Dr. Phil Maffetone interviewed by Nick Morgan for Runner's World Magazine –
UK. August 2008. Nick: Could you give a brief overview of your training ...
Dr.
Phil
Maffetone
interviewed
by
Nick
Morgan
for
Runner’s
World
Magazine
–
UK
August
2008
Nick:
Could
you
give
a
brief
overview
of
your
training
philosophy
focusing
particularly
on
areas
that
distinguish
your
approach
from
‘conventional
wisdom’?
Dr.
Phil:
I
emphasize
individuality
–
each
one
of
us
is
uniquely
different,
so
our
needs
will
vary.
It
is
up
to
each
of
us
to
learn
about
our
specific
requirements.
We
also
have
important
systems
in
the
body
that
help
both
our
health
(our
overall
wellness)
and
fitness
(the
ability
to
perform
well).
It
‘s
important
for
athletes
to
be
both
healthy
and
fit.
This
prevents
injury,
allows
us
to
more
easily
reach
our
potential
(and
for
more
years)
and
improves
quality
of
life.
Too
many
athletes
are
fit
but
unhealthy
(see
Athlete’s:
Fit
But
Unhealthy.
Is
death
part
of
the
game?
on
www.philmaffetone.com).
Nick:
You
advocate
the
building
of
a
substantial
aerobic
base,
which
involves
plenty
of
long,
slow
running
with
no
anaerobic
work
at
all
–
can
you
just
outline
your
reasons
for
this?
Dr.
Phil:
One
important
system
in
our
body,
key
for
both
endurance
running
(fitness)
and
health,
is
the
aerobic
system.
This
is
also
the
source
of
our
long‐term,
endurance
energy
(derived
from
fat‐burning),
and
improved
aerobic
muscle
function
(the
muscle
fibers
that
support
our
bones
and
joints).
Improved
aerobic
development
results
in
more
endurance,
and
increased
aerobic
speed
–
the
ability
to
run
faster
at
the
same
effort
(i.e.,
heart
rate).
Most
energy
used
for
most
running
events
comes
from
the
aerobic
system.
This
includes
5K
races
where
aerobic
function
contributes
95%
of
the
needed
energy,
to
a
marathon
where
over
99%
of
the
energy
needed
to
complete
the
event
comes
from
the
aerobic
system.
It
is
difficult
to
build
a
great
aerobic
base
while
also
training
the
anaerobic
system
as
this
can
significantly
impair
aerobic
development.
There
are
several
reasons
for
this,
including
the
inhibition
of
aerobic
function
by
stress
hormones
produced
during
anaerobic
training
(even
at
mild
intensities).
About
76%
of
the
runners
I
have
worked
with
perform
a
personal
best
10K
(sometimes
we
use
shorter
or
longer
races)
following
strict
aerobic
training
for
2‐5
months
(or
longer).
This
usually
surprises
them
because
they
did
no
anaerobic
training.
Once
a
good
aerobic
base
is
developed,
anaerobic
training
can
be
implemented
(see
below).
2008
Philip
Maffetone
www.philmaffetone.com
Nick:
I
find
the
quality
vs.
quantity
debate
(which
I
suppose
is
a
crude
way
to
frame
what
we're
talking
about
essentially)
very
interesting,
as
the
tide
of
scientific
knowledge
seems
to
be
tilting
more
towards
a
high‐intensity
approach,
yet
the
top
athletes
continue
to
bash
out
100
miles
per
week
and
they're
the
ones
who
continue
to
win
the
medals.
Do
you
think
the
scientists
have
it
wrong?
For
example,
more
and
more
studies
seem
to
show
that
faster
reps
bring
about
greater
improvement
than
slower
paced
running
–
one
Danish
scientist
I
spoke
to
even
said
that
faster‐paced
reps
build
the
muscle
fibres
needed
for
endurance
running
at
a
greater
rate
than
slower
running
–
therefore
the
argument
for
slower
running
is
redundant.
How
would
you
answer
that?
Dr.
Phil:
Training
athletes
involves
both
art
and
science.
I
read
the
medical
literature
almost
daily,
and
have
for
the
past
35
years.
There
is
a
lot
of
good
science
to
support
both
sides
of
this
issue.
However,
we
cannot
always
apply
studies
to
an
individual.
Also,
most
studies
don’t
consider
health.
For
example,
runners
who
overtrain
eventually
become
exhausted
and
injured;
but
before
that
happens
they
may
race
very
well.
This
is
a
common
scenario,
but
it
does
not
mean
we
should
overtrain
everyone
for
the
sake
of
a
couple
of
good
races.
Nick:
Another
criticism
leveled
at
the
high‐mileage/low
intensity
school
is
that
it
puts
the
body
under
greater
stress
‐‐
longer
runs
by
definition
last
longer
so
the
body
is
under
stress
for
longer,
which
creates
higher
levels
of
insulin/cortisol
etc.,
which
in
turn,
the
other
school
of
thought
would
claim,
leads
to
greater
numbers
of
injuries,
overtraining
and
stunted
improvement
–
presumably
you
don't
agree?
Dr.
Phil:
This
does
not
fit
with
what
we
see
clinically,
nor
does
it
make
sense
scientifically.
I
have
measured
stress
hormones,
especially
cortisol,
in
most
of
the
athletes
I
worked
with,
and
(as
the
studies
also
show)
it
is
clear
that
anaerobic
training
produces
significant
stress
and
aerobic
training
very
little
stress.
