Maximum Aerobic Function Training - A Successful Experiment
The Results: 40 days of MAF resulted in VO2 max gain of 11% on the bike, giving me a higher 3 hour power, and more durability - will I have a better foundation for 2016-17 OS (?TBD)
What is needed: extreme patience and discipline, putting your ego on the shelf. Examples of my workouts and results are below that will illustrate. But, if you have to run very slowly or even walk to maintain your MAF HR, it can be mentally challenging and a hit to the ego.
My background: I am 46 and have been doing triathlon for about three years - I was a runner in high school and did 5 & 10ks into my late 20s. In my 40s, getting back into running beat me up too badly, so I started triathlon after buying a bike. I went the traditional route of starting with sprints, an Oly, then a half and finally a full IM in 2015. This year I went back to sprints with a half IM at season end to mix up the training. I had some nice break-throughs with a 1st place AG and 1st Place Masters/2nd Place. And while I have improved in each of the disciplines (with running coming back and being my strength), the training was really taking its toll, leading to what seemed endless nagging pains. Running people down in races was nice, but I was losing power numbers on the bike and generally frustrated with the lack of bike improvement in last year's OS. So, I decided to try maximum aerobic function training to "step back" and reset. To my surprise, and after only 40 days, it worked for me, possibly pointing to the fact that I just didn't have the foundational fitness that others may have. I was possibly trying to build my house (fast and FTP) on sand (a lack of sufficient base).
What is MAF Training: For me, it was doing ALL TRAINING at aerobic threshold - swim, bike and run, with no high intensity strength training to send my body any other signals. To find my MAF, I used the "180 minus my age" formula, which was 135bpm, then added 5 points as I have been consistently fit for at least 6 months. The good thing is that when running and biking (and swimming very easy) at MAF, my body needed almost no recovery, leading to healing and consistency (at my age, this is probably the key and what led to my gains).
The Workouts: Like RnP say, there are three elements to workouts - frequency, duration and intensity. MAF uses frequency and duration at no greater than my 140 bpm heart rate. As I got more fit, I had to add duration to continue to stress my body for improvement as I was not using any intensity (really - zero, which requires discipline, especially when you "just want to get home" on a 10 mile run).
The Run: At first, I had extreme cardiac drift. For example, in a 4 mile run with the first mile being the warm-up, miles 2 through 4 were at 9:46/mile, 10:35/mile and 11:19/mile, while maintaining a 140 bpm heart rate. Adding a fifth mile and I was running as slow as 12:20/mile - which is pretty much a fast paced walk. But, after only 40 days, a 5 mile run looked more like: 9:26-9:32-9:28-9:44-9:39/mile.
The Bike: The bike is a different story. Riding at 140bpm is not "easy" per se on the bike. But, if I had a 1 1/2 or 2 hour ride, that's the only number I looked at on my Garmin 520. What I discovered studying the numbers over my MAF training period was that 140bpm resulted in 135 -140 watts in the beginning. Now, 140bpm results in 150-155 watts or higher, and I can go longer with less perceived effort. And again, all I used was the time of the workout (example 1.5-3 hours) and rode at my 140 bpm. My speed declined more in the beginning, but like running, got better toward the end of the 40 day period.
Next steps: After my 40 days of MAF (2-3 months would have been better), I launched into the latter part of the Intermediate HIM plan for my late season race. Almost immediately, i could tell the different. I almost had a record 40K ride. I also got three new "record VO2 max" recordings (per my Garmin 520) on the bike. In some cases, my muscle strength gave way before my cardio fitness as cardiovascularly I was comfortable. After the HIM, I'll be heading into the 2016-17 OS, with the hopes of building fast onto my newly improved foundational fitness, and then possibly taking that fitness into a IM training plan for IM Texas (since 2017 IM North Carolina was put on the shelf by WTC).
Bottom line: For where I was in my triathlon experience, this period of MAF training worked for me. I didn't have a long history in endurance sports when I started triathlon. While I was able to push my body for a few years to get better, i hit the plateau and my body even starting going backwards. I'm hoping to give this a longer time period at some point. But, I feel I'm in a better place even with the short 40 days.
