General Discussion Triathlon Talk » Has anyone tried the 180 formula from Phil Maffetone Rss Feed  
Moderators: k9car363, alicefoeller Reply
Show Per page
 
 
of 2
 
 
2015-10-01 8:05 PM
in reply to: marcag

User image

Regular
585
500252525
Pueblo, Colorado
Subject: RE: Has anyone tried the 180 formula from Phil Maffetone
Originally posted by marcag

Originally posted by Afletcher
Tedjohn...for the MAF tests, do you run those as hard as possible and disregard HR (in order to see if you can run faster) or during a MAF test, do you stay at you MAF HR?



You stay at your MAF HR and you see how fast that is
In theory, as you improve, you go faster at the same HR.



I did ALL of my running at the same Aerobic Threshold rate. I did a lot of volume and not surprisingly, found that over time I could run a faster pace at the same HR. It does work, it just takes a lot of volume and time.


2015-10-01 8:12 PM
in reply to: tedjohn

User image

Expert
1644
100050010025
Oklahoma
Subject: RE: Has anyone tried the 180 formula from Phil Maffetone
Originally posted by tedjohn

Originally posted by marcag

Originally posted by Afletcher
Tedjohn...for the MAF tests, do you run those as hard as possible and disregard HR (in order to see if you can run faster) or during a MAF test, do you stay at you MAF HR?



You stay at your MAF HR and you see how fast that is
In theory, as you improve, you go faster at the same HR.



I did ALL of my running at the same Aerobic Threshold rate. I did a lot of volume and not surprisingly, found that over time I could run a faster pace at the same HR. It does work, it just takes a lot of volume and time.


My guess is "a lot of volume and time" running will have you running at a faster pace at the same HR no matter what. I don't think it has anything to do with the Maffetone method it has to do with the amount of miles you are putting in. The only advantage I can see to the Maffetone method is it could help keep the injury bug away by keeping your pace down.
2015-10-02 1:16 AM
in reply to: marcag

User image

Extreme Veteran
1175
1000100252525
Langley, BC, 'Wet Coast' Canada
Subject: RE: Has anyone tried the 180 formula from Phil Maffetone
Originally posted by marcag

Originally posted by 3mar

Maybe I have a low HR or something. If I do the formula (and add 5 bpm for experience since I've been running for quite a few years), that'd be 180-37+5=148. I did 4x800 intervals this morning, and I was averaging 148 during my intervals....at a 6:30 pace. No way was that "easy". When I do my long runs of 12 miles, I normally run about an 8:15 pace and I average in the 120's. So I couldn't use this or I'd kill myself.


And if you met Maffetone and he assessed you, he probably wouldn't have you run at 148.

I've listened to him many times in podcasts and when he explains things it makes a lot more sense. Bottom line, he wants you to develop your aerobic system, while limiting the chances of injury and hurting yourself. The way he does it is to actually have you run at various speeds on a track, looking at your gate, how you suffer....Then through questionaires and assessment he comes up with a HR. He has said point blank he does not use the 180 formula. He does not because he is able to assess other ways, but for those that can't the 180 formula is close enough (according to him)

Now, if you take the thousands of assessments he has done and the tons of data he has analyzed and you plot it, you'd come out with the 180-age formula. It's a VERY general formula and gives a ballpark for MANY/MOST but not all people.

A very recent interview he said he would put you on a treadmill and measure your RQ and the speed is ramped up. At the point where your lactate starts to raise and your use of carbs vs fats accelerates, then he would back up a few HR and this would be your MAF target.

This is very very close to what others label Aerobic threshold, LT1....all different names.

Take the studies done by others like Veronique Billat and Stephen Seiler (more known by many here) and they show that the best runners in the world train mostly at the Aerobic threshold/LT1 point. This is not a Maffetone invention.

Wether you do a threshold test that "estimates" threshold and then you use a formula to estimate LT1 based on an estimate, or you use a ballpark formula like MAF, you are doing the same thing, you are estimating where this point is. Take the Daniels or McMillan charts, they are estimating where this point is but based on pace.

