My MAF has me at 115 (age 65). My actual AeT after almost 3 years of work is 140 with my AnT at 155 so right at 10% delta. I would take the MAF and use it as a starting point. Obviously you are already beyond that, which is excellent. There is no absolute number, you want it to be as high as possible and you want it as close to your AnT as possible. If you have not already looked on this website, there are several articles and podcasts on this subject. It’s “all about the base”. Now just keep putting in the sub AeT hours/miles.
MAF vs. Measured Metabolic Tests
I am reading through Phil Maffetone’s “Big Book of ..”. I need your help to reconcile his MAF testing and and 180 formula vs actual cardio-metabolic tests.
Undoubtedly, he has an excellent track record of training world class athletes in various endurance events like the Ironman. He claims his 180 formula is very accurate. The engineer in me thinks that this formula is arrived at through empirical data and therefore accuracy need not apply. My cardio-metabolic tests put my aerobic TH at 132 bpm; his 180 formula puts it at 120. What are your thoughts?
Viewing 4 replies - 1 through 4 (of 4 total)
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.