Comments
Thank you for sharing your experience with this!! This is has recently been a HUGE topic of conversation among local triathletes in my area....A few of my friends switched to the MAF style of training and have really shown great improvements....staying at the same HR but going much, much faster. It's crazy to me!!! Like seriously, crazy. I would love to hear what the coaches have to say about this style of training and other thoughts! Just curious.
Im still a huge believer in this approach and try my best to incorporate it into my off season. Oh and one of the other added benefits of the MAF approach was my body comp going into AZ was the best it has ever been. When you are training primarily on fat as your fuel, the transformation is amazing.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts and good luck! Keep us posted on your progress.
I had started reading about this a few months ago and was more intrigued after talking to Mark Allen in Kona this year. Very interesting stuff about endurance performance and also general health. I did the bike test at MAF heart rate 2 weeks ago for 35 minutes and was almost 20 watts below my typical Ironman race effort! Did the run test last week for 4 miles. Started with a blistering 10:17 then 10:31, 10:50 and 11:15!! My usual IM marathon pace is about 8:40-8:45!! It will be really interesting to see how future tests go. At 62 years old I'm also thinking there may be some real value in terms of recovery and preventing injuries (one of which I have now!) Looking forward to hearing about other's experiences.
Interesting topic. As I understand it, Phil Maffetone came up with this philosophy and formula by observing a bunch of runners during track workouts and noticed changes in gait/efficiency at around the 180-age cutoff, and it has been expanded from there.
I have been trying to do my Z2 runs and Z2 bikes at below my 180-age HR since april . Interestingly, I don't have the strength or ability to consistently run at my MAF HR anyway (yet), and when I do exceed it regularly I wind up injured. So for running I tend to stay way below , in the 125-130 range (which coincidentally or not corresponds to TRP pace/HR). I too have noticed I recover faster from these runs. For cycling, unless its an interval I keep the HR below 133 (preferably below 120), and at the upper end this approaches ABP/IM+ watts.
I have come to believe that for me anyway 120-133 bpm is the sweet spot for running fitness and minimizing injury. I have done minimal intervals (i.e only 30sec strides and hill sprints) and mostly easy running since IMMT and set a 5k PB of 19:40 2 weeks ago (slow but I'll take a PB at 47 years old!).
Brad Kearns discusses MAF training regularly on the ' primal endurance ' podcast. He regularly stresses not to add on or fool yourself into a higher HR effort than the 180-age formula. I don't completely buy into the 'overstressing your heart' part of his argument but there is something to be said for the cumulative effects of harder cardio training on our physiology. Phil Maffetone's website also has a lot of good information. As with most 'exercise gurus' YMMV and everything should be approached with healthy skepticism. On the other hand, the likelihood of hurting yourself with this approach is probably very low.
A few comments...
1. Whenever this comes up, I reflect on what I heard Mark Allen say at an IM medical conference I attended once during Kona Week. He spoke of his frustration at not being able to perform well, or even finish, @ Kona for years, and then adopting the advice of Maffetone. He explained it in what could be described as periodization terms. He noted his initial skepticism, but was willing to try anything. Here's what he said he did... for about three months, he did all his running at the aerobic heart rate, and noticed his per mile times progressively dropping. After about 3 months, they plateaued, and, on his own, he switched to a more intensive training effort. Again, that seemed to reach a plateau after 2-3 months, so he switched back to aerobic. He felt this switching back and forth gave him both the strength and endurance he needed to eventually get over the hump in 1989 vs Dave Scott.
Doing one thing all the time will eventually lead to stasis, and we'll need to switch up our routine to start making more improvements. Same thing applies, to say, weight lifting routines. I switch mine every 3 months or so, as much out of boredom as wisdom, but it seems to at least keep me in the game (which is all I expect at this age).
