Heart Rate + Perceived Effort + Dr. Maffetone

[Cayenne]

Hello Ergers:

I am 51 y.o. and my RHR is in the mid to high 40s to low 50s. I have recently begun to explore the suggestions of noted endurance coach Dr. Phil Maffetone (via his writings, not directly.)

He is in an advocate of slowing down and building a strong aerobic base. To do so, he offers his MAF formula:

http://www.philmaffetone.com/180formula.cfm

I understand that many endurance athletes complain of needing to go too slowly initially when following this formula.

My situation is the opposite. In various activities, including using the C2, I have to work hard to attain and maintain my MAF range of 119-129. If I do attain the range numbers and stop, slow down or otherwise decrease the intensity, I recover to a lower HR very quickly.

What should I infer from this generally, and from anyone familiar with Dr. Maffetone's work, what should I infer from his perspective and presented in his written work ?

TIA

[KevJGK]

Hi Cayenne

That seems really interesting.

We are a similar age with a similar RHR and having read the article you link to, I calculate my own range as 123-133.

Although I do not train by HR I often monitor it for comparison purposes and for good or bad I know I NEVER train that easily– even within my ‘recovery sessions’.

I believe a quickly recovering HR on decreased intensity is a good indicator for a healthy heart. I remember reading that a recovery rate in excess of 20bpm is considered excellent. Personally I often witness a reduction in excess of 40 bpm during interval session rest periods.

When you say you have to work hard to attain and maintain your MAF range, could you indicate what pace spm & distances you generally adhere to – and how that compares with your best efforts?

Could you indicate your height and weight – also how would you describe your current fitness level?

Cheers,

[gregsmith01748]

Thanks for posting the link. It looks like an interesting approach.

Using the guideline, my aerobic training range would be 123-133 (soon to go down by one!). I can't recall a single workout that put me in this training range, and it seems so counterintuitive.

I have a couple of questions about how to interpret the guidelines

1. Is the range where you want you avg heart rate to be for an aerobic workout, or do you want to cap the high end below your maximum training range value? I ask this because my CV drift would take up through the whole range in a long workout.

2. Are the guidelines appropriate for improving endurance only. I can imagine that the optimal training technique for iron man Tri-athlons might not be optimal for 2k (six and a half minutes) or 5k (18ish minutes) events. I assume that one would focus recovery sessions in this training band and then go interval training with normal reckless abandon.

[Cayenne]

Hi Kevin:

At 18 y.o., I was 5'11". At a recent doctor's appointment, for the first time since then that my height was measured, I was told that I am 5'10" My weight is ~ 181 lbs..

I could be better with the various erging metrics. To the extent I pay attention to such things, I shoot for an SPM in the low to mid-20s. (Because it is my understanding, never rowed OTW BTW, that this is "good form," i.e., emphasis on the push with the legs and, less so, pull with the arms, followed by a more "relaxed" return.)

However, this morning, to reach the MAF numbers, (for me, 119-129,) I was attaining SPM in the mid-30s to as high as low-40s. (Which I would characterize, as "spinning" as opposed to a power/relax characterization of a lower SPM.)

About 10 years ago, IIRC, 6K in 30 minutes was a moderate effort for me. I have not erged consistently in some time and having resumed erging recently, (and wanting to work it into, experimentally, my "combination" of Maffetone's ideas along with twice weekly "Sprint 8" -yes, for those of you familiar with both, this does present an inconsistency, but hey, I am trying to reconcile the two in a manner that works for me,) I find that, at least until my condition improves, 6K in thirty minutes is attainable but with some difficulty, i.,e, significantly more difficult than I remember it being.

The fitness level question is really tough for me to answer. I have significant family history of stroke + heart attack and recently volunteered for cardiac research at a local teaching hospital. I underwent a battery of studies. As I was supposed to be in the "normal" control group, I was ultimately rejected, as my heart, (via MRI,) was determined to be "athletically-large" and unacceptable for that particular study. (Told my wife that the fact that I have a "Big Heart" is now medically documented.

I am by NO means "elite", yet I have exercised almost daily since 16 y.o. (Martial arts + related conditioning, swimming, jogging, race walking, C2, etc. For the past year, my "foundation" activity has been daily "HeavyHands Walking.")

On second thought, when I see the level of "couch potatoism" that is the norm, and the size of some folks at the mall, maybe I am elite or at least an "outlier" statistically, just because I "require" daily movement.

