Maffetone Racing Speed vs Training Speed? (Page 2)

Sorry for the late response, I've been away BT tri-talk for a bit, and since I have my email notifications deactivated,  I didn't know I was missing out on this thread until someone refer it to me.

Anyway, 1st of all I apologize if my comments came across as offending but I stand by those. I was not attacking Dr. Maffetone because I simply don't know him. I do criticize his approach to HR training (180 formula), his use of the terms aerobic/anaerobic and his seemingly aversion for a mixed training load (higher intensities at MLSS, VO2 max, etc) all based on my knowledge (which probably is limited) but mostly based on what I've learned from fellow coaches/physiologist who are more experienced, smarter and knowledgeable than me.

At the same time, I am not physiologist and I am willing to be educated if he explains to me in detail the why his approach or the reasoning behind it with proof beyond anecdotal evidence. We might not agree but I always appreciate learning and exchanging ideas. I will concede some of the info related to his approach has not directly been communicated by him and this might be the reason why some misinformation gets spread around which is not his fault. But also, I have read a few interviews or article with Dr. Maffetone in which he specifically refer to a marathon or a shorter event as an "anaerobic event".

In terms of the 180-formula, I learned he might have done extensive research and came up with it what in his opinion is an effective way to do aerobic training. Still, if there is some peer-reviewed papers confirming the efficacy of this approach I would be happy to ready those, because at the moment, I am unaware of those. In fact, I visited his website and I only saw links to his books and skimming through the Maffetone Method one I didn't see any cited studies. (though the preview only has so many chapters)

More so, in practice, with a small sample of athletes, his formula is not as robust as he leads to believe; I've seen athletes who fall off the formula limits (when compared with pace and critical velocity) hence if they were to use that as the method to defining training levels, they could easily be under/over training.

Another problem following a general formula is the great variability with heart rate particularly when we deal with maximal HR. This by itself can be IMO a significant limitation. Finally the idea behind the formula is to find "an ideal maximum aerobic heart rate in which to base all aerobic training". My question is, ideal for what? If we talk about triathlons athletes can potentially focus on 4 different distance, but let's focus on two Olympic and Ironman. Based on basic physiology concepts, I have difficulty understanding how there can be one ideal HR to do all aerobic training.

In terms of limiting intensity, Dr. Maffetone has said that adding anaerobic training before developing your aerobic system can become a problem for an athlete. Assuming by anaerobic training he refers to LT, MLSS, VO2 max etc. then I ask him to show me the evidence about it. Training levels are man made and our bodies doesn't really know when we move from one zone to the next, and the training adaptations we produce correlate with each other. Certainly a variety of physiological processes occur in greater degrees at different intensities, still all related to each other.

IOW, even if you spend 'x' minutes at your VO2 max you not only improve your aerobic capacity, but also you improve though at a lesser degree adaptations such as increase lactate threshold, muscle glycogen storage, mitochondrial enzymes, etc.  OTOH, if you do a 3 hr ride all at lower intensities, you not only might be maximizing adaptations improving muscle fiber fatigue resistance or increasing mitochondrial enzymes, but at a lesser degree also, improving MLSS, VO2max, etc.

Now, if Dr. Maffetone is referring actual anaerobic capacity, then, I ask him why evidence suggest that adding for instance a protocol of HIIT to an endurance program can produce important training adaptations such as improvements in efficiency/economy?

Finally, there is well documented evidence suggesting that endurance athletes training around the MLSS will produce a variety of training adaptations including increase in glycogen storage and a reduction of oxidation, hence relying less on CHO and more on lipids at submaximal intensities. If that is the case, then why he suggest that training above this ‘ideal max aerobic heart rate” can be negative for endurance training?

Unless I'm missing the nature of your question, there is no magic number or formula to tell someone how fast their race pace/speed will or should be. 

The book talks about the MAF, building a base aerobic fitness and periodically checking your MAF so you can tell when you've "leveled off".  Then you have acheived your base level from which to build upon other training like speed drills, farklets, etc.  But there wasn't anything I caught in the book that had a chart or formula stating "if running 6.5mph for a 5k with HR at 148, you will run a marathon in X minutes"... if that was the case, why race, just submit your training time and call it a day

Perhaps the context he was referring to in the quote "you go all out" is, it's a matter of what particular max effort your body can maintain over the duration of the race (which could be a 5k, 10k, 13.1, 26.2, etc). 

just my 2 cents