Heart rate theory

[elliptic]

I beg to differ here elliptic.
I have done a field test and my lactate threshold HR is around 170-75 - the HR that I average during a 60-min maximal effort.
I'm not sure how 'anaerobic threshold HR' differs - but according to you it's higher.

Okay the term "lactate threshold" probably just confuses the issue as it seems to get applied to both... but Maffetone is definitely referring to the lower (aerobic) threshold.

Your one-hour max test gives "functional threshold" which is upper (anaerobic) threshold more or less (output power level at one-hour pace is the key benchmark for many of the power-based bike training systems eg Coggan, Carmicheal, Friel).

In any zone system that I know of, what Maffetone is saying is to train right down in zone 2 - nowhere near [upper] lactate HR at all.

Yes, that's exactly what he's saying.... long slow distance (and lots of it)

[ZootHornRollo]

OK gotcha now.

[Mike T]

Anyone into this? The idea behind it, I understand from limited reading - to read in depth it would seem you have to buy access or a book - is that if you have a diet relatively low in carbohydrate (compared to a normal training diet) and run more slowly to start with ( at a speed determined by a laboratory test that analyses O2 uptake and CO2 output), you will in time increase your body's use of fat as a fuel and eventually be able to run faster for longer as fat stores are of course huge compared to glycogen stores. As a short cut, people can do without the test and just aim at a particular heart rate for age - about 20 below what most people do most of their training at.

The cynical part of me says this is all nonsense and is only being promoted as there is money to be made, and in America in particular, weight to be lost.

Does anyone know of any studies into this approach?

[zephr]

I thought that was the general idea of starting out with long slow base miles- so that you became more efficient at lipid hydrolysis rather than carbohydrate. Ok, so when you begin it will be really really slow, but then you get a faster baseline whilst burning fat, rather than carbs... eventually your "fatburning" slow speed becomes as fast as other peoples "carb burning" speed, and hey presto you're a super-duper long distance runner.

Unfortunately, no, I don't know of any studies... at least, certainly not any high quality ones.

[Mike T]

I had always thought that starting off with slow running was to let the bones/joints/ligaments/tendons get used to the process - but metabolic changes will also take place.

The Heart Rate Theory thread looks at all this from a slightly different point of view.

I think it would be worth joining the threads together if that can be done.

[Mike T]

twister said...Tim Noakes who wrote Lore of Running is now also on board with this strategy, and is a supporter of Maffetone.

got that book ,comprehensive or what?...Might get the book you suggest and have a read.

Thanks for mentioning this..always up for new approaches..keeps the mind involved

To say Tim Noakes is on board is not quite the right emphasis - he certainly follows a low CHO diet himself but freely admits he has pre-diabetes; part of his article on carbohydrates is as follows:

" Not for everyone

However those who can metabolise carbohydrates efficiently and who have always been lean despite eating a high carbohydrate diet may not benefit in any way from this eating plan. I would not advise any athlete who is lean and quite happy with his or her weight and performances to change to this eating plan since it might not make a difference and might even be detrimental."

Some of the foods he avoids are the obvious western society processed substances such as sugar, sugary drinks - including sweetened fruit juices, breakfast cereals, cakes/sweets/desserts, oils high in omega 6, artificial sweeteners ....... though he also avoids some potentially low GI foods such as porridge.

He also directly addresses a lot of his low CHO advice to other pre-diabetics, and those who are overweight.