[Cayenne]

Hi Greg:

While Dr. Maffetone is a noted endurance sport "guru" (stated respectfully, as he has worked with numerous truly ELITE endurance athletes,) he has also written extensively on health & wellness, which he is careful to distinguish from fitness. (e.g., I just read his discussion of Alberto Salazar, who burned brightly with brilliant performances, and then burnt out, suffering first from lack of motivation and ultimately, a heart attack.) Dr. Maffetone certainly advocates healthy movement as a core aspect of wellnes, considerations of athleticism aside.

I don't feel qualified to answer your questions about Dr. Maffetone's principles as applied to your situation. I would respectfully refer you to the site I linked to, (he has a number of articles there,) and to his various books.

Eddie

[KevJGK]

Thanks for the background information.

So you are 51 - 5’10 – and about 13 stone with a history of regular exercise as evidenced by your athletically large heart. You sound to me like a picture of good health. We could be brothers.

That’s hard to reconcile though with you struggling to cover 6K in 30 minutes which with respect is a very modest (read slow) 02:30 pace. To put that into perspective I have just introduced my 72 year old uncle to the erg. He has no recent exercise history other than working his allotment and he was comfortable at 02:30 pace for admittedly just 20’ after just a few sessions.

It’s hard to comment without seeing you but my instinct says you're nor trying hard enough. I think you should be able to get down to 02:15 pace and faster pretty easily at mid 20s or less spm which would be 143 watts (02:30 is about 103 watts) and even that leaves tons of room for improvement if you want it.

If you give that a try by driving harder and recovering slowly I think your HR will soar and those HR numbers will make more sense. You certainly dont need to be increasing your spm into the 30s & 40s for the paces we are talking about. I would also check out all the technique info and videos you can find using the forum search facilty.

The obvious caveat I would put on the above is that everybody is different – maybe you have a massive heart stroke volume and naturally your heart just doesn’t beat as fast as most other peoples but I'm sure can increases your power output a lot.

I would be interested to hear how you get on.

Cheers,

[Cayenne]

Thanks for your reply Kevin. Well, from the "row well and live," perspective, we are brothers

Yes, especially in light of family history, I have been blessed with good health. With awareness of human frailty and humility before the powers of nature, I am VERY conscious of healthy lifestyle considerations.

( I am on a "streak" right now of daily HeavyHand Walking. Notwithstanding New York's freezing temps, a blizzard and two other major snowstorms, I've not missed a day of pre-dawn walks since 01.01.11. I am so thankful for the gift of being able to do this and the gift of enjoyment it brings.)

2:15 would mean 500 meter pace, yes ? (One of my procrastinated to-do items is really learning my PM-3.)

I am most definitely going try what you suggest. "Drive hard, recover slow..." will be my next erg session mantra.

Any suggestions or links to discussions of damper settings ?

Thanks Bro !

(P.S. Glad hear "our" Uncle is doing so well and that you are being such a caring nephew ! )

[aharmer]

Greetings, I have very limited time to respond right now but will join this conversation again later. I used the Maffetone method for a few years when I was running ultramarathons. His formula had me running far too intensely, because my max HR is lower than average for somebody my age. Eventually I took a range of 65-70% of my max HR and used that. Maybe you fall into this group as well if your target HR has you working very hard. This was fairly common among the group I corresponded with.

Doing Maffetone properly can be extremely frustrating. In the running community many people found themselves having to jog extremely slowly and even walk to remain under the target HR. When I started my running pace was over 10:00/mile. A couple years later I was running at 7:30 or faster with the same HR and similar conditions. It definitely works for those running marathons or longer, where glycogen reserves are a major factor and fat utilization is useful. How it correlates to improved 2k erg performance I have no idea, but the increases mitocondria and capillary volume certainly cannot hurt.

Must go but will return later to discuss...fascinating topic in my opinion.

[KevJGK]

Your Uncle Clive sends his regards and says “well done on the walking.”

Yes - 02:15 is the time per 500m.

If you want to find out about damper settings just type 'Drag Factor' into the search box at the top of this page. This is a link to a C2 information sheet for starters http://concept2.co.uk/training/guide/damper_lever

[Cayenne]

Thank you again Kevin ! I am on it.

AHarmer: Ultras...WOW !!!

For me, at this time in my life, 2K times are not a priority whatsoever, although I certainly don't rule out that I'd enjoy having a respectable time for same.

My goals are health, wellness, vitality, longevity, & fitness.(Uhh...and some vanity & performance related ego as well. ) As I imagine you'd agree, while these overlap, they are not all the same thing.

I was drawn to Maffetone b/c of his health emphasis, with fitness, and even super-fitness (from an endurance POV anyway,) flowing from a foundation of health first. (In the Salazar vignette I referred to, he tells how Salazar ate junk food, etc.)

