General Discussion Triathlon Talk » Has anyone tried the 180 formula from Phil Maffetone Rss Feed  
Moderators: k9car363, alicefoeller Reply
 
 
of 2
 
 
2015-09-29 11:57 AM

User image


66
2525
Subject: Has anyone tried the 180 formula from Phil Maffetone
If not, the article to read is here: http://philmaffetone.com/180-formula/

The bones of this are subtract your age from 180 and use this zone to train at in order to optimise:
- fat burning
- injury management
- endurance/stamina training

I gave it a try this afternoon on a 10k and found it a little slow, but an enjoyable pace!

I'm considering maintaining this for a few weeks to see what gives, but if anyone's tried this already what were the results?
Or, has anyone tried anything more effective?

http://www.triathlondaddy.com


2015-09-29 12:19 PM
in reply to: Triathlon_daddy

User image

Pro
5361
50001001001002525
Subject: RE: Has anyone tried the 180 formula from Phil Maffetone

I think that this applies primarily to RUNNING.  And yes- running should be mostly easy.

If you are not yet running at least 25mpw consistently, and perhaps as much as 40mpw consistently, most of the gains that you'll get are from just jogging at a comfortable level.  Intensity increases injury incident (see that alliteration is just did )  

the formula for me, comes out a few beats lower than what I consider my Zone 2 HR, but it's close enough.  Anything just based on age is going to only be so close.  

it basically allows most people to build running consistency and volume - which will contribute to race performance more than a few hard workouts and a lot of recovery days.

2015-09-29 12:54 PM
in reply to: Triathlon_daddy

User image


66
2525
Subject: RE: Has anyone tried the 180 formula from Phil Maffetone
Poetic stuff man!!

I'm nowhere near running 25mpw, just havent got the time. What suprises me is that not many, more experienced runners have offered this technique as a suggestion. They're a competitive lot runners....I've never trusted them really

I'll keep going and I guess, as you get fitter, your speed increases but the HR stays the same
2015-09-29 1:28 PM
in reply to: 0

User image

Expert
2852
20005001001001002525
Pfafftown, NC
Subject: RE: Has anyone tried the 180 formula from Phil Maffetone
During the summer, I'd have to walk to stay in that zone......lol.

I did 8 mi., Saturday......between 130 and 140 bpm (I'm 51 next mo.). It was a really comfortable run. I guess I could try it through the winter. I have my garmin file as a baseline.

Now that I look at this again, though......I was 10 bpm higher than he calls for. I'm not sure how slow I'd have to run to do that. I could probably do it on the track. We have hills, here, though.

**Edit.....I saw 184 bpm more than once in a 5K a little over a week ago. My AVG. HR for the 5K was 174,

Edited by nc452010 2015-09-29 1:29 PM
2015-09-29 8:28 PM
in reply to: Triathlon_daddy

User image

Regular
585
500252525
Pueblo, Colorado
Subject: RE: Has anyone tried the 180 formula from Phil Maffetone
I used this method a few years back and I did see improvement (http://trited.blogspot.com/2013/01/maffetone-2.html). I was also putting in quite a bit of volume at the time. You also move much slower than you'd like at the outset which can be a bit frustrating. I think it works, but it's definitely more beneficial if you are planning to "go long."
2015-10-01 1:50 AM
in reply to: nc452010

User image


66
2525
Subject: RE: Has anyone tried the 180 formula from Phil Maffetone
He does advise uping the BPM by 5 if you've been training regularly for two years or more which gets me to 145 as I'm 40.
I have to admit I couldnt stomach running slower than 155 which I'm prepared to stick to.

I've also got asthma which must have an impact on my HRM, my heart will have to work harder on account of my lungs not working optimally???
I'll email him and post his reply


2015-10-01 4:11 AM
in reply to: Triathlon_daddy

User image

Master
8247
50002000100010010025
Eugene, Oregon
Bronze member
Subject: RE: Has anyone tried the 180 formula from Phil Maffetone
It can be a starting point for a beginning runner but not terribly accurate. Proper training heart rate for various outcomes (increasing endurance, weight loss, race-pace training) varies not just by age but fitness; also affected by other factors like heat, hydration, fatigue level, caffeine, etc. That formula would put me at 134. That's beyond an easy run for me in the heat of Saigon--for anything over a 10-minute run, it's a walk. According to threshold tests (where you run as hard as you can for 20 minutes and take the average HR), my Zone 2 (aerobic running that feels "easy" and enjoyable, unless it goes on more than a couple of hours in my case) goes up to 154. I'm 46, but have been a runner most of my life, so probably I can hold a higher HR and % of max than most people my age. If you are just starting out, it may not be worth the risk to do a threshold test, so a rule of thumb like this might work.

