预计阅读本页时间：-
MY PERSPECTIVE—BY DR. GEORGE SHEEHAN
The undisputed philosopher king of running, Dr. George Sheehan wrote eight books and was the medical editor for Runner’s World. His most popular slogan was, “Listen to your body.” He ran track in college and later became a cardiologist living in Rumson, New Jersey, where he’d run during his lunch hour wearing white long johns. At age fifty, he ran a world-record 4:47 mile. Dr. Sheehan was diagnosed with prostate cancer in 1986 but continued running—and writing about his experiences—until shortly before his death at age seventy-four in 1993.
By teaching “Maximum Aerobic Function,” Dr. Philip Maffetone is following the philosophy that has come down to us from the ancient Greeks. Their emphasis was on the cultivation of the self. The maximum function of the body was part of their “art of existence.”
We read in Seneca that we should spend our lives learning how to live. Primary to this was the training of the body. Everything a person did was important—exercise, diet, sleep, climate. Even the architecture of the house was thought to have an influence on health.
The emphasis on the care of the body is seen again and again in the works of philosophers since the Greeks. We are called upon repeatedly to have a sound mind in a sound body. The great Herbert Spencer, in his treatise of education, writes, “If you wish to be a success in this life you must first be a good animal.” And this thought is reiterated by Emerson. “Be first a good animal,” writes the sage of Concord.
How best to do that is being constantly amended and refined. A poll of Canadians asking about the rules of health elicited these three items: a balanced diet, a good night’s sleep, and regular visits to the doctor. These are obviously not enough. A return to basic principles and personal responsibility is necessary in order to live the athletic life.
Phil not only teaches us how to be athletes but teaches us how to teach ourselves to be athletes. Ultimately, we must become our own individual coaches in this common goal. But first we must be convinced of the importance of everything we do—to or with our bodies. Our bodies are us. Our lives are our bodies in action. So we must live at the top of our powers.
There is no better time to start than now.
For example, if you are thirty years old and fit into category (b), you get the following:
180-30=150. Then 150-5=145 beats per minute (bpm).
In this example, 145 will be the highest heart rate for all training. This is highly aerobic, allowing you to most efficiently build an aerobic base. Training above this heart rate rapidly incorporates anaerobic function, exemplified by a shift to burning more sugar and less fat for fuel.
广告：个人专属 VPN，独立 IP，无限流量，多机房切换，还可以屏蔽广告和恶意软件，每月最低仅 5 美元
If it is difficult to decide which of two groups best fits you, choose the group or outcome that results in the lower heart rate. In athletes who are taking medication that
may affect their heart rate, those who wear a pacemaker, or those who have special circumstances not discussed here, further individualization with the help of a health-care practitioner or other specialist familiar with your circumstance and knowledgeable in endurance sports may be necessary.
Two situations may be exceptions to the above calculations:
- The 180 Formula may need to be further individualized for people over the age of sixty-five. For some of these athletes, up to 10 beats may have to be added for those in category (d) in the 180 Formula, and depending on individual levels of fitness and health. This does not mean 10 should automatically be added, but that an honest self-assessment is important.
- For athletes sixteen years of age and under, the formula is not applicable; rather, a heart rate of 165 may be best.
Question:I find that running (or more accurately, jogging) at my MAF (maximum aerobic function) is not fun for me. I feel under-challenged and uninspired to work out at such a low level of intensity. I miss the fun and freedom I feel running at higher heart rates and dislike hearing my heart-rate monitor alarm beep as soon as I start moving at a pace that feels good to me. But biking at my aerobic heart rate is much more fun for me since I can sustain a more stimulating level of perceived effort on the bike. Am I to understand that the aerobic benefits of my bike training will carry over to my running and allow me, eventually, to run faster aerobically?
Answer: Look at the big picture. By training “slower” you should be inspired and challenged. Inspired because you’ve found a major problem (poor aerobic function), which you now have the challenge to correct. You’re not only going to be faster (at the same heart rate), but more fit (to race better) and healthier. And yes, the aerobic benefits you build on your bike will eventually carry over to your running. It will be interesting to see how long (or short) it takes for your cycling to become relatively hard to keep at your aerobic pace as you get faster at the same heart rate—just the opposite of what you experienced on your runs. This would indicate that you can start adding some running back into your week. Cross-training is always a great routine—mentally and physically.
Once a maximum aerobic heart rate is found, a training range from this heart rate to 10 beats below could be used as a training range. For example, if an athlete’s maximum aerobic heart rate is determined to be 155, that person’s aerobic training zone would be 145 to 155 bpm. However, the more training at 155, the quicker an optimal aerobic base will be developed.
Initially, training at this relatively low rate may be stressful for many athletes. “I just can’t train that slowly!” is a common comment. But after a short time, you will feel better and your pace will quicken at that same heart rate. You will not be stuck training at that relatively slow pace for too long. Still, for many athletes it is difficult to change bad habits.
One of my patients by the name of Don was a good runner who usually placed in the top of his thirty to thirty-nine age group. When he came to my clinic with chronic injuries, fatigue, and recurrent colds, one of the first things we did was test him on the track with a heart monitor. At his maximum aerobic heart rate, Don was only able to run at an 8:40 pace—almost two minutes slower than his usual training pace! I recommended that Don train at this slower pace with a monitor for a three-month base period. But two weeks later he called me and said it was impossible to run that slow. I again explained the whole process and how he would get faster. A week later he faxed a letter saying he could not train by my recommendations. But several months later, with worsening fitness and health, and almost unable to race, Don came back to the clinic. Now he was ready to train aerobically. It took several months of dedicated base building, beginning with a slower pace, for Don to increase his aerobic pace until finally he was running his “normal” 6:45 training pace—but this time at a heart rate that was twenty-five beats lower than our previous evaluation.
The accuracy, usefulness, and importance of the formula have been time-tested throughout the years. But by the early 1990s, many of the athletes I’d worked with for a decade or more taught me another important lesson about the 180 Formula. Seeing the changes they made, including some longer than normal plateaus, helped me come to an important conclusion: Those using the 180 Formula successfully for more than five years needed to adjust their maximum aerobic heart rates down by about two to three beats. They could not keep using the same maximum aerobic heart rate they’d determined years earlier, despite healthier aging. While we age over time chronologically, building fitness and health during the same period results in a slower physiological aging. So in five years of proper (successful) training and improving health, for example, your training heart rate does not need to be lowered by five beats; instead, because you’re physiologically not as “old,” decrease only by two to three beats. When in doubt, always choose a lower maximum aerobic heart rate. This assumes the factors in the 180 Formula that pertain to medication, illness, and competitive improvements are the same. Otherwise, further reductions in the training heart rate may be necessary.
