Perhaps it’s todo with runners protecting their joints and muscles as the build their aerobic system. Going slow limits how much pounding their joints and such will take. Also. particularly on the MAF forums the 180-age rule seems to be taken as sacrosanct whereas Maffetone himself says it is only a substitute for a physiological test. ie my MAF range is something like 115-125 whereas other data shows it’s more like 124-134.
Im curious what your actual sustainable power was, not just a modeled ftp. If using the ramp, its taking the same % of map for everyone. I just attempted a 1 hour session at ramp test ftp and am finding my mlss is closer to 73% of my 1 min max. Last year i was really focused on shorter burst power, so think it was probably even lower then. Semi confirmed by lower than expected .if from race results.
Based on a 60 min session I did last week it’s around 88% of my current FTP. So I’m able to sustain 305w @ aerobic pace (MAF). I’m assuming MAP is the maximum power you can sustain without venturing into anaerobic territory…
2 Likes
That’s a pretty big delta, and since your map (5-6 min power) is somewhere around 400 watts im curious how well you could maintain that, but you’ve clearly got a very active anaerobic system. Seems one of the best ways to reduce that anaerobic pull is to stop doing them.
Ive been doing that but am finding that focusing mainly on lit comes at the cost of my map going down, but am expecting a nice bounce back once i start doing some work at 120%. And will then add just a few weeks of the really high power anaerobic repeats before my supposed a race date (I’m guessing it might not happen…)
1 Like
on Tuesday I did 51 minutes at threshold and had 3% aerobic decoupling. Ran out of road, could have gone another 10-20 minutes.
If I take that article at face value, my AeT is my FTP?! 
Ok, rereading it I see its “less than AeT” (<AeT).
Keep us updated with your training as you incorporate some more intensity. I might actually do another ramp test next week just out of curiosity. I was never planning on racing this year, so I’m happy to keep doing what I’m doing and keeping it more unstructured.
Without any racing or other goals on the horizon, I thought I’d give the old MAF training a go. Today was my first stab at it to get some data.
Some stats:
44 years old
FTP - 301w
Max hr - 187
Plan today was a 3 hour ride, and keep my hr between 125-130 (65-70% of max) and not exceed 140bpm on hills.
Results for today:
91km
Avg hr - 127
Avg power - 185
NP - 189
Hr and power for the first half of the ride:
185w, hr 127
Hr and power for the second half of the ride
184w, hr 128
So, I didn’t have any drift which is good. So based on this data, should I up the power a bit and see if I get drift, or stay at this level for a few rides?
Edit: I should add, that I didn’t eat anything during the ride and drank one bottle of water (only 8 deg Celsius here).
If you are doing true MAF you’ll be training according to HR only. For a long time. Period.
You have your MAF range (180-age), keep riding at that level and only that level and power increases will take care of themselves.
Try a 5hr ride, see what your drift is. Then string together a few 3hr rides, see what happens to drift on the last day. Etc.
I’d wish you godspeed but…there’s no speed in MAF. Sorry. 
Thanks for the reply. To be honest, I’m not sure how long I can do this type of riding - it’s not actually the speed that is mentally taxing - I still averaged 19mph over the 3 hours, it’s more the even pacing and not going hard on the hills that I find tricky mentally.
Part of my motivation trying a block of this training is to lose a bit of weight and improve my aerobic power at lower a lower hr. Then I would like to introduce some intensity and follow a polarized approach keeping most of my rides easy. I figure doing a block of “disciplined easy” will set me up better for a proper polarized plan and be able to execute those easy rides better.
1 Like
TBH, it does take months and months of MAF to improve low HR aerobic power, and these rides are not at all taxing so you’re probably not going to lose much, if any, weight unless you chop portion sizes off the bike. You also won’t require as many carbs if you do true MAF – like 90% less carbs than a TR plan. SS is your best bet for weight loss.
I’ve done a short block of strict MAF and know what it can do for me personally. Would I do it again? Yes but probably not strict MAF, maybe more of a VHV Z2 w/ fuzzy edges block. That’s the plan for this summer, anyway. Good time to experiment!
IRL results:
(Warning: Canadian content, eh!)