Some people do the simplest approach possible. Based on ability to hold a conversation.

That's because as you go from walking to jogging to running to sprinting, things are happening. Lactate is increasing, HR is increasing, breathing is changing....It happens to be at this "breakpoint" of LT1 and LT2 there are physioligical markers than the scientists use. Breathing and ability to speak is one.

I have played with every method possible and I am fortunate they all line up pretty well. I do this because I find it interesting. Every workout is an experiment :-). If I didn't I would use the "can I hold a conversation" method. It's as good, just not as cool :-)

Figure out where that point is FOR YOU, spend a lot of time there and you will improve.


Well-written post, Marc.

2015-10-02 8:41 AM
in reply to: tedjohn

User image

Expert
1019
1000
Muncie, IN
Subject: RE: Has anyone tried the 180 formula from Phil Maffetone
So the "test" is actually just the same as a normal training run. Right? Except with a warm-up.
2015-10-02 9:04 AM
in reply to: 0

User image

Extreme Veteran
5719
5000500100100
Subject: RE: Has anyone tried the 180 formula from Phil Maffetone
Originally posted by Afletcher

So the "test" is actually just the same as a normal training run. Right? Except with a warm-up.


that is correct. If you want another method to track progress on "easy runs" and you are using TP, look at 2 numbers

Here is a "low HR" run yesterday at lunch http://tpks.ws/Cu2M
Look at the top right

look at pa:HR this is something called decoupling. It's a measure of how much your HR drifts as you run at a constant speed. It gives a good indication of your aerobic fitness. This was an exceptional run. Negative is incredible (for me). Somewhere around 5% is good, above 10% is bad. This is a very good indicator during a MAF run.

look at EF and track it from run to run. This is "efficiency". The faster you go, on same or less beats, the higher the number gets. 1.48 is good for me, but 1.2 may be as good for you. If it was 1.15 last month, and 1.48 this month, things are getting better

All this to say there are ways of measuring improvement without all out threshold tests, although those are probably the best




Edited by marcag 2015-10-02 9:05 AM
2015-10-02 9:27 AM
in reply to: runtim23

User image

Expert
2355
20001001001002525
Madison, Wisconsin
Subject: RE: Has anyone tried the 180 formula from Phil Maffetone
Originally posted by runtim23

Originally posted by brigby1

Originally posted by runtim23 eh I'm more like Mike, I feel like I'm cheating if I don't spend most my time around 155-165, occasionally hit 180, but I rarely ever pull 20mpw. Usually around 15 and I'm sure age can change. Try to use each of 3 paces over the span of 12 days or so, if I fit 2 of 1 pace it will be the medium. long slow pace, 6-10 miles medium tempos 2-5 miles fast mile or intervals

That description sounds more like not believing in the method whereas someone like 3mar doesn't fit with the method. At least not with the average.




Maybe. I'm not going for IMs or anything, but from my experience doing these long slow paced runs all the time, even if I exceed 20mpw kills my 5k and 1 mile time. I hardly ever check my HR though, so I might be giving it the consideration it deserves.


But you are not running long slow pace all the time.

Its using the up tempo/threshold work at the appropriate times to get the right stimulus. A long slow run of 75+ minutes can have several stride efforts at 5k/1 mile pace and improve your efficiency. But by doing more running at 80-85% if your threshold pace versus 70%, it won't chance the stress total on your body too much, but that 80% will have a much effect on the trauma and physical pounding that your body has to recover from, think of it as similar to compound interest. Again that is why stride work can be so effective, hit your pace, work on your run efficiency, minimize the fatigue, maximize the recovery, repeat.

I would recommend to everyone to run more often before running with more intensity and those long slow runs won't feel so awkward at such as easy pace.

But if you are training for an Ironman and that race is your goal, then your 5k/1 mile times are just about irrelevant.


