Maffatone... day one

12

  1. watermoccasin

    offline
    Member

    According to the formula 128 is my max, so on goes the heart rate monitor strap, bike on the trainer, TV set to an old Paris-Roubaix DVD (sorry, CK), clip in an spin away.

    Way tough to keep the HR down

    shift to an easier gear... still too high

    small chain-ring... still too high

    switch the TV to a cooking show... still too high

    switch to Seinfeld reruns... still too high

    get off the bike and on the couch... 121! Bingo, we have a winner

    I did hit 135 when I got up and headed for the 'fridge to get make a sandwich but I walked slow going back to the couch and kept it under 125 most the time.

    Based on my new training regiment I'm gonna thrash the other old guys next year and not spend a minute on my bike all winter ;^)

    Seriously I did an hour and kept it 120-130 and was surprised at a couple things:

    1) It still felt like a decent workout

    2) I was not as bored as I feared

    3) There's still a bunch of sweat generated

    Posted 5 months ago

  2. AluminumFrog

    offline
    Member

    LOL

    Posted 5 months ago

  3. durielk

    offline
    Member

    I'm thinking I should be winning the weekly field sprint with all the time I spend below 128.

    Have any power lifters or track & field athlete's used this method?

    Posted 5 months ago

  4. huckleberry

    offline
    Member

    Sounds familiar ; )

    My first month - I swear my HR got higher just walking up the stairs from the basement after my workout.

    I wasn't sweating at all - didn't feel like I got any kind of a workout, and was bored...

    You're way ahead of me at that time ; )

    Keep with it! You'll be glad you did.

    Posted 5 months ago

  5. Cosmic Kid

    offline
    Member

    Where are you guys determining your starting HR levels?

    Just say "NO!!" to WCP!

    "Want to get faster? Work harder, eat better, cut the crap. Instead of talking the talk, work the work"
    Posted 5 months ago

  7. bodynazi

    offline
    Member

    At first glance I was like "wow - a smack addict on the VN forum - who'd have thunk?"

    that's what I'd think too. Training w/o doing anything. It's interesting for sure - I'd be interested in hearing how it works out

    For 'real world' situations I could not see how this would be even a little applicable. Hiking uphill to an alpine ice climb with a 35 lb pack at 12,000 elevation my HR is sure over 120 - prolly around 150. For actual climbing - it's sure higher than 150 especially if difficult and/or terrifying. Bike racing - or training with a fast group - you'd last maybe 200 meters before getting shelled if you tried to keep your HR below 150, much less 130. The last crit I won - my average HR was 173.

    That said - some of my commutes (often when I'm working out/ training a lot)- apx 30-35 minutes - I do ride casually - not sure of HR but likely < 150. So perhaps I'm doing a bit of this training method unintentionally.

    I'm anxious to hear how that goes for you.

    ** note - just saw huckleberry's post on this... wow - works. I stand corrected...

    Posted 5 months ago

  8. Cosmic Kid

    offline
    Member

    Thanks, huck.

    I sometimes wonder if new training programs aren't necessarily "better" but just "different". This difference nets changes in your body's response to the training stimuli.

    So huck mentioned that he had been a "go hard", intervals type of guy for years. He changes to Maffetone and yields significant adaptations. You also see similar gains when someone finally incorporates intervals after years of "just riding."

    Dunno....as someone else noted, it shows that that there is still a lot to learn about human physiology.

    I may give this a shot since I have no need to begin hard trianing for a number of months yet.

    Posted 5 months ago

  9. Keith RIchards

    offline
    Moderator

    I agree CK. I think this speaks to the idea of switching up your training program as opposed to doing the same thing, year in and year out.

    The thread about being competitive as opposed to being healthy comes to mind when reading about Huck's problems.

    I was just reading something on Lemond. His training since he was 16/17 years old consisted of hard interval workouts starting in February. Mitochondrial Myopathy or just the long term effects of pushing your body to unhealthy extremes in order to be competitive, ya know?

