Maffetone training for fat loss?

[Treekoko]

I've been reading through the forums and came across maffetone training. It all kind of makes sense staying in the fat burning zone and sounds appealing not to be hammering through sessions.

I realise this is all in addition to eating good quality food but what I can't work out from the maffetone stuff is length of training session and how often, what is ideal? Or rather, manageable? What do I need to do to make it work for me?

Also, the 12 minute warm up and cool down, there's 24mins on the rower before you're working out I'm a working mum, I got the erg so I don't need to trek out to a gym. I can't see me realistically putting in 2+ hours a day as I've seen on boards here, I'll get too bored with it.

Should I aim for 5k or 10k a day at my maf hr? The info is good, I'm just not sure what to do with it.

[Tony Cook]

Maffetone works because it uses long slow sessions. Weight loss is simple in sums - use more calories than you consume = weight loss: consume more calories than you use = weight gain.
Because people don’t have time to row 2 hours a day for most people your weight loss will be in the kitchen, or rather not being in the kitchen! If you want rowing as part of your calories burned part of life then you decide how much time you have. If you have half an hour a day then you go more intense to burn more in that 30 mins. If you have 2 hours then you go long and slow so you can do it every day without burning out.

[Treekoko]

So focus on the calories burned rather than time or distance?

[Treekoko]

I've struggled with getting going because I don't know what to aim for. Ultimately, I want good fitness for longevity but also to lose weight.

I'm fine with sticking to a hr, it gives some structure, I just don't know how long/how far I should be going for. If I don't have that structure it's all too easy to stop too soon. Or never get going.

[MPx]

In case its not obvious, Tony wanted to use the word k i tchen in his post but its gets autodeleted due to an historical spam issue.

I dont know the details of the maffetone system, but many plans follow a number of the principles it espouses. The long slow stuff should be just that. If you're going long and slow you dont need a warm up or cool down, you just need to do it. Long counts as long in my book if its over 30 mins. 40 to 60 mins would be ideal, but you may need to build up to that. That's a long time to sit there sawing away so you may need distraction (music, TV, whatever); or something changing in the workout (rate and/or pace changes being the most common). 5 days a week doing a 10k will probably be very boring so find some different ways of cutting it that you enjoy it and you'll be more likely to stick with it longer term.

Pace wise, its more about your capacity which many of measure by heart rate. You'd want to be going about 70% of either your Max HR or 70% of your Heart Rate Range which is (.7 x (MaxHR - RestHR)) + RestHR. If you dont know and/or can't measure your HR then you can do it by Perceived Effort - you should know you're working, but still able to speak in whole sentences if you wanted to.

[Treekoko]

Thank you, I am thinking that 30 to 60 mins is achievable.
I just had a go thinking I'll do 20 mins at my maf hr which is 134 - I couldn't get up to it! I would have had to totally hammer at a fast rate, it would not have been a ut2 perceived rate. I must be really really unfit or something.

[Treekoko]

Should add, I'm confident my hr would spikes up if I was jogging so I don't know what that tells me about how I'm rowing. I'm only 5ft 3 so frankly not a lot of distance to put force into my legs. I find it quite hard to put a decent drive in if that makes sense. I sometimes wonder if I'm just not the right build for rowing.

[MPx]

While its true you're not ideally proportioned to set new erging world records, getting fit on an ergometer can work for everyone.

First things first, you need to be sure you have the right rowing form - a strong stroke. There are many videos (from C2, Dark Horse, and others) so check out previous newbie posts on here and you'll find loads of links or google rowing stroke.

Once your stroke is right, then at least you'll be positively building fitness no matter what the pace. You say you cant get to HR 134 without going unsustainabley fast. That just means 134 is the wrong number for you. We are all different. If you've arrived at your HR numbers by formula rather than a measured test then they are very likely to be hopelessly wrong - the formulae are OK to assess the average population but completely flawed for many (indeed I'd contend most) individuals. 134 for steady state suggests a max of over 190. Have you ever seen anything like that?

Maybe work it the other way around. Once your stroke is right, do a 20 min session at a steady pace that you can sustain. Then look at your heart rate and use that as a basis for further and longer sessions.

[Treekoko]

Yes, I've been watching dark horse videos and quite conscious of developing good form.

I took hr 134 from the Maffetone calc: 180 minus age, minus 5 as I am new to this really.

[MPx]

OK...just forget about 134. The Maffetone formula (like the others) will work for some, and will be about right for the average of the population as a whole, but for individuals is as likely wrong as right. For me it would suggest 116. My measured HRR 70% is 132 and 80% 145 which are the values I use to cap steady state sessions. For now, as I said just set yourself a pace that you think you can sustain. You need to know you're working, but not so hard that you cant recite a poem or whatever every 5 mins or so. Once you've got that right, you'll see what HR that means for you. As you get fitter month by month, you'll find you can go a little faster for the same HR. Dont rush it - it takes ages. But stick with it and you'll feel better for life.

If you're feeling brave, take a short video of yourself erging (side view), upload to one of the photo hosting sites and post a link on here asking for feedback. There's lots of knowledgable people about who could give pointers if they see something not quite ideal.