2015-10-02 9:31 AM
in reply to: EKH

User image

Expert
2355
20001001001002525
Madison, Wisconsin
Subject: RE: Has anyone tried the 180 formula from Phil Maffetone
Originally posted by EKH

Originally posted by tedjohn

Originally posted by marcag

Originally posted by Afletcher
Tedjohn...for the MAF tests, do you run those as hard as possible and disregard HR (in order to see if you can run faster) or during a MAF test, do you stay at you MAF HR?



You stay at your MAF HR and you see how fast that is
In theory, as you improve, you go faster at the same HR.



I did ALL of my running at the same Aerobic Threshold rate. I did a lot of volume and not surprisingly, found that over time I could run a faster pace at the same HR. It does work, it just takes a lot of volume and time.


The only advantage I can see to the Maffetone method is it could help keep the injury bug away by keeping your pace down.



^That is one of the more important reasons.
2015-10-02 10:59 AM
in reply to: 0


318
100100100
Sarasota, Florida
Subject: RE: Has anyone tried the 180 formula from Phil Maffetone
Originally posted by bcagle25

Originally posted by runtim23

Originally posted by brigby1

Originally posted by runtim23 eh I'm more like Mike, I feel like I'm cheating if I don't spend most my time around 155-165, occasionally hit 180, but I rarely ever pull 20mpw. Usually around 15 and I'm sure age can change. Try to use each of 3 paces over the span of 12 days or so, if I fit 2 of 1 pace it will be the medium. long slow pace, 6-10 miles medium tempos 2-5 miles fast mile or intervals

That description sounds more like not believing in the method whereas someone like 3mar doesn't fit with the method. At least not with the average.




Maybe. I'm not going for IMs or anything, but from my experience doing these long slow paced runs all the time, even if I exceed 20mpw kills my 5k and 1 mile time. I hardly ever check my HR though, so I might be giving it the consideration it deserves.


But you are not running long slow pace all the time.

Its using the up tempo/threshold work at the appropriate times to get the right stimulus. A long slow run of 75+ minutes can have several stride efforts at 5k/1 mile pace and improve your efficiency. But by doing more running at 80-85% if your threshold pace versus 70%, it won't chance the stress total on your body too much, but that 80% will have a much effect on the trauma and physical pounding that your body has to recover from, think of it as similar to compound interest. Again that is why stride work can be so effective, hit your pace, work on your run efficiency, minimize the fatigue, maximize the recovery, repeat.

I would recommend to everyone to run more often before running with more intensity and those long slow runs won't feel so awkward at such as easy pace.

But if you are training for an Ironman and that race is your goal, then your 5k/1 mile times are just about irrelevant.


I honestly didn't read the entire program nor am I calling it quackery, I'm sure you do improve aerobically. But it definitely lost me at 180-age cause that's pretty slow for me and I don't have extra hours to spend. I have never injured myself running, but I find it funny I experience more joint/bone pain at slower paces due to more strides and "bouncing". Could be bad form or conditioning since I don't train at that pace as much. I've constructed this model in my head where I attack the distance from both ends. For example, if I'm training for a 10k, I run both 8 mile runs while improving my pace, but I also run 3 mile runs improving my distance at that pace. I'm a fan of this strategy, but this obviously becomes unrealistic if you are training for a half marathon or longer. Throwing some fast mile runs in, in moderation as a supplement, make me feel more efficient during any run at any pace and it only costs me 10 minutes of my time including the shower.

But yes, this probably won't do much for you during a longer race, unless maybe you get into a sprinting battle at the end, which I always hear is discouraged, but for some reason I still see them happen.

Edited by runtim23 2015-10-02 11:00 AM
2015-10-04 4:09 AM
in reply to: Triathlon_daddy

User image


66
2525
Subject: RE: Has anyone tried the 180 formula from Phil Maffetone

A response....