2. I read the "180-age + 5" concept mentioned here, and discovered that I had indeed been doing this over the years as my "go-to" pace. This year, when I got back to running after a broken toe, I started slogging along at 118, which felt like a sweet spot to me. Turns out that's 180-67+5! By August, I was ready to start throwing in a bit of intervals, and did a few shorter races. After IM MD, I started back into doing most of my runs @ 120-130, thinking that was the right range for the half iron I have coming up. And my times per mile over the past 6 weeks have indeed dropped, to where I'm down to 8:30/mile, from the 9-9:15 I was at earlier in the year.
3. I think this is a reason why the OS is so effective. Most of us have been doing lot of aerobic work naturally at the end of our season, aiming towards an A race IM or HIM. Then a bit of a break, and its time to throw in some hard stuff, Three months of that, and swing the pendulum back to "far" more than "fast". IMO, this sort of an approach should not be an "either/or", but more "a lot(MAF)/a little(intense intervals)" then switch to "a little/a lot", which the proviso that "a lot" of intense intervals is a relative term, say going from 3% to 10-20% of time/distance.
4. The longer it's been since one has done real athletic training (meaning: incorporating speed & intensity plus substantial endurance volume) - ranging from never to years to months to weeks - then the longer it will be both necessary (to avoid injury) and helpful (to build up the size and function of the heart) to stay in the MAF zone almost full time. Someone like Allen in the example above who had been training for years as a serious world beating triathlete only needs 2-3 months of MAF before being ready to switch to the other side of the pendulum swing. So this is not a one size fits all plan; it must be tailored to where you are in your athletic career.
Using 133+5, you may still need to walk/run - fighting words for type A triathletes. It is extremely frustrating. Also expect not much improvement for nearly three weeks. It made me want to run at night so nobody could see me ... Using MAF on you rides helps. You just have to decide to go all in for a period of time no matter what. I saw improvements in 40 days but should have gone double that.
@Al, good points. Given that I had only done Sprints this year was a main reason I did MAF when I did as I didn't have that IM type training this year. Then moving from MAF/HIM into the OS will give me the exact periodization you reference. After the OS, I may go back into MAF to prepare for IMTX. Not sure yet.
I didn't use MAF heart rates this year, but I did focus on LT1. As I understand it, I believe that the HR associated with MAF and LT1 are essentially the same point of aerobic efficiency, the main difference being that MAF is calculated from a formula and the lactic threshold numbers that I used were physical measurements (I use the BSX Athletics device for the measurements).
My approach to training was a little different, I still incorporated HI intervals, but I made a concerted effort to keep my slow days slow. I also made adjustments to workouts like the Thursday long run. I would run the first half below LT1, then as I increased pace on the second half I would increase in increments, trying to allow my HR to settle with each adjustment so that I stayed below LT1 as long as possible. But when it came to the HI portions of workouts, I completely ignored HR and used target paces.
While doing this, I tracked two metrics: Max HR for the workout and EF (the Training Peak efficiency metric - it is essentially yards per heartbeat). As I built towards IMWI, I saw my the max HR that I achieved steadily decline (I excluded strides and efforts below 1.5 miles from this number because so that some track work wouldn't bias it). In the May/June timeframe I was averaging max HRs of mid 160s. By September I was averaging max HRs closer to 150. Keep in mind that this is MAX HR, not avg HR for the run.
Over the same period of time, my EF had increased from about 1.3 yds/heartbeat to 1.5+ yds/heartbeat (i.e., I was running over 15% faster at lower heart rates).
The chart below shows these changes.
I subscribe to the idea that we all have different training needs. A person that is new to endurance sports may benefit more from HR training than one that has been a life-long athlete. A life-long athlete that has primarily focused on HI workouts may benefit from incorporating HR-based training. The only right way (my opinion) is the way that most efficiently addresses each person's needs most efficiently.
@Trish - at the beginning of the season, and on certain runs during the build, I put a hard cap on HR and would stop and walk as needed to stay below that cap. Personally, I would have a difficult time mixing the objectives of my workouts... i.e., I would work on speed on speed days and disregard HR; cadence on cadence days and disregard speed and HR, etc.
Here is the data: