Maffetone Racing Speed vs Training Speed?

Hi adamamelia,

the only relationship between base training speed—MAF pace—and race pace is a chart I compiled back in the 1980s. I collected data from hundreds of athletes comparing max aerobic pace (based on the 180-Formula) and 5K running race times (on flat, certified courses). This is the chart you probably have seen in my books. But I didn’t collect race date for cycling events, triathlons or other competitions because it’s not possible to reproduce different race courses. The purpose of the chart is to generally compare your aerobic and anaerobic function. Most runners will fit into the chart, and those that don’t—they’re either much slower or much faster in the race times compared to their aerobic pace—may have some problem with poor aerobic function, overtraining or other issues that need improving.

We could do something similar by measuring oxygen uptake and carbon dioxide output. This tells us how much sugar (glucose) and fat you burn at different paces. We can define aerobic as a state where higher fat and lower sugar is burned, and anaerobic as a state where lower sugar and higher fat is burned. Your MAF pace is associated with a high level of fat burning.

You also mention the example of a runner at 10 minutes per mile at their max aerobic heart rate. The 8:25 minutes per mile is where they end up months later after building a great aerobic base. In other words, today a runner goes 10 minutes per mile at a heart rate of 147, and six months later, if all goes well with training, diet, etc., the aerobic system develops and now the running goes 8:25 per mile at a heart rate of 147. This is an example, although I’ve seen these changes take place in many athletes.

Phil Maffetone

Thanks, PennState. Someone sent me the comment so I responded. I know there has been some controversy with my approach, but there’s much less when the misunderstandings are cleared up. Some of the comments posted above are not accurate, so some clarifications are in order.

JorgeM says that my approach has “little sound foundation on physiology.” This is untrue. My textbook (Complementary Sports Medicine published by Human Kinetics) provides detailed physiological descriptions with over a thousand references from exercise physiology texts and journals. In addition, I spent years employing physiological measurements in my clinic, testing athletes using EMG, EEG, RQ (respiratory quotient), blood and urine tests, and many others. And I often discuss the physiology behind my approach with my peers, some of whom have different opinions yet we can still have intelligent conversations.

As my books and articles clearly explain, when I discuss aerobic vs. anaerobic training, I’m referring to the mix of fuels used, namely fat and sugar, and not the academic definitions of oxygen and without oxygen.

Adventurebear says that my training methods incorrectly assume that “training over certain level will result in stalling your progress in terms of building yoru aerobic fitness.” This is generally accurate, except for the “incorrect” notion. If we use the fat/sugar burning model, and the goal of aerobic base building is to increase fat burning which contributes to one running or biking faster at the same heart rate over the weeks and months, it’s easy to demonstrate that adding too much hard training, which I’m calling anaerobic, can impair the base building process. This can be measured in various ways, including using RQ to monitor the amount of fat and sugar burning. Since most athletes don’t have easy access to a gas analyzer, I developed a track test in the early 1980s based on these (and other) lab results called the max aerobic function test (MAF test). Simply put, if an athlete is building the aerobic system, he or she should be able to run faster at the same heart rate over time. However, if they are not getting faster at the same heart rate, or getting slower, the aerobic system is not developing well.

adventurebear also says that, “The training zone that maffetone targets is roughly Zone 2 as defined by Friel, Level 2 as designed by Coggan, RPE of 9-11 based on the Borg 6-20 RPE scale.” Friel and Coggan have done some good work, but it was after I developed my heart rate training approaches. I can’t comment on the details unless I go back to read about their work, but if my 180-formula results in a similar heart rate to what they recommend, I’m not surprised. Perceived exertion (RPE) varies considerably during one’s base building period. Initially the level may be 9-11 on the Borg scale, but sometimes less. As the base builds and pace quickens, the RPE may be much higher even though the heart rate is the same. I recall testing triathlete Mike Pigg, who I trained for many years. He progressed during one base period to 5:20 pace (at his max aerobic heart rate of 155), and his PRE during this particular test was 16-18.

Adventurebear comments that, “it's very important to train at higher intensities before race day, with enough lead time to allow your body to accomodate to the higher intensity. Otherwise you risk injury & a bad race day.” I won’t argue with the general idea of this as I do recommend higher intensity workouts in most situations. However, I’ve seen hundreds of athletes perform their best following a period of only training at or below their max aerobic heart rate and performing no speed work. In the example above of Mike Pigg, I believe that was also the year he went through most of the race season only training at his max aerobic heart rate, and it was one of his best competitive years.

Phil Maffetone

I suspect we agree on most issues. The idea that the aerobic system contributes the most energy in all endurance events is the foundation of my approach, as I’ve been talking about that issue in particular throughout my career. I think it was the work of Astrand in the 70s who first showed that during a 2-minute all-out effort, half the energy was derived from the aerobic system and half from the anaerobic system. And, in a 10K race it’s over 95% from the aerobic system, increasing to over 99% during an Ironman.

I have used the names “aerobic system” and “anaerobic system” referring to their many physical and metabolic aspects. Among them is fat and sugar burning, with aerobic referring to the use of higher levels of fat (and lower levels of sugar), and anaerobic just the opposite. I’m very familiar with the literature as I read it everyday, and aware my definitions don’t precisely fit academic descriptions. But I’m not alone as various models and definitions abound in both physiology and the popular press.

