Why Are Runners Still Getting This WRONG?
Вставка
- Опубліковано 13 сер 2024
- Why Are Runners Still Getting This WRONG?
I'm not sure why but runners are still calling or believing they are running oin zne 2 when they train at MAF or vice versa. YOU ARE NOT.
all it takes is a little bit of research to find out exactly what each training methodology is.
anyway here are the calculations for you
MAF - 180 - Your AGE
Zone 2 - MAX heart rate x0.60 and x 0.70 that is your zone 2 range. between 60 and 70 %
anyway day 3 training for jurassic coast 100k - treadmill 70 mins easy
If you are a brand and want to work with me then you can email at
leerunsultras@gmail.com
or alternatively you can find me on Instagram
/ leerunsultras
Music used
www.epidemicso... - Спорт
Agree with you Lee. I’m using zone 2 to build back my aerobic base like you after injury.
MAF can extend and build on the aerobic base of Z2 training without the risk of overtraining although when I’m happy I’ll switch to the 80/20 method, where I add one speed session a week which pushes into Z4&5 for building Vo2 max anaerobic base.
I’ve found this really helps for the longer race training and did me well for the LL100 and Arc. Glad your training is going well and best of luck at the Jurassic 100k 👍
Yes mate these people really wind me up when they don't know what zone 2 is 😂😂😂😂
Basing any zone calculation off X minus age is already inherently flawed. You need to already have a ball park number for your max heart rate, either through a max heart rate test, or at least from your workout statistics, which 99% of watches give you.
Then, basing zones simply off max heart rate, will most likely not match RPE or the values a lactate threshold test would give you. As you said, 60-70% of MHR is pretty low.
In my experience, with the Karvonen Method the zones align a lot more closely to lactate test, RPE and even MAF.
@ItsJakeTheBrake mate you need to watch my latest video I'm not going through this again just because I didnt state all other methods of getting max hr doesn't mean this one is wrong
Back in the day, which is also known as at school, our class did some exercises and then everybody took his pulse for 15 seconds. Pulse times four was your max HR. Comparing the numbers we found, 220 - age is a rule of thumb and some guys didn't work out as hard as they should 😄.
In my world 40 miles a week beats 20 miles a week and every week beats every other week and that's all I need to know. That means I will never win a race, but I am fine with that.
Spot on. As long as you're active who cares
I agree zone 2 isn't MAF, but let's not define zone 2 by starting with max HR = 220 - age either (the least accurate way to estimate your z2). %HRR is better, but outside of an expensive lab test, most running coaches are going to triangulate z2 with a combination of HR and RPE/talk-test.
@Jason608 yep your right 220 is just one method of calculating your max hr of which there are many. Outside the lab my favourite is the Cooper test
Irony of talking about educating yourself and then putting 06 x 07 max heart rate %.
@emilosification that's exactly what it is though between 60 and 70 % of your max heart rate. Or if you want to use max heart rate - resting heart rate. It all depends on what zones you are using.
@@leerunsultras it really isn't. Zone 2 is at ventilatory threshold (easy talk test) which sits little below 80% max heart rate. So your MAF is 180-39 = 141, and your zone 2 is 180*0.8 = 144. All rough calculations
@emilosification no its not 80% I zone 3 il explain in today's video just so you understand
@@bmp713no they don't zone two is 60-70. 😅 80% is threshold ffs
there's nothing more stupid than to think training zones can be calculated out of so called "maximum heart rate" which no one knows in fact. Zone 2 just ends at your 1st ventilatory threshold or aerobic threshold or 1st lactate threshold. Maf calculation is a rough estimation of that numbers and is much closer to reality than max heart rate approach
Calling Me stupid when that's what's been done forever
@@leerunsultras I don't call you stupid, I don't know you. I call stupid this particular way of calculation. Forever, really? People didn't know nothing about zone 2 until recently. And 220-age is nothing more than medical precautions for people to stay safe when training. It has zero physiological base. Whereas ventilatory threshold have solid evidence of being key pillars to plan training around
@haymie94 I agree there's been huge advancement in lactate training and threshold. But the fact still stands that this method is still used and taught. I don't use it myself as I have had a lab test and know that my max is 188 despite being 39. The problem is, because somebody thinks one method is more advanced than an another. That the other method should not exist. When in fact it does. What ever training method or zone method you chose as long as it works for you. Who really cares
@@leerunsultras Just wrong. Now that we have GPS we have to stop using stars for navigation. Period. Good old talk test is way more relevant for finding zone 2 than max HR approach. And your lab test is useless because it's not your maximum heart rate. In certain circumstances you'll be able to achieve a higher value. For example during a half marathon when weather is getting hot. If you have enough fuel in the tank you'll drive your heart 5-10 beats higher by the end of the race
@@haymie94 Exactly this. I've tried to explain to people so many times that Max HR is an essentially mechanical limit that is more or less untrainable. All of the thresholds are primarily products of metabolic function and are all trainable. The only "threshold" type measure that relates to Max HR is VO2 Max, but in practice that is as much limited by stroke volume (slightly trainable) as it is by Max HR. When % this or % that is quoted, what it means is; approximately, more or less, maybe, possibly there or there abouts. If people want to invest time and effort basing their training on that, crack on and good luck!