If asthma is affecting your HR, you need to find a way to get it under control. Do you have an inhaler that you can use preventively? Maybe you should talk with your Dt. about this. (Note that many of those meds will temporarily spike your HR!)
2015-10-01 7:15 AM
in reply to: tedjohn

User image

Expert
1019
1000
Muncie, IN
Subject: RE: Has anyone tried the 180 formula from Phil Maffetone
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?
2015-10-01 7:41 AM
in reply to: 0

User image

Extreme Veteran
5722
5000500100100
Subject: RE: Has anyone tried the 180 formula from Phil Maffetone
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.


Edited by marcag 2015-10-01 7:47 AM
2015-10-01 8:16 AM
in reply to: Triathlon_daddy

Member
587
500252525
Subject: RE: Has anyone tried the 180 formula from Phil Maffetone
This method can be effective, however you will need lots of volume. See Mark Allen.
2015-10-01 8:57 AM
in reply to: Triathlon_daddy

User image


1502
1000500
Katy, Texas
Subject: RE: Has anyone tried the 180 formula from Phil Maffetone
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.


2015-10-01 9:19 AM
in reply to: 3mar

User image

Member
1748
100050010010025
Exton, PA
Subject: RE: Has anyone tried the 180 formula from Phil Maffetone
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.


your HR monitor is broken!!!!!!!
2015-10-01 9:24 AM
in reply to: mike761

User image


1502
1000500
Katy, Texas
Subject: RE: Has anyone tried the 180 formula from Phil Maffetone
Originally posted by mike761

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.


your HR monitor is broken!!!!!!!


I actually wore two last week to see if it was accurate. I had my garmin HR monitor and the one that came with my treadmill....they showed the same reading.
2015-10-01 9:26 AM
in reply to: 3mar

User image

Member
1748
100050010010025
Exton, PA
Subject: RE: Has anyone tried the 180 formula from Phil Maffetone
Originally posted by 3mar

Originally posted by mike761

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.


your HR monitor is broken!!!!!!!


I actually wore two last week to see if it was accurate. I had my garmin HR monitor and the one that came with my treadmill....they showed the same reading.


It's the heavy magnetic field close to the equator that make your HR monitor not work right
2015-10-01 9:32 AM
in reply to: mike761

User image


1502
1000500
Katy, Texas
Subject: RE: Has anyone tried the 180 formula from Phil Maffetone
Originally posted by mike761

Originally posted by 3mar

Originally posted by mike761

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.


your HR monitor is broken!!!!!!!


I actually wore two last week to see if it was accurate. I had my garmin HR monitor and the one that came with my treadmill....they showed the same reading.


It's the heavy magnetic field close to the equator that make your HR monitor not work right


Maybe I'm just lazy. I get into the 160's and think I'm gonna die.
2015-10-01 9:38 AM
in reply to: 0

User image

Extreme Veteran
5722
5000500100100
Subject: RE: Has anyone tried the 180 formula from Phil Maffetone
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.

Edited by marcag 2015-10-01 9:39 AM


2015-10-01 9:44 AM
in reply to: 3mar

User image

Member
1748
100050010010025
Exton, PA
Subject: RE: Has anyone tried the 180 formula from Phil Maffetone
Originally posted by 3mar

Originally posted by mike761

Originally posted by 3mar

Originally posted by mike761

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.


your HR monitor is broken!!!!!!!


I actually wore two last week to see if it was accurate. I had my garmin HR monitor and the one that came with my treadmill....they showed the same reading.


It's the heavy magnetic field close to the equator that make your HR monitor not work right


Maybe I'm just lazy. I get into the 160's and think I'm gonna die.


If I'm running at all my HR is at 140-145. My easy runs are usually in the low 150's. If I run a race like a 10 miler I'm in the high 160's or low 170's the whole time. 5k's are more like 180.
2015-10-01 9:57 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

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.


I've never been able to use the boxed formulas. The numbers never made sense. My limit for a conversational pace is around 7:30-7:45MM depending on conditions and that is an HR of around 130. I pretty much go by feel and only look at HR after a workout. I know my zones pretty well. The one time I heavily relied on feedback from HR was on the ironman bike, where I needed to keep myself reigned in.
2015-10-01 12:26 PM
in reply to: Triathlon_daddy

User image

Expert
2355
20001001001002525
Madison, Wisconsin
Subject: RE: Has anyone tried the 180 formula from Phil Maffetone
I haven't used this specific principle but I am a huge advocate for easy low HR running. Especially when it comes to injury prevention as stated in the article.

