Sounds like it would be great if you could program erg mode to respond to heart rate.
This is something I’m going to do next year. I find the progression in the SSB a little fast for my age-64.
I can’t find a link, but I think I saw a video from Shane Miller that covered a heart rate based mode in the Tacx app.
Chad, Thanks for the tip. I found Shane’s review of the latest version of the Tacx training app. It does have the option to train accd to heart rate. I downloaded it to my Samsung galaxy phone, but it appears that it only looks for Tacx trainers. I have a Kickr. Going to do more research…
I don’t think if they have the option, but the free Golden Cheetah or Maximum Trainer are open source, and may have HR ERG control. Might be worth a search on their forums.
Somebody had a idea about an HR controlled electric bike back in 2014 but it didn’t reach it’s funding target on Kickstarter
I think I finally understand why SS has always been such a struggle for me - this is really well said!
I’m already forming a plan for next year. Plan to do Traditional base 1 once or twice MAF style, followed by Coach Chad’s VO2 block before moving into SSB. I’m going to continue one longish session MAF style through SSB., which will prolong Base. Maybe by the 3rd year I’ll have enough in my legs to go straight to SSB.
This part is really interesting to me - I had thought that over time, people would push up their “MAF power” towards their FTP in different ways / amounts, such that there wasn’t a reasonably consistent way to translate HR-based levels to a reasonable FTP, but it sounds like in this case it was fairly accurate across riders.
If you don’t mind sharing - what was that factor used to move from the aerobic power to FTP? My guess would have been something like ~140%, as I equate aerobic / MAF level to about 70% of FTP, and 100/70 is about ~140%, but really curious what you used in your process. Thanks!
It turn out it was pretty easy; TrainerRoad and Chad have have done most of the work for you because the’ve built the workout; classified them, and scaled everything against FTP with a percentage adjuster.
The protocol was:
1: Pick workouts labeled at Endurance and stick to those.
2: Start with an obvious under estimated FTP
3: Ride the Endurance workout
4: Use the Percentage adjuster to raise the level of the workout until HR is in the 180-age-5 range; adjust throughout the workout as needed up and down.
5: At end of the ride note the percentage adjustment that you were on for most of the ride.
6: Repeat for a week.
7: End of the week average the percentages from step 5
8: Raise FTP setting by that average percentage so you don’t have to do as much percentage adjust the next week.
9: Repeat.
Note if you over shoot or get fatigued you may have to move the percentage down. instead of up.
Over time as you aerobic base gets better your FTP will get better and better and keep moving up.
After 6 weeks of this you will have a very good estimate of your FTP; and you can use that for a polarized week of hard stuff. Then do another 6 weeks. I know it sounds like a lot but it’s easy on the body. At the end of 13 weeks if you FTP test (ramp, or 8 minutes) you’ll find you are right near your estimate in most cases and if you now do a polarized week of sweet spot you’ll find it doesn’t crush you like it might have in the past if you had a small aerobic base.
As a 65 year old, does that mean I should be riding at a pulse of 110?. It will seem like I’m barely moving. My current resting pulse is around 50 and my max per a recent ramp test is 176.
That is the prevailing theory. If you are a life long athlete add +5. It will seem annoying at first but the power you can out put at those levels comes around fast. At 1 hour if seems easy at 90 minutes you’ll feel it at 2 hours you’ll want it to be over. After 2-3 days you want an off day.
I suggest trying to follow this approach with the rides from traditional base mid volume the length and spacing of the rides is spot on…
Yup. Except that your range would be 100-110bpm (I’m 112-122). And yes, the overwhelmingly common MAF complaint is that it’s sooooper sloooow. But…you do get faster.
Since I tried out MAF in winter 2017/18 just two thoughts:
-
yes, LT1/VT1/power@MAF is trainable. This moved up significantly for me according to lab testing. However, I do not find that LT1 expressed as percentage of LT2/VT2/MLSS/FTP changes a lot. LT2 seems to move in parallel. This is quite different to expressing LT1 and LT2 as percentage of VO2max. This seems to be highly variable. I switched to a ~20hrs low-intensity-high-volume training regime in 2015/16. This made LT2 move up as well despite not really being targeted in the beginning. However, with race season intensity arrived. And this would draw up both sharply: LT1 and LT2.
Not MAF specific but my HR@LT1 corresponded to 183W in 2015 (after a 4 yrs racing break due to twins … but was still active). Now I’m at 250W. The absolute increase in W is larger than the increase in LT2/MLSS/VT2/FTP. -
MAF is so slow: no, I can’t attest to this. Quite to the contrary. As alluded to above I had already 2 years of ~20hrs/wk in my legs. I’d say my MAF heart rate put me somewhere into mid-Tempo-Zone. This was for sure fun to ride outside, however, I considered these as my base rides. So 3 to 4 4-4hr rides on subsequent days. The net result was that I burned out quite quickly. I was really tired and it took me a while to recover. My race results plateaued in season 2018.