2 Likes
I’m only cycling (no running), and my MAF HR is 107-117 which puts it in zone 1 (Coggan zones). And looking at a lot of data I can do long threshold work with low 2-4% decoupling. And even longer 2+ hour tempo work with low decoupling. So the decoupling test isn’t particularly useful for me, except after taking a break.
This was interesting tweet:
and chart:
Source: https://twitter.com/Alan_Couzens/status/1246119660728115200?s=20
On the Intro to MAF white paper I read this:
The 180-Formula was engineered as an easy-to-use accurate estimator of an individual’s Maximum Aerobic Function Heart Rate (MAF HR), at which stress levels are low enough that sugar is being utilized at a minimum, but fat-burning activity is at its highest.
It seems like MAF HR should actually be FATmax HR?
Yes it has some appeal but for myself it hasn’t added up. Using 180 formula my MAF HR is very very low. If MAF HR is suppose to be at FATmax then my actual FATmax HR while cycling is ~20bpm above upper range of estimated MAF HR. According to INSCYD results I’ve got a medium absolute FATmax. It appears I have generally good aerobic fitness and fat burning.
Curious about how you see MAF applying to cycling.
1 Like
Honestly, I don’t know. All this current talk about training LIT and how this is supposed to make you somehow fast, I don’t know.
I’ve always been a slow/steady and long guy. I’m not a no-pain-no-gain person who kills himself by just riding tempo/SST/threshold all the time. Acutally, I don’t really know anyone who does this. Perhaps because I don’t enjoy riding with these people. Therefore, I’m always a little bit offended by Seiler & Co when they run “typical non-pros” down in the various podcasts.
However, for folks with training discipline issues something like MAF HR may serve as a cap. Prevents them to dig too deep all the time. Apart from this, who knows if we should at/below/above/sometimes-above/below/at … and so on … at AeT/MAF/VT1/LT1?
1 Like
Thanks and agreed. Personally have been doing long rides from the start of my cycling career, and it. is the focus on weekend club rides in our area. Here locally I don’t know anyone that is no-pain, no-gain. Also find it offense to hear these remarks from Seiler and even read the same in the Intro to MAF white paper.
Maffetone does state this in the same white paper:
As noted above, this point is referred to as the aerobic threshold (AerT) and Fatmax, which coincides with the MAF HR.
It doesn’t make you fast, it builds the physiological capacity to support the training which does make you fast. I think we can all agree that cycling is based on aerobic ability, MAF et al is just one way to develop and strengthen that ability.
Too much overthinking these days.
3 Likes
One question for MAF “users” - did anyone observed improved VO2? I was recently reading couple of Alan Couzens articles and play with his calculations. The article I have in mind (it was cited by coach Chad in one of the podcast):
https://www.google.com/amp/s/simplifaster.com/articles/how-trainable-is-vo2-max/amp/
Not sure anyone would be able to observe that w/o being lab tested. There most likely is an improvement.
The following is a good read into the components of VO2max and the types of training which builds those components.
1 Like
This. 
2 Likes
not a MAF user but have done a deep-dive on improving VO2max. Did you see figure 4 from the article:
its classic pyramidal cycling training. I’m still unclear about MAF training except for the initial period of doing low-intensity work.
I’ve been using WKO for awhile and received my first INSCYD report. Both estimated my VO2max within 0.1%, for what its worth. Both of those tools require doing max efforts over various time durations. Also wanted to mention I’ve also seen good correlation between WKO and Garmin Edge 530 estimates of vo2max (Garmin based on FirstBeat and uses sub-maximal efforts).
Again it does require doing max efforts of different durations. For example here is a WKO5 graph of estimated vo2max over this season:
The Garmin graph is similar. And yes, the increase is noticeable.
Asking why before embarking on multiple months (or a year) of low-intensity MAF training or polarized HV-LIT+HIT is simply making informed decisions before jumping in and experimenting.
I’m truly trying to unravel and understand. MAF, started at the MAF website and looked at the key white papers. The papers are long on rhetoric and short on content. And I don’t run. Coming in I already had a solid understanding of the value of training high volumes at low intensity. As per @Captain_Doughnutman earlier, maybe its written for the unhealthy (“antidote for athletes who had completely trashed their hearts”) and HIT addicts that have no aerobic base. 
1 Like