MAF-Maffetone Method-any thoughts?

IMHO, I have one big problem with the MAF method.

He completely (correctly, IMHO) debunks the 220-age maxHR formula, but then fully expects us to accept his 180-age formula? Why, just because he says it's "scientifically based"? I don't believe you can have a HR based program which does not take into accout individuality.

I strongly suggest you go to a local library and see if you can get find it. I found one copy at mine. Note that he has several books that pretty much all say the same thing, so do an auther search instead of a title search.

I didn't like the book much at all. He never goes into the science of his method and has some interesting shoe thoughts.

It worked for Mark Allen, Mike Pigg, Chuckie V.... Frankly it's not much different then what gordo describes in his 4 Pillars articles.

From everything I've seen of Mark Allen's on-line coaching program, it's based on the Maffetone methodology.

Maffetone was the first to really preach the use of HRM's. Is his 180-age more scientific then the 220 formula? I find it hard to believe, BUT the results of the 180 formula for me is within a couple bpm of what Friel would describe as the bottom of my Zone 2.

The MAF test that's described in the article is a very efficient way of measuring progress, IMHO.

He has a number of books published, but as the other poster mentioned, they basically all say the same thing.

scott

I used the Maffetone formula to pick a heart rate for training earlier this year. A foot injury prevented me from doing a hard run to get a better estimate of my actual fitness.

Recently I noticed that 180 - age looked a lot like (220 - age) - 40. Both are based on age. I used a spreadsheet to compare the ranges of values from the Maffetone formula, after applying his adjustments, to see what percentage of 220 - age would give the same numbers. I compared from 20 years old to 65. 75% of (220 - age) is the same as Maffetone's recommendation for a beginner 20 year old. 75% of (220 - age) is also close to the top of the Maffetone range, what a veteran triathlete should use, for a 65 year old.

The old (220 - age) formula may not be very accurate by itself but taking a reasonable percentage of it as your training heart rate puts you at the same place as the Maffetone formula. I think Maffetone provides a conservative, safe training method and target heart rate estimate. It's not the only way to get fit but it will work.

I have heard the 180-age formula is something he thought up in the shower. No joke.
It did work for some people and it works for a lot of people actually. It's not based on anything concete which is why I have a hard time with it. I have a comparison on my site about all the methods if you are interested:
http://www.d3multisport.com/articles/heartrate.html

I hope this helps clear up the confusion.

Thanks Mike!!! :-)
J