If you have asthma, you are prone to respiratory stress, which means that the question of whether your MAF heart rate is off should, in the overwhelming majority of cases, lead to the conclusion that your heart rate needs to be lower, not higher. Look at the formula in this article, and derive your heart rate accordingly.

So that's pretty clear then!

Thanks for all the comments above.

2015-10-04 4:53 AM
in reply to: 0

User image

Expert
2852
20005001001001002525
Pfafftown, NC
Subject: RE: Has anyone tried the 180 formula from Phil Maffetone
I'm dealing with a nagging runner's knee issue. I did all 4 of my runs at Maff;s prescribed target HR, this week (20mi). It's easier on the body to run slower. That's for sure. I don't know enough about exercise physiology to know what fuel was being utilized. I don't have anything on the horizon that would stop me from continuing this through the winter. I want to run a HM in January, but I have no finishing time delusions.

I've heard mention of this method being good for people who are going long. Can someone define long?

Edited by nc452010 2015-10-04 4:54 AM
2015-10-04 5:27 AM
in reply to: 0

User image

Extreme Veteran
5719
5000500100100
Subject: RE: Has anyone tried the 180 formula from Phil Maffetone
Originally posted by nc452010
I've heard mention of this method being good for people who are going long. Can someone define long?


It is not just for people 'going long'..
It's for people that want to develop and maintain a strong aerobic base and this applies from a 5k to ultra marathoning.
It does not need to be 180-x. There are multiple ways to monitor running at an easier effort and building fitness through frequency of running and volume.
Once you have developed a strong base and are injury free, sharpen your fitness with some running at higher speed or strength type work, but first develop a strong running base. That's what it is trying to promote

Edited by marcag 2015-10-04 5:41 AM


2015-10-04 9:23 AM
in reply to: Triathlon_daddy

User image


1502
1000500
Katy, Texas
Subject: RE: Has anyone tried the 180 formula from Phil Maffetone
It was noted before, but it is interesting the difference heat makes. I normally do all my long runs on the treadmill, and maintain mid-120's at "conversational" pace, which is around 8:20. My MIL is in town and watched the kids so my wife and I got to do our long run together this morning. We ran outside on a relatively cool day for here (mid-80's) and we chatted the whole time, ran an ave 8:30 and my average HR was 145, much closer to the 180 formula. It's dead flat, so apparently heat plays a much bigger role (for me anyway) than hills on the treadmill in regard to HR. I actually felt like the effort level was much less today, but my HR was 25 BPM higher than inside runs with elevation changes.
2015-10-04 11:17 AM
in reply to: 3mar

User image

Extreme Veteran
5719
5000500100100
Subject: RE: Has anyone tried the 180 formula from Phil Maffetone
Originally posted by 3mar

It was noted before, but it is interesting the difference heat makes. I normally do all my long runs on the treadmill, and maintain mid-120's at "conversational" pace, which is around 8:20. My MIL is in town and watched the kids so my wife and I got to do our long run together this morning. We ran outside on a relatively cool day for here (mid-80's) and we chatted the whole time, ran an ave 8:30 and my average HR was 145, much closer to the 180 formula. It's dead flat, so apparently heat plays a much bigger role (for me anyway) than hills on the treadmill in regard to HR. I actually felt like the effort level was much less today, but my HR was 25 BPM higher than inside runs with elevation changes.


I was part of a science experiment at the local university. They put me in a giant calorimeter, put a thermometer down my throat and up my .... to measure core temperature.They put a gas exchange mask on me to measure VO2. They put sensors on my skin to measure blood vessel dilatation. Then they cranked up bike resistance, heat and humidity to see what happens. 4 hours of it.

Humidity was a much bigger factor for me. Pure heat, even close to 40deg C was less of a factor.

2015-10-04 11:21 AM
in reply to: runtim23


1660
10005001002525
Subject: RE: Has anyone tried the 180 formula from Phil Maffetone

For all the folks who say 'it's too slow', it's absolutely certain that it is because they are not running enough volume.