This winter I stuck strictly to my lab determmed VT1 heart rate. And did the one intensity workout per week. Later I progressed to two intensity workouts/wk.
The result: progress in race results again despite getting older and older.
At 65 you could actually be adding 15 onto your MAF HR. Also Maffetone also states somewhere that The MAF HR is a proxy for VT1/LT1. He got the number from observing the HR of a lot of athletes. Also bear in mind that his method is also very heavy on the diet side of things.
This from the MAF website:
The 180 Formula
To find your maximum aerobic training heart rate, there are two important steps.
- Subtract your age from 180.
- Modify this number by selecting among the following categories the one that best matches your fitness and health profile:
a) If you have or are recovering from a major illness (heart disease, any operation or hospital stay, etc.) or are on any regular medication, subtract an additional 10.
b) If you are injured, have regressed in training or competition, get more than two colds or bouts of flu per year, have allergies or asthma, or if you have been inconsistent or are just getting back into training, subtract an additional 5.
c) If you have been training consistently (at least four times weekly) for up to two years without any of the problems in (a) and (b), keep the number (180–age) the same.
d) If you have been training for more than two years without any of the problems in (a) and (b), and have made progress in competition without injury, add 5.
For example, if you are 30 years old and fit into category (b), you get the following: 180–30=150. Then 150–5=145 beats per minute (bpm).
In this example, 145 must be the highest heart rate for all training. This allows you to most efficiently build an aerobic base. Training above this heart rate rapidly incorporates anaerobic function, exemplified by a shift to burning more sugar and less fat for fuel.
Initially, training at this relatively low rate may be difficult for some athletes. “I just can’t train that slowly!” is a common comment. But after a short time, you will feel better and your pace will quicken at that same heart rate. You will not be stuck training at that relatively slow pace for too long. Still, for many athletes it is difficult to change bad habits.
If it is difficult to decide which of two groups best fits you, choose the group or outcome that results in the lower heart rate. In athletes who are taking medication that may affect their heart rate, wear a pacemaker, or have special circumstances not discussed here, further consultation with a healthcare practitioner or specialist may be necessary, particularly one familiar with the 180 Formula.
Exemptions:
- The 180 Formula may need to be further individualized for people over the age of 65. For some of these athletes, up to 10 beats may have to be added for those in category (d) in the 180 Formula, and depending on individual levels of fitness and health. This does not mean 10 should automatically be added, but that an honest self-assessment is important.
- For athletes 16 years of age and under, the formula is not applicable; rather, a heart rate of 165 may be best.
Once a maximum aerobic heart rate is found, a training range from this heart rate to 10 beats below could be used. For example, if an athlete’s maximum aerobic heart rate is determined to be 155, that person’s aerobic training zone would be 145 to 155 bpm. However, the more training closer to the maximum 155, the quicker an optimal aerobic base will be developed.
Agreed. There are of course outliers but if you read the MAF forum on FB you’d believe that virtually everyone who starts the method thinks they are an outlier!
Can I ask a stupid question? Is this something you can just apply to your long endurance rides (im doing Maclure every week in addition to LV base) or is it a way of training that you apply to all workouts for a period? My base isnt great so want to see if Its a beneficial option for me to do this on my weekly long rides.
I’m brand new at this but my understanding is that it’s a training method which is applied to all rides and for an extended period (e.g. months).
It’s a matter of creating an aerobic base but it’s also conditioning the body to function in a healthy and (almost) stress-free manner; resetting your system, if you will.
I did my first MAF/low HR commute yesterday…took me quite a bit longer to get home than if I had rode to my abilities, but I felt great.
I use MAF workouts to manage training & life stress. So if my performance on the TR plan WO’s seems to be drifting negatively I’ll use a MAF workout to guide my response. If my baseline MAF workout goes well and is in spec ( HR & RPE) then I probably was just a bit under recovered and can continue with the TR plan. If the MAF is hard then I need to reset and will continue with MAF workouts until I return to baseline.
From the MAF website:
It helps you personalize your approach to improve nutrition, balance exercise, and manage physical, biochemical, and mental-emotional stress.
There’s a marked difference between ‘health’ and ‘performance’; MAF is more of a health-focused lifestyle which creates a foundation for performance; and as mentioned, very diet orientated, i.e. fat as fuel.
I love performance training/racing, but you gotta wonder what’s the long-term effect of all that prolonged intensity, especially regarding the biochemical stress.
When you think about it, from an evolutionary POV, the brain and body entered HIIT-level territory only in life or death/fight or flight situations — and those were probably infrequent. So to hammer the body with repeated bouts of survival-level stress on a continuous basis…on some level that has to be damaging (Maffetone has said that out of all the athletes he coached when doing his doctorate, only one (1) did not have some kind of heart issue).
That’s my bar stool take on it!
I’ll buy you a beverage for that.