Podcast: Maffetone and AET/ANT numbers

  • Creator
  • #54042

    I’ve been listening to the various Phil Maffetone interviews on the Uphill Athlete podcast. I’m wondering on what seem like major differences with some other Uphill Athlete material.

    Phil sets the MAF at 180-your age, with a few modifiers. I’m equating that MAF with AET, at least in the sense of planning training. The formula does not increase MAF with training, except maybe 5 bpm or so (depending on age). But, he does say that gains in speed at MAF may be large and improvement for long training periods is possible.

    The Uphill Athlete guidance, as I understand it, is that as you train your AET (in bpm) should rise and you are aiming at getting AET within 10% of ANT. There is not age compensation here, presumably that is as feasible at 60 as at 20. The Phil Maffetone guidance doesn’t mention bringing AET and ANT closer together, and implies you can’t.

    In my case there is a lot of divergence in the numbers. At age 60 my MAF would start at 120, maybe be 125 considering training history. But I’ve had a gas exchange treadmill test recently that says my AET is 145. That test puts my ANT in the mid 160’s, also consistent with my HR history in races of the appropriate duration. 120 or 125 to 145 seems like a big gap. Doing the long sessions in the 16 week mountaineering plan at around 120 is a big difference compared do doing them around 140.

  • Participant
    Dada on #54044

    First of all, heart rate based general formulas are pretty much bs. Such a formula can be helpful when you don’t know anything at the beginning and since that formula is so conservative, it is probably not doing any harm.

    As soon as you know your real AeT, the Maffatone formula becomes obsolete.

    And I would consider the Maffatone formula rather top of Z1

    Best regards

    maforbes2000 on #54051

    Fair comment, but what is “real AeT?

    My MAF, by formula is 122 bpm. I have had a lab test, both Lactate and Gas Exchange measured. This gave a Fatmax of 131 bpm ( by Gas test), and an AeT of 145 bpm (by Lactate at 2 Mmol).

    The Lab test gave me an AnT of 161 bpm.

    I also believe that big aerobic gains can be made with high volume in Zone 1.

    Dada on #54075

    Real AeT in your case is 145. The upper boundery for Z1 would be therefor 131.

    Scott Semple on #55320

    Generic formulas are only helpful if someone is unable to get serious and test themselves to find what their individual response is. The MAF formula is super conservative and, IMO, often undershoots AeT except in people with very low maximum heart rates. By doing so, it will work because training easier than AeT is always beneficial and training over it, especially in the beginning, is not.

    Does it “work”? Sure. Kinda. Is it ideal? No.

Viewing 4 replies - 1 through 4 (of 4 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.