I just have one HR zone, that way I am always in it 👍
@@trailsandbeers you win lol
My MAF is 131 -10 as I’m insulin resistant so 121. Top of my zone 2 is around 160. So I completely agree with you. MAF is definitely not zone 2 😊
160 zone 2 😳
Maf should work on threshold or max hr rather age. My max is 30 beats per minute more than chris froomes and we're the same age... pretty sure we shouldn't be training at the same HR.
I know they adjust for fitness etc. but you get similar variance in max hr amongst highly trained athletes...
Obviously not everyone is the same. But maf is 180 minus your age. There's no disputing that.
Are so many not understanding this? MAF is fixed but clearly not right for most people, just the person who fits the average. Z2 can only be calculated accurately in a lab, but the Kavonen method seems reasonable and has worked well for my training. MAF for me is right on the limit between Z1 and Z2, so I run top of Z1 when doing a MAF test, or recovery run, and use Z2 for my easy runs. It's not complicated.
@st4331 exactly mate I used maf to run a sub 3 marathon. But maf doesn't work for so many people because of fitness levels. Maf heavily depends on high volume. Kavonen is a great method, I've also used the Cooper test using a chest strap to determine my max heart rate. There's so many ways to skin a cat and essentially you have to find what works for you. I guess my message is and always will be that too many people run their easy runs too hard without even realising it. I wish you all the best in your training and thanks for watching and taking time to comment 😊
@@leerunsultras So true, many people still think they need to run hard to improve, yet long runs at Z1/2 are very enjoyable and after some time you find you're running as fast as you were at Z3, at least I did, and so did my son! He's now done a 100k ultra; I'm doing my second 50K in Sept. I never thought I'd be able to run that far, but slowing down has stopped the injuries and massively improved my endurance! MAF meant walking when I first started; people, need to give it time.
@st4331 that's amazing I still have to walk sometimes. Yes I may post all my maf rest results because in 6 months I went from an 11 min mile to a sub 8 min mile at the same heart rate ❤
@@leerunsultras That's excellent, amazing improvement in 6 months. Results just keep improving with time. I do an 8km MAF test once a month and I averaged 6m32s/km in June and it was 36C, but that's after 2 years!
Is that the book written by Prof Tim Noakes?
@@hevizi spot on
@leerunsultras he's excellent. He's got some great content out there.
Yes defo@@hevizi
Isn't zone 2 based on you lactate 1? When your lactate levels reach 2.0mmol
Lt 1 and Lt 2 are being bounded around as if that is a new theory. The reason I used the 220 method is because zone 2 is done off your maximum heart rate. And the only way to get an accurate reading is by going to a lab. Problem is there is many ways of getting your zones. Whether that's max heart rate - resting heart rate. Whether it's lactate threshold.
So in short the most common way to find zone 2 is taken from your maximum heart rate. Then multiply by 0.60 and 0.70
@@leerunsultras the 220 - age does not work with me. With that equation it would be 175 but I've done a max HR test by running and found out that it is much higher.
@@kahlis like .i said the best way to determine max hr is a lab test. 220 is a guide
@@leerunsultras sorry, I missed that. I agree that things should be measured.
How do you feel about other methods like the Karvonen Method of determining zones?
f*** these zones, read Daniels book for guidance
@patmone922 yep I have every book you can imagine 💪 training what works for you