So I’ve read most of the big book of endurance. Some great content and certainly resonates with me looking back at 20 years of training.
Obviously this was written before widespread use of power meters but HR training still has its place particularly with endurance riding IMO.
So my question is about the MAF test and setting MAF. Personally mine is pretty accurate using the 180 - age + adjustments. My other half however is 3 year older than me and normally runs about 10-15 beats high than me across all zones so just does not work for hear. Mafftone claims this is a fit all calculation, is that still his position?
Secondly I performed a test on Tuesday and came up with what was a lower than expected watt number. Wed I complete a Sweetspot #6 workout and today an endurance workout.
The HR and watts I produced today in endurance intervals were 19 watts higher than those on Tuesday for the same MAF HR.
I will ignore that test result for now, might repeat next week. But my question is, is a test really necessary? I could estimate it based upon endurance workouts and riding outside. Before I even knew of Mafftone, looking at my watts and relative HR on long endurance rides was something I looked at closely would signal when I have exhausted all the endurance gains and start shifting into higher intensities.
Anyways, after a bad head injury earlier in the year I am quite content so stay in the endurance zones for now.
I was never a trainer person pre covid but transitioned and got some great form with trainer road. But having read Mafftones book looking back at those days there was a price to pay.
I spent a summer going to physio on my back, neck etc and explained to physio exactly what I was doing on the turbo (VO2max, threshold etc). He advised it was nothing to do with turbo training and cause was likely desk work etc.
Deep down I knew that type of training was at least contributing but I was flying up climbs and performing really well so suck it up.
At a point now where I enjoy endurance on a turbo which I thought I could never get engaged or derive any satisfaction, happy days.
Love these questions. I think most would argue Maffetone is not one size fits all. Having read all of Maffetone’s stuff and understanding the nature of what he is suggesting, I am inclined to believe it does fit most people that think it does not.
When you start out doing so low/slow it seems impossible, you have to run/walk and walk all hills, you hate and think it is terrible and no fun… fast forward a few months and now you see you are running regularly and getting faster.
I would say it might be hard sell for her and there is an argument for having fun and enjoying what you do. If she really wants to put health (and arguably endurance performance) in front of pleasure, it’s worth trying for 2-3 months and seeing what happens. If not, she can just keep having fun. I started 100 days of 7 days a week of 2km running at 133 bpm with my wife walking fast-ish… by the end of the 100 days I was at 100bpm at the same slow pace. I was involved in all the Maffetone groups 10 years ago, so really feel like I have a grasp on that.
Regarding your differences. Pre-training diet and activities play a huge role in training HR. This drives people crazy and makes them think HR training is for the birds… Stress also drives it up. Just keep going and you will get a pattern of understanding what affects your HR.
Cycling not exactly the same as running and since it is not so punishing there might be more flexibility but since there is not much proof and Maffetone is still the leader in low HR training I would take his advice and error on the low side.
She goes on group rides with the cycling club and they are predominantly men with a few women so naturally stronger and put her under pressure. Her MAF is 130 and regularly ends up with an average HR of 155-160 for 3 - 4 hours so cortisol is sky high and struggles to sleep after these spins.
I do encourage her to try keep the HR down in every other ride but she thinks she must train harder to hang with the group .
I am very new to low HR training. Since 6 July I have done 33x 2 hour workouts on the trainer using the TrainerDay HR+ mode with the target HR set at 126.
That keeps me below my Maffetone formula HR of 132 - usually I see a spike or two in the file up to 130 / 131.
I don’t do just MAF rides, but I use them as the “80” part of a broadly polarised plan that I am currently following.
Here is the relevant part of my power / hr chart comparing 2 months prior to incorporating these workouts into my schedule with the period since starting.
The progression is not linear. Not by a long way.
Some days the power I put out in the workout is way lower than other days. But it is clear that the moving average is nudging upwards.
@arthurdaly mentions a 19w delta at the same HR from workouts just a couple of days apart. That does not surprise me one bit.
I like the workouts and they leave me fresh enough to hit the higher intensity workouts properly.
The (self designed) plan I am on just now runs until the end of October. I haven’t yet decided for sure what I will do next. My current thinking is that continuing the low HR stuff into the next block would not be a bad decision.
I was pretty sceptical that the HR formula would work for me and the first few workouts I did were so much easier than I was used to that I thought I should bump up the HR target. But I stuck with it and that was definitely the right call.
I am not convinced that this is the best option for cyclists with a low training frequency, but for cyclists training four or more times per week, I think there are significant gains to be had from a big block of this type of workout.