    It is his word versus ours. We like our word. We like where we stand and we like our credibility."--Lance Armstrong.
    Posted 5 months ago

  10. huckleberry

    offline
    Member

    I agree with you CK & KR...

    Especially in my case with the response to Maffetone.

    I had been out of competition for several years from triathlon with a severe degeneration of my talus - was fortunate enough to get an osteochondral graft 7 years ago and once recovered I went balls out for the next 4 years - all cycling since I decided to give up running for fear of future damage.

    I never spent the time building up a solid aerobic base, and now that I have spent the time to do it, and to let my body recover, it's responding quite well to it.

    Posted 5 months ago

  11. Jimmy

    offline
    Member

    Huck...I also have an educational background in Exercise Science. I work for Health Information organization, so I keep pretty close tabs on continuing education, and will likely renew my coaching license as a Level 2 coach this year.

    I am well aware of the Maffetone approach, and the success of many...primarily triathletes...who train using this system. The theory being, in my humble opinion, is the steady state nature of triathlon. The maffetone system relies entirely on the development of the aerobic system through mitochondrial adaptation, at least that is the prevalent theory. Because high level endurance athletes tend to have the mindset that "harder is better" we've gravitated toward completing threshold intervals to increase aerobic capacity when it does not seem to be necessary. However, there are some flies in that ointment.

    Competitive cyclists obviously rely heavily on their aerobic engine, but what creates splits in the group, splinters groups on climbs, or wins a sprint, is not our aerobic engine, rather it relies primarily on the anaerobic energy sytems, the glycolytic and non-oxidative aerobic ability to generate energy. Neither of these systems are particularly well trained using the Maffetone program. The ability to buffer lactate accumulation (go supermaximal for longer periods of time) or launch repeated short attacks are the result of supermaximal training...intervals in the 30 second to 3 minute range.

    I am of the opinion...and I have some reasonable data behnd it from athletes I've coached...that you train at a low level, much lower than most programs prescribe, to build your aerobic system while not beating up your central nervous system. At the appropriate time, you build in very specific supermaximal efforts designed around the needs of the athlete's racing schedule. You stay out of "no man's land" (generally zone 3-4) pretty much always. Using this approach, I sent one of my athletes, a Master's woman who was a touring cyclist until two years ago, to Nationals in Bend in 2012. My experience has been that the hardest part of this approach is getting buy-in from the athlete. It is a huge leap of faith to go really easy most of the time, but if they are aware that I'll be flogging them with supermaximal work at some point, it usually helps :)

    Posted 5 months ago

  12. C2K_Rider

    offline
    Member

    BN: "For 'real world' situations I could not see how this would be even a little applicable. " etc.

    The point of "Maffetone" (nee LSD) training is to raise your base level to the point that those hard efforts required in racing are simply brief peaks in the general landscape. If you can raise your base to the level of most others "hard" effort then you will have the reserve capacity to do the truly hard efforts. Doing the "maffetone" training does not obviate later fast training efforts, you just build your base effort level to a very high point before you start those. With a great base it takes little time to build the speed - a couple months at most.

    I did this in running - not a good sport for me - never liked it much and certainly don't have a runners body, but decided to do a marathon. Started out literaly walk 50 steps, jog 50 steps. Then gradully building up to running 15 min, walking a minute (the Galloway method) I started with the Jeff Galloway running group (the original, led by him, in Atlanta) at 9 min per mile (enforced pace - that is, don't run faster than that) and over 6 months graduated to 8 min miles, then 7 min mile groups. For up to 30 mile runs. My steady state HR stayed the same throughout - around 130. Never crusied so easily in my life. Once I did a 20 miler at 7 min/mile then spent the rest of the day hauling 10 tons of granite blocks to the back yard. Felt fine.

    Then the speed work started - only race pace, not super efforts. Up to 10 X 1 mile at desired race pace. One min rest between. I ended up being able to do a 10 K in 38 min and placed in my age group (at that time 48 yo). Later did a sub-hour 10 miler and a 3:05 marathon.