Although I realize I am touching a potential hot button, after years as a long distance jogger who ate low fat/high carb, and for a decade or so a vegan, I came to find that low carb/high fat "worked better" for me, and came under the influence of those who advocate "brief, frequent, varied, intense," exercise as being healthier than "steady state."

(What I'm trying to do now, is the highest volume of "easy" movement I have time for -with "easy" becoming at least slightly intense overtime, but staying easy for me- e.g., walking, swimming, erging, egc., with 2 sessions weekly of "Sprint 8" type activity. In a few months I plan to add weight training 1-3x p.w.)

Maffetone, as I'm confident you know, also advocates a lower carb, higher fat nutrition and exposure to his writings has lured me back to explore aerobic activity.

When you do have the time, I'd love to hear more about your Maffetone experiences specifically and your views on the topics touched upon generally.

Thank you !

Eddie

[gregsmith01748]

I wanted to get an idea of what rowing in the the "Mafftone Zone" would be like, and I was due for a recovery row anyway today. My range is 123 to 133, so I thought it might be an interesting idea to see how that lined up with the least intense Wolverine Plan L4 workout possible. I decided to do 80' at 16SPM, pulling a target 2:06 split. Over that time, I expected to see some CV drift, but I decided to stick with the target split to see how far it went.

End result, my heart rate popped up to 123 by 4' and was at about 130 by 8'. It bounced around the low 130s to the 60' mark, and then started slowly climbing up toward 140. I hit 140 at about the 79th minute.

When I stopped, my HR was down to 100 after 30 seconds and 80 after a minute. In other words, it was not a taxing row.

I think that very low rates might be a good way to do workouts in this training HR zone. You practice rowing with good form and need to take powerful strokes, but you get loads of time to recover.

[KevJGK]

Hi Greg

That's a mighty impressive workout at such a low HR - when I've monitored myself during L4s I'm usually high AT/TR within 30 minutes or so - even alternating 168-172s. I'll have to try your 160s to see what I get although for me they would be at 02:13.

I must have the heart of a humming bird. They have the world's fastest heartbeat - its generally over 1,200 beats per minute while in flight.

Apparently It's not uncommon for small hummingbirds to average over 50 heartbeats per second.

[gregsmith01748]

I think that's about my heart rate at the end of a sprint workout.

It is a real challenge for me to workout below 140 BPM. It must be related to habit. It seemed almost every minute during the workout today, I would catch myself pulling 2:05, or 2:04 and my HR would start to creep up, so I would put on the brakes and slow down to 2:07, and it would settle back down. It seemed like it was perched on a knife edge. Pull 2:04, and the HR was 135, pull 2:07 and the HR was 132.

I'm like you. I've never done an "All 160" L4 workout before. When I do 168/172 alternating, or 168/172/176, my heart rate is up near or above 150 by the time I'm 40 or 50 minutes in.

I've got some time over the next few months, I think I will focus my L4s way down the intensity curve, and repeat this specific workout at least once every couple of weeks. At the same time, I am making my sprint sessions more focused on shorter, faster intervals to try to develop more power. I've got nothing to lose by trying out this regime and seeing if my HR for the same "All 160" shows the kind of improvement that Dr. Maffetone is claiming.

Heck, if it works. I'm all for it. This workout was completely non-aversive. I was listening to good podcasts, and keeping the pace and rate required just enough attention to make the time go by more quickly.

I saw good results by taking my recovery rows down a notch about a month and half before the Crash-bs. Taking it even further is an intriguing idea.

[jliddil]

So at first glance this guy seems to have a bit of an almost cult like following. As a scientist with a background in toxicology and pharmacology I find some of what he says interesting but not without issues. I've been exercising for daily for over 30 years. Exercise and fitness trends come and go. Jim Fixx, Sheehan, high fat low fat, carb loading etc. I'm in the a similar mode mainly interested in over all fitness.

I take issue with the discussion on the Maffetone site with no siting of literature. A pubmed search of his name turns up little if anything. I am certainly in it for the long haul having gone through running and road racing of years. I tend to view all things in moderation including moderation. But do as I say as I do, since I am a bit of a manic personality.

I don't like the one way forum he has. There seems to be no debate. I think there is some merit to maintaining a moderate heart rate when working out unless you have some specific goal for racing for example. Regarding his formula I'll need to look a little bit at my article stash to see what the current view is on HR vs other measures of fitness and exercise intensity. Perceived exertion has a number of followers in the scientific community. I imagine you would be playing it safe keeping your heart rate at 180-age. Is it based on scientific data? Why not listen to ranger?

[aharmer]

For more on diet and the negative effects of excessive carbohydrate in your diet see www.heartscanblog.blogspot.com. This guy has data on thousands of patients.