(This
is
really
basic
exercise
physiology.)
Also,
we
need
to
better
define
“aerobic”
and
“anaerobic”
training
–
many
athletes
will
say
they
are
training
“slow”
but
actually
have
higher
heart
rates,
making
them
anaerobic
(regardless
of
the
pace).
Nick:
Using
your
method,
how
should
a
runner
decide
what
pace
to
run
during
the
base
period?
Is
the
180‐Formula
the
best
way?
What
about
for
runners
who
don't
use
heart
monitors
–
can
you
go
on
perceived
effort?
Dr.
Phil:
Since
the
early
1980s,
when
I
developed
the
180‐Formula,
I
have
found
it
most
effective
in
helping
to
individualize
the
training
pace
and
be
more
objective.
This
formula
came
from
many
hours
of
studies
with
many
types
of
athletes.
I
measured
oxygen
uptake,
exhaled
carbon
dioxide,
lactate
and
other
important
physiological
measurements,
including
respiratory
quotient,
which
is
a
measure
of
how
much
fat
and
how
much
sugar
an
athlete
is
burning
at
specific
heart
rates.
These
studies
are
very
good
to
perform,
but
are
costly
and
not
always
accessible.
The
180‐Formula
provides
the
same
key
information
–
a
maximum
aerobic
heart
rate
to
guide
the
running
pace
during
training.
Perceived
effort
is
too
subjective
–
too
much
guesswork.
A
heart
monitor
and
the
biofeedback
information
we
can
obtain
from
it
is
as
important
as
good
running
shoes.
2008
Philip
Maffetone
www.philmaffetone.com
2
Nick:
What
about
the
pre‐race
period
‐‐
when
should
you
move
from
base‐work
(if
at
all)
and
what
sort
of
training
should
you
do
when
you
do
move
on?
Dr.
Phil:
This
is
even
more
of
an
individual
issue.
I
think
building
the
best
aerobic
base
possible
provides
an
optimal
balance
of
health
and
fitness,
and
produces
the
best
performances.
If
one
evaluates
their
aerobic
system,
by
measuring
the
pace
at
the
appropriate
heart
rate
(I
call
this
the
MAF
Test),
the
aerobic
system
will
continue
to
improve
for
a
2‐5
month
period
(sometimes
longer).
During
this
time,
one
gets
faster
at
the
same
heart
rate
(aerobic
speed).
For
example,
one
may
start
the
base
period
running
about
30
minutes
for
a
5K
training
course,
and
after
4
months
the
same
5K
course
at
the
same
heart
rate
may
take
24
minutes.
At
some
point
improvements
no
longer
continue,
which
is
a
good
time
to
implement
anaerobic
training.
(Improvement
will
begin
again
at
the
onset
of
the
next
base
period
following
a
racing
period.)
Only
after
a
good
aerobic
base
period
should
anaerobic
training
be
implemented.
The
best
workouts
for
this
are
very
individual,
but
I
like
short
intervals
(e.g.,
100‐200
meters)
because
they
are
less
stressful
and
result
in
the
same
or
similar
benefits
as
other
anaerobic
training.
For
many
runners,
this
period
need
not
be
very
long:
often
3‐6
weeks
provides
maximum
anaerobic
benefits.
Following
this,
rely
on
races
to
provide
further
anaerobic
benefits.
Nick:
Do
you
advocate
your
method
for
all
distance
running
from
5K
upwards?
For
example,
if
I
train
only
for
5K
distances,
would
I
still
avoid
anaerobic
work
during
base
training?
Dr.
Phil:
This
is
applicable
for
all
distances,
the
only
difference
being
total
miles
trained.
Nick:
Is
there
any
other
aspect
of
your
training
philosophy
not
covered
in
these
questions
that
you
think
it
would
be
helpful
for
our
readers
to
know?
Dr.
Phil:
There
are
many
aspects
we
can’t
cover
in
a
short
interview.
But
here
are
some
important
points:
‐ I
always
encourage
people
to
learn
as
much
as
possible
about
their
body
because
we
are
our
own
best
coach.
‐ In
the
late
1970s,
I
developed
a
training
protocol
using
a
heart
monitor,
which
is
a
biofeedback
device.
This
helps
take
the
guesswork
out
of
training
and
clearly
all
athletes
can
benefit
from
using
it.
(I
have
no
financial
or
other
relationship
with
any
heart
monitor
company.)
‐ Overtraining
is
an
epidemic,
and
something
to
be
avoided.
Most
overtraining
occurs
during
anaerobic
periods.
Using
a
heart
monitor
can
help
predict
impending
overtraining.
(See
my
Overtraining
article
on
www.philmaffetone.com)
‐ Recovery
is
another
important
issue
that
helps
prevent
overtraining
and
actually
can
promote
better
performance
(and
improve
health).
Most
important
for
recovery
is
sleep:
at
least
7‐8
hours
each
night
is
a
minimum
requirement
for
recovery
of
even
low
mileage
training.
‐ Other
factors
can
be
as
important
as
training
techniques.
These
include
the
quality
and
quantity
of
the
diet,
a
healthy
environment
and
the
levels
of
other
stress.
2008
Philip
Maffetone
www.philmaffetone.com
3