    It works. Just takes time. Most people are too impatient for results or get caught up in the local group weekly worlds race and can't stand the idea of others riding past them.

    "The stone age didn't end because the earth ran out of stones, and the oil age won't end because the earth runs out of oil" -- Amory Lovins, Rocky Mountain Institute, rmi.org
    Posted 5 months ago

  13. dkri

    offline
    Member

    Now I remember why I was scared to try this - according to the formula I should be going between 133 and 143 bpm, but close to 143 as often as possible. Let me tell you that nothing about 143 bpm equates to words like "slow" or "easy" for me. Maybe I've inadvertently been doing it a lot, since I will do 2 or 3 20' hunks of it in a trainer workout in the winter. I'll sometimes do long winter rides with people at that pace and they get pissed off because we're going too fast. And in fact straight out of a long block of doing that kind of workout I had a 20' test that kind of blew me away. But that HR ain't easy for me, no sir.

    For me to be in the "embarrassingly slow and easy" realm, I'd have to knock 20 beats off of his range.

    Last night I did a bunch of 2 minute intervals at high VO2 intensity (remember I'm still in race season), and my hr maxed at 170 in one of them. That's REALLY high for me. Highest HR I've seen this year is maybe 175.

    But I don't really question that it works.

    For disclosure purposes, I am a partner in November Bicycles. This fact probably colors everything I say. I'm clearly not to be trusted.
    Posted 5 months ago

  14. 79pmooney

    offline
    Member

    Jimmy, a question for you. Is there benefit to riding mostly flattish roads with some hills and keeping one's heartrate in Zone 2 (for me, <128), then ensuring my heartrate stays in Zone 5 (>158) for the duration of the hills I do see, since climbing anything at below 128 is way too painful (mentally) and I love attacking hills.

    I haven't calculated my Zones in 7 years. Pretty sobering! And since I have used the heart monitor very little, I haven't known what my rates actually were. Thank you for your post. You put science to what the CONI manual laid out for training decades ago. I wish I still had the copy I was given. Good info, but also fun to read as an American because it was translated from Italian to British (as opposed to what Americans consider "English").

    Ben

    Posted 5 months ago

  15. nightfend

    offline
    Member

    Yeah, I don't get it. I went to the site, calculated my heartrate and got 145. Which is about where I normally train anyway. How are you guys calculating heartrates down in the 120's?

    Posted 5 months ago

  16. TheShortWhiteGuy

    offline
    Member

    I wonder how much energy (physical and mental) is spent just to keep ourselves in the "zone"?

    Had my bi-annual Nephrology appointment yesterday. Resting HR was 39, BP was 112/80.

    Life is too short to be small. - Disraeli

    So, why not be petty? - The Short White Guy™
    Posted 5 months ago

  17. bodynazi

    offline
    Member

    C2K - that is an impressive result... 7 min miles with your HR at 130 seems incredible and quite the testimate to that type of training.. How fast can you run with your HR at 170? 5s?

    definitely interesting...

    Posted 5 months ago

  18. hoshie99

    offline
    Member

    Interesting in that formula puts me at zone 2 (135) which is just a little under a lot of the harder aerobic base building I do (usually around 140-145). I however do a lot at just below my lactate threshold which would be a big no no in this approach. I also do intensity right now for short duration due to the demands of cross. So far, it's working OK.

    I think it is certainly interesting and have heard of marathoners and others spending tons of time at relatively low heart rate zones to build their aerobic base and "lift the floor." Certainly, it seems to be working for you Huck, so that is good to hear.

    My grad school room mate is a Phd in Sports Science and he basically did the same approach for 6 months with the claim he was setting himself up for the next yr or two for more work as he wanted to build back into competitive endurance events. His wife is a pro triathlete (and a world champ in her chosen discipline/distance) so he (and his SO) seems to have had some success in targeting endurance components.

