, this is not about zones.

Further teh 180-age is just the first step, than You have to use additional factors, depending on the health and fitness and regularity of training etc, running age and so on, so teh result could be +10 or -10 the original value, so Your MAF HR could be 125+10=135, 125+5=130, 125, 125-5=120, 125-10=115.


I am working on some methods how to pick the correct HR for each individual based on testing on the track, it is too complicated to post and is still in working progress, I might write an article or a book perhaps.

My intuition is also telling me, that if the runner is fit, fast etc, would naturaly choose the +10 factor, however in my view if the this running level was achieved using anaerobic tools, runner should choose -10 instead.

The question - would the MAF method help to improve performances for every runner ?

Yes if done correctly, and this is a big IF.

How much time do You have to give it a go ? and what is the future targeted race ?

some of the MAF bufs on the forum are doing training strictly at their HR or under, but do race occasionaly perhaps 1x month at various distances - 5km - marathon and ultras, and they do show new PB's nearly all the time (mostly weather dependant), others kinda use the Lydiard seasonality, do strict MAF for 6 months some only 3 months and than do the Lydiard kind of weeks of pre racing periods, with hills, race pace, anaerobic etc... so each does something to fit with individual personality.


I cant guarantee improvement to anybody, I can only say, that If I was Your coach and You choose the MAF system, I am sure I would be able to guide You correctly, but not sure if I can do it longdistance, as I need to superwise the various test., That would however be my way of MAF application, so no strictly teh MAF for the masses.


The difference with the MAF method is that it should guarantee longevity running wise and health wise, should allowe for decades of running and many years of constant improvements as oposed to quickly gained quickly lost systems.

Not specifically using MAF derived heart rate, but very similar to what the figure is (I actually use 6BPM more which would be 4 less based on the +- 10 question) I have done my run training for near on 2 years using the theory.

My improvements have been dramatic. I came from over 7 min/km to around 4:35 pace at that heart rate. This holds true over 8, 10, 17.2 and 26kms which are the regular runs I do and only fades maybe 2 or 3 seconds from short to long. What I have found is that to pick up the pace in a race situation, I have nothing. For me to increase pace to say 4 minute pace, my heart rate increases dramatically and stays there even if I pull back the speed. This is no good running off the bike I have found as my bike is my strong point and I tend to give it some (still keepng MAF in mind).

For example, I just ran a 10km TT yesterday. 40:02 was the outcome. Balls out, had nothing left. When I can run 26km in 2:05 ish (4:30 low pace) at 65% max (karvonen), something is not adding up.

In my experience, MAF has been an outstanding foundation tool but as it has taken me to a reasonable level, on race day, it is not really working for me. It has turned me into a train like Tarzan, race like Jane person. In a pure running context, it is awesome but for the multi sport nature of triathlon, I am not convinced AND I have given it 2 years so am not dismissing something I know nothing about.

I think that an unfortunate part of MAF is that you never practice hurting. if the only time you hurt is in a race, the training has not been appropriate.

Rudi thanks for that. I have read a fair bit of this thread and others on the topic. Mark Allen's history is impressive. Like you said many roads to the same destination. I've been using the complex system for nearly 27 years. I really don't think you have been listening to me . I do very little , if any, anaerobic work except in race preparation period. I do a lot in the 150 to160 zone and a little in the 160 to 170 zone during my build up. My max is 180.

But as you say MAF is all or nothing so I'll leave you to it. I agree with your some of your last sentence that MAF "should guarantee longevity running wise and health wise, should allowe for decades of running ..." I don't regard my way of trainng as quickly gained and I know heaps of Masters who have used speed work all their running lives.



I think I'll stick with doing it my way. Thanks again for your patience.

You wellcome Ron

impressive running wise, to answer the 10km dilemma I would have to do the testing which I am experimenting with.

as far as triathlons, 1 of the issue is the swimm leg, if You forced to spend some minutes at high HR initialy the whole process for teh race is buggered, You will have to have recorded data from the whole race to be of any value to do any conclusions, but it is very interesting issue, the triathlon aplication and the racing strategy.

It is all much easier at running ultra where You can start at Your own pace and not to get pulled faster by anybody

If I were to run Ultra type running races, I wold say that my legit MAF rate (not my dodgy rate) would be golden. Ggood point about the swim. I think the most notable part is the run from the water and then the first 15 mins on the bike. It blows the whole thing out of the water.... so to speak

I agree with you.

I think at the end of the day, if you always run at one heart rate, you will get very good at that heart rate. But not necessarily at any other...

I do the vast majority of my running at MAF, because it is comfortable, enjoyable and repeatable. But I also like to mix it up, running below and above MAF occasionally as well. I generally find doing intervals or an all out TT improves my MAF pace.