It's tough for a lot of athletes to understand the concept of low HR or easy running, but then I always ask questions such as

Are you injured right now?
Are you improving?
Are you not shelled after your long runs?
Are you able to train the next day?

Usually I get 4 yes answers and slowly over time, usually have a big PR or an injury free training build to an ironman or a race season with no injuries it clicks.

I think its just another way to structure training given a set of parameters.
2015-10-01 2:44 PM
in reply to: bcagle25


319
100100100
Sarasota, Florida
Subject: RE: Has anyone tried the 180 formula from Phil Maffetone
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
2015-10-01 3:29 PM
in reply to: runtim23

Master
10208
50005000100100
Northern IL
Subject: RE: Has anyone tried the 180 formula from Phil Maffetone

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.



2015-10-01 5:04 PM
in reply to: 0


319
100100100
Sarasota, Florida
Subject: RE: Has anyone tried the 180 formula from Phil Maffetone
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.

Edited by runtim23 2015-10-01 5:05 PM
2015-10-01 5:45 PM
in reply to: Triathlon_daddy

User image

Pro
6582
50001000500252525
Melbourne FL
Gold member
Subject: RE: Has anyone tried the 180 formula from Phil Maffetone

I couldn't use that method, that would but me at 130 today, maybe 135 tops.  I use the LT method per a field test as noted here.  I can run "forever" at 145 which is upper Z1 per the LT calculations, run 5-6 days a week without issues and my LT hasn't changed in the 10 years of using that method. Meat of most of my runs would actually in the Z2 range or around 155.

I guess as a ball park for starting out OK, but as fitness maturity grows training methods can change based on your physiology.  Where you are on the bell curve is a mystery until you do some sort of testing whether it be a test for HR (LT) or a test for find training paces (e.g. McMillian run pace calc).

2015-10-01 5:45 PM
in reply to: 0


319
100100100
Sarasota, Florida
Subject: RE: Has anyone tried the 180 formula from Phil Maffetone
Sorry OP that was supposed to read "I Try"
I'm not a coach or anything, just been running since I was 12 and have read, and been led under many different styles. I find medium paced runs are the most bang for my time. I don't lose my mile time much, and an push the pace up to 10ks. My goal is to make my 5k pace my 10k pace at the end of an Oly, so ideally if I were only running, I would fit more in, but find apx. every 4 days I can continue to improve without much pain.


Edited by runtim23 2015-10-01 5:46 PM
2015-10-01 7:44 PM
in reply to: runtim23

User image

Master
8247
50002000100010010025
Eugene, Oregon
Bronze member
Subject: RE: Has anyone tried the 180 formula from Phil Maffetone
Not really a specific reply to anyone but just putting it out there--heat has a BIG effect on HR. When I train here in Saigon, the heat index on a "cool" day is probably around 90 (at 5:XX AM!). A brick after a long ride could well have a heat index of 110 or higher. My "easy" run heart rate under those conditions quickly drifts up from about 130-135 to 152-154. It's an "easy" effort in the sense that I'm not pushing the pace, not breathing hard, and could easily hold a conversation (though I might melt into a grease spot on the pavement). For the same effort on the same workout in Oregon (heat index 60-75) my HR stays well below 140. Or if I run by HR, I'd be running about a minute a mile faster at the same HR in temperate conditions. It's noticeable on all runs but particularly on bricks, probably because I'm starting the run at a later (hotter) time, plus fatigue from the bike.
New Thread
General Discussion Triathlon Talk » Has anyone tried the 180 formula from Phil Maffetone Rss Feed  
 
 
of 2
 
 
RELATED POSTS

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

Started by bscoles1
Views: 6005 Posts: 85

2012-02-23 1:42 PM mjengstrom

Dr. Phil Maffetone recommended reading ...

Started by 1stTimeTri
Views: 1156 Posts: 4

2011-05-31 6:45 PM todds

? about the "Phil Maffetone’s 180 Formula"

Started by dcortright
Views: 2957 Posts: 4

2009-07-24 4:01 PM gsmacleod

Running at 180 - running efficiency

Started by cobannero
Views: 1084 Posts: 9

2007-03-19 3:45 PM Scout7

180 BPM Music

Started by snoopy
Views: 1044 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.