    Interesting stuff. Counter to what I am doing for cross now but something to think about. Certainly not group ride friendly, and I think it's smart to do what you like on Saturdays otherwise perhaps the joy would be gone.

    I am like you DKRI, in that 140 bpm feels like work to me for sure. My avg in a cross race is around low 170s but that's the nature of that type of thing.

    j

    Posted 5 months ago

  19. Cosmic Kid

    offline
    Member

    How are you guys calculating heartrates down in the 120's?

    We're OLD!!!

    ;-)

    Posted 5 months ago

  20. hoshie99

    offline
    Member

    exactly

    Posted 5 months ago

  21. dkri

    offline
    Member

    Hoshie - In a 90 minute xc mountain bike race where I SLAUGHTERED myself (and still got beat for the win) I averaged 157. One hour mountain bike time trial where I rode as hard as I could and did quite well, 157. If I coast for a handful of seconds my heart rate plummets. I remember one road race where I attacked pretty early on and stayed away with another guy for 40' in basically a two up TT I was like 163.

    Posted 5 months ago

  22. Keith RIchards

    offline
    Moderator

    Wow...you run low on the heart rate. When I am in decent form, I am conversational at 175.

    Posted 5 months ago

  23. Jimmy

    offline
    Member

    Ben...To answer your question, while the idea of Zone 1-2 in the flats and going supermaximal on the other hils lacks the specificty needed for a particular buildup for a target, it is still fundamentally sound. As for using your HR monitor, again in my humble opinion, the best use of an HR is to ensure you are keeping your HR BELOW a certain target, not necessarily ensuring you are hitting high numbers. HR is not an exact representation of effort or oxygen utilization to "fund that effort. It is heavily impacted by hydration levels, fatigue, sympathetic stimulation, etc. Further, there is a lag time between workload and an associated HR response. For example, if I do a 30 second all out effort, my HR will continue to climb well after the effort is done. So, RPE or power are better indicators of effort for supermaximal intervals of 3 minutes or less. So use your HR to ensure you are hitting your endurance target, but ignore it on climbs and just go like a bat out of hell :)

    Posted 5 months ago

  24. C2K_Rider

    offline
    Member

    " How fast can you run with your HR at 170? 5s? "

    This is where you have to look at individuals. My Max HR has NEVER been higher than 185 and that was when I was young and doing maximum swimming interval workouts. I top out now around 162. That is flat out sprinting or maximum hill climbing up the steep stuff. I think my athletic "career" such as it wass, was limited by my max HR. just couldn't push enough blood to keep up with the best.

    for some reason my HR never went too high on running workouts. I never really pushed it too hard. Except for the 5 or 10k races, then I'd be around 150 for the duration (for the one-hour cycling hillclimb race I did a few weeks ago I was flat out and on the edge of failing the whole way and my average HR was 148). My best one-off mile time was around 5:50, again - no maximum speed work at all, so not really "fast." Long runs are all about steady effort and feeling at any point like you can make the distance. and in running I wasn't really trying to go for any speed - just finish the distance. It was just for fun.

    90% of my run training was 3 days a week - 12 miles on Tues/Thurs, 20-30 miles on sunday. The other days were cycling. It was just more efficent time-wise to do as much as possible at one time.

    One other thing to remember about running vs cycling is that running too fast - beyond your body's capability - will lead to injury. That is not much of a factor in cycling.

    Posted 5 months ago

  25. Orange Crush

    offline
    Member

    Ben - sounds like we're on a similar "program" although mine lacks the benefit of any monitoring, I go by feel...targeted towards being able to ride solo for long periods and ride uphill at descent speeds.

    The lack of specificity becomes glaringly apparent on those few occasions a year I find myself in a semi-racing situation. Sufferbus and/or getting shelled rules those days. Otherwise it works well, if you can whistle up Passo Giau or Grappa, then life is good.

    The wise man said follow me...and he walked behind.
    Posted 5 months ago

12

Reply »

You must log in to post.