[GlennUk]

To add to what Mike and others have said, exercising may help you shed fat, monitoring and managing you calorie intake will likley yield more benefits.

Having followed a quite long exercise plan over the past 15 months leading to a long row in January, i put on about a stone, to a stone and a half leading up to the long effort lasting over 11 hours.

I have now cut out all snacking midweek, and cut down over the weekends (well mostly) to try to shed the excess i am carrying. Have lost about 5lbs over a month and exercising regularly doing about 4-5hours a week.

The bottom line imho is that you will not lose weight AKA fat, through exercise alone. You may even put a few pounds on through exercises as muscles become more toned, at least that's what i tell myself!!!

Finally perhaps dont fixate on weight, it fluctuates anyway, try looking for that belt that is so tight at the moment, see how it fits in a months time, if its looser then you are winning.

[jamesg]

What do I need to do to make it work for me?

The erg can get you fit, that's what it's for, just like any other type of exercise. It works by pushing our limits, and we know this is happening if the heart rate increases. So let it increase.

The point is, in time the effort needed to increase HR by any given amount will also increase; and with it, the heat produced. So keep at it, you can't go wrong.

[ArmandoChavezUNC]

Couple quick points:

That formula you're trying to use for HR is useless on an individual level. Use your properly measured HRmax and HRresting to find your HRreserve and take a percentage based on the training zone you want to be in.

Others have alluded to it, but weight loss is achieved through diet, not exercise. Using some of the numbers thrown around, I'd estimate in 60' you're burning fewer than 500 calories at such a low intensity. Could be even less. Unless you're training at a fairly high level you're not going to burn that many calories through exercise.

If your main focus is caloric burn, then you should focus on going as hard as you can for as long as you can. Higher duration = higher caloric burn just like higher intensity = higher caloric burn. Even at intensities that use carbs preferentially over fat as a fuel source the difference isn't that big to where it makes sense to exercise at a lower intensity that burns fewer total calories.

[ukaserex]

If your main focus is caloric burn, then you should focus on going as hard as you can for as long as you can. Higher duration = higher caloric burn just like higher intensity = higher caloric burn. Even at intensities that use carbs preferentially over fat as a fuel source the difference isn't that big to where it makes sense to exercise at a lower intensity that burns fewer total calories.

Ordinarily, I'd second this in a heartbeat. But, as I grow older, my older friends remind me with their consistent creaking and groaning that higher intensity comes at a cost. And, often that cost is a desire and/or physical need to either go more easily, or not go at all the following day. I'm by no means advocating a 2k+60s rowing effort, even if you're 100 years old. (if you're that advanced in years, you should be doing whatever you like, really.)

I'm just saying that going full steam for as long as you can, may result in being so drained the following day that you'll be hard pressed to do anything with intensity for a few days, depending on where you're starting.

So, let us assume your typical 30 minute 20 s/m row will burn about 300 calories. Alternatively, let's also assume that a 60 reps of 20 second full out sprints, with 20 seconds rest between each will burn 500.

The day after you've done the sprints, your body cannot repeat the process. But, with the 30/20, your body can. So, which is better?

Now, obviously, we are all different, and certainly in my youth, the sprints wouldn't require any recovery at all and could be repeated with perhaps a 5% reduction in power just an hour later. But, as I get older, with the crappy sleep I get, I'm just not up for anything max effort.

So, just my opinion, backed by nothing but my own anecdotal evidence, so take it for what little it may be worth - if it's calorie burn you're after, consistency is a better approach. Better to burn 300 a day than to burn 500 every other day. Again, that just depends on where you are in your fitness journey.

But, I definitely want to state that no matter where you are on the fitness bell curve, if you wish to improve your fitness on the rower, I would encourage you to keep your active recovery/lower tier rowing efforts to a minimum of 2k+20 to 2k +25, or keep your hr above 60%, but below 75%. No science behind that, just my own anecdotal experience. Opinions will vary, even among experts.

[GlennUk]

I think the biggest take away from the comments is if you want to lose fat, stop eating as much.

Having followed the Eddie Fletcher Marathon/100k training plan for just over a year, ive erged quite a few metres, not as many as some, but nevertheless, the point is, I have put weight on, some (probably most), in the form of excess fat, primarily due to increasing carb intake beyond what i required to undertake the exercise programme.

I went from c.13stone to about 15stone over that 12 month period.

I now want to lose that excess fat, and have stopped all snacks/treats Mon-Fri, and over the last month to six weeks, have lost only 4-5lbs despite picking up on the training plan. The initial weight loss took place in the 1st two weeks.

Whilst i'm not suggesting exercise has no benefits and cannot contribute to fat reduction but IMHO its minimal. The amount of exercise required to achieve significant fat loss should not be underestimated.

As food for thought, i rowed 116k over a period of c.11.5hrs on Jan 2 this year, the erg suggested id used c.6107 Cal, had i fueled that purely using fat, i would have lost c.675g of fat.

As it goes i weighed myself b4 and after, taking account of the fluids/food i consumed along the way, i weighted the same, no net change at all.