Maffetone Heart Rate Training

[mitchel674]

Toward the end of the season this year I rowed 600k in about 7 weeks, all at UT2. I was not in great shape to begin with and by the end my fitness was basically the same as when it started.

March 12, 2020: 7.5k meters, 2:33.5 pace, 126 HR
April 27, 2020: 12.5k meters, 2:33.6 pace, 127 HR

I did about 450k meters between the 2 workouts.

What HR cap were most of your meters? According to the Maffetone 180 formula, you should have done most of your rows at 135 bpm.

I'm 10 years older than you but fairly fit at this point after 2 years of rowing. I'm struggling to keep my heart rate down below my 135 bpm target for my long steady rows without dropping my pace significantly.

[ampire]

Toward the end of the season this year I rowed 600k in about 7 weeks, all at UT2. I was not in great shape to begin with and by the end my fitness was basically the same as when it started.

March 12, 2020: 7.5k meters, 2:33.5 pace, 126 HR
April 27, 2020: 12.5k meters, 2:33.6 pace, 127 HR

I did about 450k meters between the 2 workouts.

Why are you saying your fitness was the same?
If it’s based on the two workouts you mentioned then you’ve taken two vastly different distances so are not comparing like for like. Also not included other variables e.g. temperature, humidity, what training you had done up to each piece.

I just picked a couple workouts from my log. I have many others that lead me to that belief:

March 23, 2020: 10k meters, 2:30.7 pace, 134 HR
April 24, 2020: 10k meters, 2:35.2 pace, 129 HR

I'm rowing at a pace that is 10-15 seconds slower than the previous slowest splits ever. I guess I was just expecting better results from doing 500k meters given that 2 years prior I had workouts like this (no HR):

December 22, 2018: 17.5k meters, 2:12.2 pace
December 5, 2018: 15k meters, 2:03.8 pace

I doubt I would have even been able to do 4x2k intervals at 2:04 pace at the end of this April. I've now added one high intensity workout per week. I'm hoping that will work better.

Did similarly, a few hundred KM, (80-100KM/week) over several months of HR cap ~135 but didn't really notice any change in fitness as far as heart rate. Similar story to you. Did get leaner and a bit weaker on weights during that time but otherwise not much change. I think I overtrained chasing meters with insufficient sleep though. Now I am about 1.5 weeks back in gradually building up again after a 2 week break and I will probably stay around 60KM and do a few harder distance sessions each week ~150-165BPM. The one good thing is my form greatly improved at lower ratings with all the repetition. I am doing a lot of stuff like R18 now. Also did an hour R15 with a 135 HR cap a few workouts ago.

[jamesg]

We can see fitness as the ability to deliver oxygen and fuel and remove waste at a certain rate. This rate increases if we increase the load, and decreases if the load decreases; and constant load will mean constant rate.

Evidently a constant power load over a greater distance is not a change in rate of load delivery or removal; the mechanisms that carry the load are already in place.

If the mechanisms are cell functions, we have to force them to grow. But cells die, so we have to work just to maintain their number, and more will die than grow if we don't.

[Dangerscouse]

Toward the end of the season this year I rowed 600k in about 7 weeks, all at UT2. I was not in great shape to begin with and by the end my fitness was basically the same as when it started.

March 12, 2020: 7.5k meters, 2:33.5 pace, 126 HR
April 27, 2020: 12.5k meters, 2:33.6 pace, 127 HR

I did about 450k meters between the 2 workouts.

Why are you saying your fitness was the same?
If it’s based on the two workouts you mentioned then you’ve taken two vastly different distances so are not comparing like for like. Also not included other variables e.g. temperature, humidity, what training you had done up to each piece.

I just picked a couple workouts from my log. I have many others that lead me to that belief:

March 23, 2020: 10k meters, 2:30.7 pace, 134 HR
April 24, 2020: 10k meters, 2:35.2 pace, 129 HR

I'm rowing at a pace that is 10-15 seconds slower than the previous slowest splits ever. I guess I was just expecting better results from doing 500k meters given that 2 years prior I had workouts like this (no HR):

December 22, 2018: 17.5k meters, 2:12.2 pace
December 5, 2018: 15k meters, 2:03.8 pace

I doubt I would have even been able to do 4x2k intervals at 2:04 pace at the end of this April. I've now added one high intensity workout per week. I'm hoping that will work better.

There are two schools of thought: Go Hard or Go Home & Maffetone. Both of them seem to have got their merits and have had success but I really don't believe that anyone should slavishly stick to one specific training course, especially if you have tried for a significant amount of time and/or metres, as we all react differently to different stimuli.

How did you feel after the December '18 workouts? Were these done at full blast or a medium hard effort? It might make more sense for you to use RPE and aim for a 7/10 effort; manage to maintain a short conversation/ sing a few short lines of a song.

