For reference sake, I don’t approach my 180-age HR until about 15-20 minutes in to the workout, that way it is more of a steady power/pace throughout. If I’m at 180-age 5 minutes in, it is a workout where I will be constantly slowing down for the remainder of the workout. Might be a bit easier to catch up/steady out on a ride, but on the run pace will just keep dropping. 180-age for me on the bike, 5 minutes in would mean I’m at around 250 watts. I can’t maintain that for an endurance ride.
Sorry for the confusion. You only adjust if you can’t stay below you max HR by MAF. It’s a ceiling you stay below. If the “max” of the workout doesn’t get you near it you’ll learn quickly to raise your estimated FTP. The rest of the variability of the workouts will still apply.
Thanks for clearing that up! I’ve read others refer to MAF HR as ‘high Zone 2’, so a Trad Base workout hitting 75% FTP would test your MAF HRmax and therefore give you some assumption of your actual FTP.
Wouldn’t it be simpler to just ride a 75% FTP Endurance workout at your upper limit MAF HR target, then calculate the % difference your average power was from the target power and extrapolate an FTP estimate?
This may not work; it’s what I did today and I got kind of an outrageous FTP based on the type of work I’ve been doing. 
I don’t really experiment much when I get something that works.
I have to keep it simple to get athlete’s to do it. It’s really just (1) ride the workouts, (2) adjust the percentage so at the hardest part you are just under MAF and done exceed, let the lows be the lows. (3) Repeat daily and note the offsets and adjust FTP by that percentage at the end of the week.
It works. It’s just long slow training. The first two weeks as expected will be sinusoidal in terms of adjustments.
2 Likes
For those interested in the exact Talk Test/VT1 protocol:
1 Like
Trad base has tempo intervals, which would push HR to high I would think
are you doing strength work as well Captain?
Really depends on the individual, and how high one’s aerobic base fitness is.
I did 90min at 80% of FTP a few days ago, and HR avg was right on 180 - age. For someone else, that might push them above. For a really fit endurance athlete, MAF may get close to FTP.
Not strictly Maffetone, but doing a 10-second pickup every 5 minutes or so during a MAF ride helps keep some fast twitch function. I’ll do that on my fixed gear+Kurt Kinetic setup. steady 90rpm under VT1, then :10 of whipping it up to 120rpm – which ends up being a little over 500w for the effort. Not a taxing at all, but do 20 of them over the course of an endurance session, and its a decent little stimulus to keep some speed.
3 Likes
Question About Range: MAF defines an “upper-threshold” not to exceed. Is the “lower-threshold” 5 beats below MAF = a 5-beat workout range? Or, are the same training benefits realized within a ~15 beat range below MAF?
1 Like
No the range is 10 beats. I think he says the benefits are greater the closer you are to the upper limit without going over it.
Just stumbled across this thread, but thought I would share my experience with MAF training so far. From October until December last year all I did was MAF running and rowing with absolutely no cycling. My running MAF went from 5:35 /km to 4:35 /km pace with the same HR (146). My rowing went from 1:56 /500m to 1:50 /500m, again with the same HR.
I did a FTP test on January 1st after having just taken over 3 months off the bike and my result was 345w. Since then I’ve added one bike session a week of between 30-60 mins all at MAF pace or a bit slower. I did Monitor yesterday and based on how that felt it looks like I either need to increase my FTP setting or redo the test. Since my main focus right now is still running for a few more months I haven’t decided if I’ll change it or not.
All of this to say that it’s not always necessary to do Z3-5 work to increase your FTP. When I eventually start riding again I’ll look at doing most of my sessions at MAF pace with one session a week with a bit more intensity. I’m definitely excited to see what this new (for me) type of approach will do for my cycling performance.
Cheers.
1 Like
Yes and no.
FTP is quasi-AnT (anaerobic threshold). What MAF training does, in a physiological sense, is raise your power at AeT (aerobic threshold) which can give the appearance of raising FTP/AnT. I’m sure it does contribute to a higher FTP but that’s not the goal (just as the goal of Z2 work is not to increase your VO2max even though it does help).
The early adaptors of MAF were marathon runners and triathletes. These athletes win races by slowing down the least, not necessarily speeding up the most (e.g. bike races). A higher power at AeT provides them with a faster slow speed (if that makes sense); their AeT is closer to their FTP/AnT than those with an untrained aerobic system.
Substantial increases in straight FTP does require Z3-5 work, there’s no way around that. It is possible to have a high FTP but a low AeT. Best to train both systems using the appropriate tools.
FWIW, I’m a believer in MAF/low HR training. 
Oh yeah I’m definitely not doubting that Z3-5 work is also an important part of increasing your top end, but I would highly recommend that people develop their full aerobic capacity first. Last year my aerobic system was pretty weak, but I did have a fairly high FTP because of always focusing more on the conventional style of training.
I’m curious to see how close I can get to last years FTP without any anaerobic work. 
Last year my FTP high was 305w. For health reasons I was sidelined from doing any intensity. After an extended break, I did only lots of MAF/Z2 for 4 months. FTP went from ~250w to ~275w. I’m starting back with “traditional” training now and the aerobic difference is noticeable, not huge, but noticeable.
I’ve also had a 305w FTP with almost no aerobic conditioning. That doesn’t work out so well.
yes, which requires developing both type 1 and type 2a muscle fibers… not sure why MAF only appears to focus on such low intensity that development might be restricted to type 1 development in the case of cyclists. Guessing its because of a running focus? serious question.
My MAF HR is right in Z3/tempo wattage territory. On a good day in SST. Just did several 60min decoupling tests to reconfirm my values. 180 formula is really spot on for me.
I actually like the concept, though I’m more a Mark Allen-MAF guy. He actually speaks of tempo workouts for these sessions right at MAF HR. Do two tempos, two endurance, and fill the rest with recovery during base. His recommendation.
Especially useful for running as it forces one to develop the motion apparatus first. Reduced risk for injury by not going too fast in the beginning. However, my problem with running is that I can’t even go so fast to get my HR to MAF. I have all the lungs from cycling but not the running legs. If I try to run so fast my legs are trashed. Therefore, I’m mostly below the 10beats MAF zone.
For sure it’s a weird/imperfect running-cycling translation but the MAF prescription is for many, many, many months of restricted HR training. Yes it does begin at low intensity, but the goal is to eventually increase that intensity by 10, 20, or maybe even 30% (all the while maintaining the same HR). So the skeletal muscles of cyclists will get some development along the way, but again, MAF was developed as an antidote for athletes who had completely trashed their hearts. It is first and foremost a restorative and recuperative training method for the heart muscles. Think of it as pre-base.
?