Group rides often have some spicy moments and, IME, are not usually going to fit the MAF model. But I don’t think that really matters - we cycle because we enjoy it and if we enjoy group rides, we just work the rest of our training around them.
I thought you said she was runner. Yes group rides and MAF are polar opposites… They can almost never co-exist A health focused approach for most of the season would be to do 1 group ride a week and the rest low HR… and at her favorite times of the season if she wants to do more… do more.
It’s great to hear how you’ve reflected on 20 years of training and adapted your approach post-injury! Staying in endurance zones and paying attention to HR and watt patterns is such a smart way to gauge progress without overcomplicating things. Trainer Road can definitely help with structure, but listening to your body is key, especially after an injury.If you’re interested, you can also check out this article about workplace wellness challenges: Workplace Wellness Challenges: We List The Best Ways To Motivate Employees and Boost Productivity - BetterMe — it’s interesting to see how structured support and consistent routines make a huge difference, both for professional performance and personal fitness goals.
Obviously it depends on how adapted you are (she is) as long rides are obviously dependent on how many of them you do and how good of fat burner you are and many other factors. But it’s an interesting question. Do we have more decoupling as we age for long rides all else being equal? I know when I was 30 I could do crazy stuff relatively unprepared for the event and survive (say run grand canyon in 40c…)… now I would be in the hospital.
But overall my belief is that if you are extremely fat adapted and relatively prepared for the duration and keeping at a maf HR you can see very little decoupling over 4+ hours. 10 years ago I could run for 5 hours (slowly) but above my MAF HR and not have huge decoupling. But I was deep in MAF training. Now I go on 4-6 hour ride at MAF+10 and I am very decoupled and tired.
Here’s a table from Dr Seiler with 10 cyclists working for 4 hours at a self-selected effort level with Heart rate reserve/6 minute power tracked across the workout and RPE at the beginning and end.
Rider #2 only saw a 0.02 increase and RPE went from 8 to 12. Rider #9 saw an increase of 0.58 and RPE went from 9 to 18. The average rider went up 0.21 and RPE went from 10 to 14.
Conclusion: Riding for 4 hours or 3 hours 55 minutes is difficult The riders response to this workout is highly variable.
I don’t recall what video I pulled this screenshot this from, but it is probably the one with stress, strain, and load.
I would say very unlikely. We complete a charity ride with 200+ riders today and she averaged 165 for 3:35. It was fast enough by her standards and refused to let go of the faster group .
She also averaged higher watts than me despite being 12kg lighter so plenty to work on there.
Hopefully I can convince her to ride slowly over the winter.
I think it will be hard sell to try to convince her to ride slowly!
Maybe a pitch along the lines of something like “spend a few weeks focussing on some workouts that aim to specifically give you more power at lower HR… workouts that Mark Allen did a lot of in the training that enabled him to win 6 Hawaii ironman triathlons”
If she does the workouts consistently for a few weeks, then one look at her power/hr chart should be enough to get her attention.
How would you describe the RPE with the extra watts? Same effort level before uou started the low HR training?
More generally how would desribe your mid MAF range?
For me the top of MAF for muliple hours would not be easy, maybe a 4 out of 10 effort.
Not a fan of polarized year round, prefer something closer to traditional base during the winter, base + coach seems good to me.
Vo2max workouts in Nov / Dec just seem wrong🥵.
The RPE feels a touch higher in the last 15 minutes or so of the 2 hour workouts now that it did when I was generating less W at the target HR. I agree with your 4/10 effort as an overall score for the workout.
I don’t know what would happen for me beyond 2 hours. It feels as though I could carry on with good form for quite a bit longer, but I don’t have data to support / disprove that.
I am optimistic that I have room to increase the w at the target HR by continuing the current training. I will assess my progress again at the end of the month and see where I am then.
If there has been no improvement in the month, I will probably switch to something else for a few weeks and them come back to the low HR stuff again.
I agree with Ivegotabike. One doesn’t exclude the other.
Group rides are always very demanding. The best thing you train there is your ego. There is a linear relation between watts and ego in a group ride. The higher the watts, the bigger the ego.
Just kidding. Group rides can be very useful, but to perform well in a group ride, it’s best to schedule other sessions at a much slower pace. Riding slowly is very important.
@Ivegotabike So important that I would keep it as part of your next schedule as well.
Not everybody is the same, and Alex points out a crucial part of riding: having fun. If she really loves to do these group rides, she should, but ignoring slow rides is a mistake.
.
A health focused approach for most of the season would be to do 1 group ride a week and the rest low HR… and at her favorite times of the season if she wants to do more… do more.