[dsoucek]

For those that have done the Maffetone style training, how do you structure effort throughout the piece? For example, my Maffetone max HR is 131, so if I am doing an easy 8K, I try to get my HR to at least 121 by the first split and then hold pace or slow down as needed to keep HR at or below 131. This would seem to maximize time spent in the correct zone. Alternatively one could aim for a pace they are pretty sure they can do the whole distance without exceeding the max HR. Probably getting a little too far into the weeds but I'm curious how others do this.
thanks
Dave

[Allan Olesen]

For those that have done the Maffetone style training, how do you structure effort throughout the piece? For example, my Maffetone max HR is 131, so if I am doing an easy 8K, I try to get my HR to at least 121 by the first split and then hold pace or slow down as needed to keep HR at or below 131. This would seem to maximize time spent in the correct zone.

I think you are confusing the sea chart with the actual sea.

The goal with this kind of training is not really to get into a given heart rate zone. The goal is to train your muscles at a given intensity. The heart rate is just a convenient way of measuring if you have reached this intensity.

However, there is a delay between muscles and heart rate. If you try to counter this delay by increasing the effort early on, you will probably exceed the intended intensity for the muscles.

Maffetone is very adamant that a warm-up to HR capped training should be really slow. He recommends using 15-20 minutes for slowly ramping up the heart rate to the target. Even though he doesn't state why, I am pretty certain that one of the reasons is what I just wrote above.

(Another reason could be the time it takes for your "slow energy system" to ramp up to the desired output. This is the system you are targeting with your training, so you don't want the faster energy systems to jump in and try to close the gap if you ask your muscles for too much, too soon.)

[mitchel674]

I don't do any warm up for these long slow rows. I typically get to my usual pace quickly and my heart rate gradually climbs over the first 15 minutes. I then spend the next 45 minutes trying to keep it below my cap rate (135) by modifying the force of my drive.

[dsoucek]

Thank you both for your responses. It sounds like I've misinterpreted the objective.
Regarding the warm up, it sounds like if the correct pace/intensity is selected and maintained throughout, the first 15-20 minutes of the piece actually serves as somewhat of a warm up.

[gisborne]

Toward the end of the season this year I rowed 600k in about 7 weeks, all at UT2. I was not in great shape to begin with and by the end my fitness was basically the same as when it started.

March 12, 2020: 7.5k meters, 2:33.5 pace, 126 HR
April 27, 2020: 12.5k meters, 2:33.6 pace, 127 HR

I did about 450k meters between the 2 workouts.

What HR cap were most of your meters? According to the Maffetone 180 formula, you should have done most of your rows at 135 bpm.

I'm 10 years older than you but fairly fit at this point after 2 years of rowing. I'm struggling to keep my heart rate down below my 135 bpm target for my long steady rows without dropping my pace significantly.

I used 182 as my HR max. My resting HR was about 62ish. I should say that HR numbers are actually low for what the rows were like. My HR crept up while maintaining the same pace over the course of the workout so while I might be at 125 after 5 minutes I was sometimes up to 140+ by the end. My target zone was 55-65% of HRR.

[gisborne]

I just picked a couple workouts from my log. I have many others that lead me to that belief:

March 23, 2020: 10k meters, 2:30.7 pace, 134 HR
April 24, 2020: 10k meters, 2:35.2 pace, 129 HR

I'm rowing at a pace that is 10-15 seconds slower than the previous slowest splits ever. I guess I was just expecting better results from doing 500k meters given that 2 years prior I had workouts like this (no HR):

December 22, 2018: 17.5k meters, 2:12.2 pace
December 5, 2018: 15k meters, 2:03.8 pace

I doubt I would have even been able to do 4x2k intervals at 2:04 pace at the end of this April. I've now added one high intensity workout per week. I'm hoping that will work better.

There are two schools of thought: Go Hard or Go Home & Maffetone. Both of them seem to have got their merits and have had success but I really don't believe that anyone should slavishly stick to one specific training course, especially if you have tried for a significant amount of time and/or metres, as we all react differently to different stimuli.

How did you feel after the December '18 workouts? Were these done at full blast or a medium hard effort? It might make more sense for you to use RPE and aim for a 7/10 effort; manage to maintain a short conversation/ sing a few short lines of a song.

My results were great, but I was depleted by the end of the month. I looked the best shape of my life, though I was still very far away from matching my college fitness. I did 300k for the Holiday Challenge that year so that was my motivation. As soon as that ended I quit for a while. Physically, a short break would have been fine but mentally I couldn't get myself to sit on the erg. I'd guess my HR was pretty high (relatively) but how high can it really go while sustaining a pace for over an hour on a daily basis?

[philjoakley]

Have tried Maffetone training with running and am not really convinced in it as a way to improve performance. I see it as great for building aerobic fitness after a layoff, general health and recovery efforts.

As far as training to improve is concerned then it's interval training all the way for me. I take the view that the quality of what you do is much more important than the quantity. Generally speaking, if you are not asking your body to do something it cannot do comfortably then you are not training.

The triathlete Mark Allen is always used to pitch the Maffetone approach but I've always been a little bit sceptical. I think it is very possible to train an already very fit athlete to become more efficient at a lower heart rate but remain to be convinced that low heart rate training can make an athlete very fit in the first place.

[Dangerscouse]

Have tried Maffetone training with running and am not really convinced in it as a way to improve performance. I see it as great for building aerobic fitness after a layoff, general health and recovery efforts.