 

If you simply can't do that kind of increased volume, then sure, running faster over shorter distances will be a better (and slightly riskier depending on how fast) way to increase fitness, but make no mistake that to get the most long-term aerobic gains, doing lots of run volume at easy aerobic rates is the way to go. 

 

And increasing volume for most folks on BT doesn't mean just 10-20% over the long run. For some of the folks here (me included), the good gains didn't come until I was more run-focused and doubled+ my run volume (triple, actually in my case.) It is very possible that if you only go from 18  to 22 miles per week of running, but pull back on intensity to Maffetone HR, you'll get worse/slower, since the 4 mile bump in volume won't offset the loss of the intensity. Go from 20mpw to 40mpw, though, and we're talking a whole different category of performance results. 

2015-10-04 11:41 AM
in reply to: marcag

User image


1502
1000500
Katy, Texas
Subject: RE: Has anyone tried the 180 formula from Phil Maffetone
Originally posted by marcag

Originally posted by 3mar

It was noted before, but it is interesting the difference heat makes. I normally do all my long runs on the treadmill, and maintain mid-120's at "conversational" pace, which is around 8:20. My MIL is in town and watched the kids so my wife and I got to do our long run together this morning. We ran outside on a relatively cool day for here (mid-80's) and we chatted the whole time, ran an ave 8:30 and my average HR was 145, much closer to the 180 formula. It's dead flat, so apparently heat plays a much bigger role (for me anyway) than hills on the treadmill in regard to HR. I actually felt like the effort level was much less today, but my HR was 25 BPM higher than inside runs with elevation changes.


I was part of a science experiment at the local university. They put me in a giant calorimeter, put a thermometer down my throat and up my .... to measure core temperature.They put a gas exchange mask on me to measure VO2. They put sensors on my skin to measure blood vessel dilatation. Then they cranked up bike resistance, heat and humidity to see what happens. 4 hours of it.

Humidity was a much bigger factor for me. Pure heat, even close to 40deg C was less of a factor.




Well, I could have told you that after living down in Hades for the past three years. The temperature rarely gets over 90, but the insane humidity is an absolute killer.

PS...I would think the thermometers would be the biggest hindrance.
New Thread
General Discussion Triathlon Talk » Has anyone tried the 180 formula from Phil Maffetone Rss Feed  
Show Per page
 
 
of 2
 
 
RELATED POSTS

How to run faster (in light of the 180 cadence guideline) Pages: 1 2 3 4

Started by bscoles1
Views: 5471 Posts: 85

2012-02-23 1:42 PM mjengstrom

Dr. Phil Maffetone recommended reading ...

Started by 1stTimeTri
Views: 1058 Posts: 4

2011-05-31 6:45 PM todds

? about the "Phil Maffetone’s 180 Formula"

Started by dcortright
Views: 2842 Posts: 4

2009-07-24 4:01 PM gsmacleod

Running at 180 - running efficiency

Started by cobannero
Views: 997 Posts: 9

2007-03-19 3:45 PM Scout7

180 BPM Music

Started by snoopy
Views: 909 Posts: 1

2005-04-28 7:07 PM snoopy
RELATED ARTICLES
date : December 19, 2008
author : AMSSM
comments : 0
My right knee has a pain in the front, just below the kneecap. I walked 24 miles of IM Louisville. No pain while walking but it started immediately when trying to run.
 
date : January 23, 2007
author : KenMierke
comments : 5
A powerful attraction of the calories in/calories out paradigm is its apparent simplicity. Unfortunately, the human body isn’t so simple and that is why this seemingly wonderful formula doesn't work.
date : September 3, 2005
comments : 0
Can you tell me how my LT and V02 max have not decreased after 8 months of absolutely no speedwork? I did very minimal running up until February 2005.
 
date : March 13, 2005
author : mikericci
comments : 2
Comparing Heart Rate Formulas: Age, Karvonen, Leger, MAF and Friel.