The real question is how do athletes translate this information into effective training to improve health and performance?

I still see magazine articles about exercise that refers to aerobic as “using oxygen” and anaerobic as “without oxygen.” Does this mean we can perform 400-meter intervals without breathing? Certainly not. These definitions are not useful except in certain academic situations.

The word “anaerobic” is also regularly used throughout the athletic world, and extensively in published studies where it’s a key word. But the way the term is used is often technically incorrect. This further creates confusion for athletes.

Even the traditional Wingate test, a measure of anaerobic performance, incorporates moderate amounts of aerobic metabolism. This test requires that an athlete pedal an ergometer “all out” for 30 seconds, following a warm-up 3-5 minutes.

I decided long ago to loosely use the terms aerobic and anaerobic when referring to specific training levels (using heart rate as a biofeedback tool). I refer to aerobic as a level of intensity that builds a combination of both health and endurance, and increases fat burning. I determined a heart rate formula based on RQ measurements so athletes would not have to rely on an exercise physiology lab (the 180-formula). Training at or below a certain level of intensity helps increase fat burning, and also increases the pace at the same heart rate. The result is a healthier athlete with increased fitness (i.e. better performance). This is what I refer to as building the aerobic system.

Anaerobic training by my definition refers to higher intensities that increases sugar burning and lower fat burning. (This is one reason why so many endurance athletes have surprisingly high levels of body fat despite putting in many miles.)

For a long time I observed that the higher the RQ the higher the likelihood of injury and ill health, ultimately followed by reductions in performance. This is why I say “anaerobic” training at the wrong time can reduce aerobic function. (There are times when hard training is healthy, such as after a base-building period when the RQ is lower.)

My goal in training athletes is not to use the published literature as a guide, or write books by cutting/pasting what’s written in textbooks. Rather, it’s outcome oriented, (yet still has a physiological basis). The bottom line: I do what I think is necessary to help athletes perform their best while remaining healthy. We face an epidemic of fit but unhealthy athletes as reflected in the prevalence of injuries and overtraining. This is the real disservice.

I didn’t mean to get this far off topic. If this forum has a moderator, he or she would likely have stopped us. I’ve tried to keep my discussion relatively simple yet address the basic issues as we are not in a physiology forum, but one of beginner triathletes.

Phil Maffetone

These are good questions, and there’s an excerpt on the 180-Formula from “The Big Book of Endurance Training and Racing” on my website here

http://philmaffetone.com/180formula.cfm

that provides good answers, but I’ll give you a quick summary and history below.

The best way to determine training heart rates is through an individualized evaluation. It’s what Shane mentioned regarding a field test. This was my approach when training athletes. If you’re coaching, it’s what I recommend, and as an athlete if you’re looking for the best individualized training heart rate, I recommend doing the same, which usually means finding a sports professional who can assist you. If this is not an option, use the 180-formula. It may never be as good as an effective personalized assessment, but it comes very close.

During my years of training athletes, finding the best training heart rate was a relatively lengthy process of one-on-one assessment, involving many different measurements. With an athlete on a treadmill, stationary bike, or on the track, I would record many pre- and post-workout features such as gait, standing posture, muscle balance, postural blood pressure, etc., and correlate this with heart rate at various points before, during, and after workouts. I also used many of the results obtained during my initial physical evaluation.

It also involved comparing the heart rate with other measurements such as fat and sugar burning. In particular, finding the heart rate that correlates with the highest level of fat burning. (Those who do RQ testing will often see what is called a “deflection point” in the evaluation, where the slow rise in sugar burning suddenly takes a steeper incline. This correlates well with the results of the 180-Formula.) Other tests, such as lactate, Borg (perceived exertion) and later, salivary cortisol, were also done.

As I began writing and lecturing more, athletes asked about determining their own “max aerobic heart rate” without traveling to New York to see me. That got me thinking about a formula.

It was a matter of figuring out the mathematics, which too a number of weeks as I recall. I worked backwards from the heart rates already obtained in athletes who had previously been assessed as a guide. Once I found a formula, and it consistently compared well with my relatively lengthy process of one-on-one evaluations, I started writing and lecturing about it.

The number 180 in itself has no meaning, nor does 180-age, which is just a means to an end. (The number 180 came to me in the shower one day after a long run, one of those “ah ha” moments.) The important part of the formula is the adjustment (choosing category a, b, c, or d). With this, my attempt was to convert ones chronological age (in years) to physiological age (how healthy we are).

During the extremes of weather, both hot and cold, it’s often necessary to make outdoor training adjustments. Typically in the summer heat, I would reduce running volume but keep the heart rate the same. How much depends on the athlete, the temperatures, and other weather factors (such as humidity and barometric pressure).

The 180-Formula applies to any sport. I studied max aerobic HRs in many activities, and eventually concluded that separate formulas for running, biking and swimming were not necessary.

You will notice a significant difference between running, biking and swimming at your max aerobic HR regarding perceived exertion. 145, for example, will feel harder in the water than 145 during a run, with biking in the middle. This has to do with the stress of gravity--there’s a greater affect on the body during running compared with swimming (we use a lot more muscle mass during running). So in the water, you’ll have a much higher perceived exertion.