As far as training to improve is concerned then it's interval training all the way for me. I take the view that the quality of what you do is much more important than the quantity. Generally speaking, if you are not asking your body to do something it cannot do comfortably then you are not training.

The triathlete Mark Allen is always used to pitch the Maffetone approach but I've always been a little bit sceptical. I think it is very possible to train an already very fit athlete to become more efficient at a lower heart rate but remain to be convinced that low heart rate training can make an athlete very fit in the first place.

I have definitely seen a split between lovers and haters of Maffetone, which imo just reinforces the fact that there really isn't a one size fits all solution and we all have manifold responses to different stimuli. Couple that with life stress, perceived progress, patience to really let it run its course, and how hard you're prepared to really go into the pain cave and we can't neatly pigeon hole it.

My biggest suspicion of advocates of Maffetone, eg Mark Allen, are that they are willing to properly red line their hard sessions and that is something that is difficult to quantify as it's natural to think that you really are giving it all, but in comparison there is a few percent less effort kept in reserve.

I know I'm guilty of not really going all in, despite feeling like I am, and I say this as when I do too much low and slow distances I notably struggle with the short, sharp sessions.

[philjoakley]

Have tried Maffetone training with running and am not really convinced in it as a way to improve performance. I see it as great for building aerobic fitness after a layoff, general health and recovery efforts.

As far as training to improve is concerned then it's interval training all the way for me. I take the view that the quality of what you do is much more important than the quantity. Generally speaking, if you are not asking your body to do something it cannot do comfortably then you are not training.

The triathlete Mark Allen is always used to pitch the Maffetone approach but I've always been a little bit sceptical. I think it is very possible to train an already very fit athlete to become more efficient at a lower heart rate but remain to be convinced that low heart rate training can make an athlete very fit in the first place.

I have definitely seen a split between lovers and haters of Maffetone, which imo just reinforces the fact that there really isn't a one size fits all solution and we all have manifold responses to different stimuli. Couple that with life stress, perceived progress, patience to really let it run its course, and how hard you're prepared to really go into the pain cave and we can't neatly pigeon hole it.

My biggest suspicion of advocates of Maffetone, eg Mark Allen, are that they are willing to properly red line their hard sessions and that is something that is difficult to quantify as it's natural to think that you really are giving it all, but in comparison there is a few percent less effort kept in reserve.

I know I'm guilty of not really going all in, despite feeling like I am, and I say this as when I do too much low and slow distances I notably struggle with the short, sharp sessions.

Totally agree Stu that there is not a one size fits all approach and we should find out what works best for us individually. Where I think that there is a contribution that comes from Maffetone is the benefit of easy sessions. I really quite like the hard easy approach to training where your hard sessions are really hard and other sessions are really easy. I wish I had trained like I train now 30 years' ago but we can't turn back the clock.

[dknickerbocker]

Have tried Maffetone training with running and am not really convinced in it as a way to improve performance. I see it as great for building aerobic fitness after a layoff, general health and recovery efforts.

As far as training to improve is concerned then it's interval training all the way for me. I take the view that the quality of what you do is much more important than the quantity. Generally speaking, if you are not asking your body to do something it cannot do comfortably then you are not training.

The triathlete Mark Allen is always used to pitch the Maffetone approach but I've always been a little bit sceptical. I think it is very possible to train an already very fit athlete to become more efficient at a lower heart rate but remain to be convinced that low heart rate training can make an athlete very fit in the first place.

Low intensity training will definitely improve performance. And it's not just about efficiency. It promotes new capillaries, mitochondrial biogensis, and a transporter that brings lactate into the slow-twitch fibers where the krebs cycle can use it as fuel. So it will make you faster at every intensity level and there's no substitute for it. Even quality is not a substitute and without doing low intensity training you eventually plateau.

But that said, there are caveats: You need to do enough volume to actually stress your body (lotta people probably don't), and for someone very fit, that could be a lot. Relatedly, it may not be the most effective use of an athlete's available time.

And just like there's no substitute for easy training, there's also (I don't think) a substitute for quality. I think that by not doing high intensity training too, you're leaving progress on the table. Aside from training glycolitic capacity that all the best rowers have a lot of, you also train the transporter that brings lactate and hydrogen ions OUT of the fast twitch muscles while you're going hard. And you need both: you need the transporter that brings it out (it brings a hydrogen ion with it so that your muscles don't get too acidic and can keep firing), and also the transporter that brings it back IN so that your slowtwitch fibers / krebs system can burn it for fuel. In other words high intensity and low intensity are like the yin and the yang of endurance sports.

I suspect that the people who have really benefited from Maffetone training is because they neglected low intensity for too long, were maybe long-term starting to stagnate and needed to switch thigns up. Also triathlon is gonna be different from rowing in its energy demands. There's no counterfactual of course but i suspect that a lot of people who benefit from Maffetone could also do well and maybe even better with a train high / train low approach. Not to mention that it's more fun

[Allan Olesen]

but i suspect that a lot of people who benefit from Maffetone could also do well and maybe even better with a train high / train low approach.

You mean an approach like ... Maffetone?