IJWTS, that you don’t always run at your MAF HR. Once you are putting out a lot of watts at your MAF HR you can do you long, slow rides at an even lower HR and then do MAF intervals at your MAF HR.
My MAF is now techically a +5 (180-54+5)= 131. I still do my long, slow at 120-125bpm. At 131bpm I’m putting out some good wattage which is fatiguing.
I do think everybody should do a MAF base or Seiler style polarized base. You will absolutely get the shift in your lactate curve like Seiler talks about unless you’ve already been doing a lot of low intensity training. The shift with my first polarized base was a dramatic change. I did polarized base the year after and didn’t nearly feel the dramatic change.
In the spring I went through old training files trying to figure out my trend. It looked like this:
It’s what I could pull out of data files. Same smart trainer and thus same power meter. I’ve since figured out that my Tacx Vortex reads high especially above 300 watts.
But rather than dwelling on the actual numbers I think the trend is what is important.
Over the last 12 months I spent 6-7 months doing Endurance/Tempo, ending with a 2-month POL block. Recently started doing Threshold over-unders…as you said, a dramatic change.
When I first started with TR 2 years ago I had zero aerobic “base” and O/U workouts were literally physically painful due to my atrociously poor lactate abilities (yes, different than ‘lactate curve’ but still…).
Lots of Z2 is one “cure” for crappy lactate abilities and now when I’m doing O/U I’m always waiting for the burn that never comes. It’s like heaven.
Has anyone ever noticed that MAF power/HR being affected by elevation? I just moved and we dropped 3100 feet in elevation.
What I’ve noticing is that I’m feeling more fatigued after doing “easy” rides at 125bpm. I’m putting out good wattage. The riding itself doesn’t feel hard but my legs are thrashed afterwards.
I tried dialing it back to 115bpm and that felt more like an easy endurance ride and my legs weren’t so thrashed.
There are a lot of confounding factors in this move. I took two weeks off of training and now I’m doing a lot more trainer rides whereas I was riding mostly outdoors before. On top of it I got a new trainer - Kicker.
My other thought was that maybe doing mostly trainer rides is hitting me different from a neuromuscular point of view. Maybe my legs aren’t used to pedaling non-stop or being locked into the fixed position on a trainer longer periods of time.
Odd, I would have thought the opposite. Dropping elevation should make it easier. What is the temperature difference from your previous location? If is is much hotter and/or humid than I could see where it might be difficult for a short time, until you get fully acclimated to your new area. Hydration could also be a factor if the above is true.
Can I ask some questions about MAF please - Feel free to treat me as a simpleton
I have some friends who run by MAF and have seen good improvements, but I have some issues in understanding the theory behind the numbers etc.
If you have 2 athletes who are same age (for example 40) and same level of training but one has a lactic threshold of 140 & the other 170. They are to use the same training zones with very different engines in each of the users.
What is the impact of this? How does MAF system benefit both athletes?
Mostly I’m riding on the trainer in an air conditioned room. I’ve ridden outside and I feel great on the bike. It could just be the difference between riding mostly outdoors before and now mostly indoors. It could be the new trainer. It feels easy enough while I’m actually riding, it’s only afterwards that my legs feel thrashed.
Great progress, but I’m pretty sure this isn’t considered MAF training if you’re not actually running at or close to your MAF HR, it’s just LSD at Z1/Z2 (which is obviously working well for you!).
what about people with high HR?
I am 40 with a max hr of 200 (+/- 5)
This is my only problem with MAF. it doesn’t seem take into consideration people with higher HR.
It seems to be the “easy HR” version of “Max HR calculation of 220 - age” which is has been proven to be wrong.
Depending on you training history and general health there are some adjustments that you have to make. Also be aware that MAF is a starting point that would be ok for the majority. That however leaves a lot that are outliers. MAF pace is actually 10 beats below Fat Max HR up to Fat Max HR.
A good reminder also is that MAF is intended to be, first and foremost, a restorative and health-focused theory; it is not a prescription for performance training. If you undertake MAF you need to understand that your goal is to build a healthy body (and the systems inside that body) which will ultimately lead to an increase in performance.
I missed the caveat at the end, but it lends itself to the problem with the formula (even the adjusted one like you were accounting for as well). But like I said, what you’re doing whether it’s actually true MAF or not is working for you quite well (I’m a similar responder).
I’m not sure if that’s the true intention or not, but one of its biggest claim-to-fame’s is Mark Allen’s use of it for Ironman racing so there definitely can be a mindset of performance around it.
Definitely true. Read his white paper. Don’t forget, Maffetone developed his theory from the standpoint of a medical doctor.
The very reason Allen started doing MAF is because his performances were getting worse…because his body functions were getting worse. Maffetone put him on a MAF diet in order to get his systems into proper healthy working order.
MAF isn’t going to make you faster but it will develop the abilities to support the stuff which will make you faster.
